Suppr超能文献

超声、神经刺激及其联合用于外周神经阻滞引导的风险和获益:回顾性登记分析。

Risks and Benefits of Ultrasound, Nerve Stimulation, and Their Combination for Guiding Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Retrospective Registry Analysis.

机构信息

From the Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine and Pain Medicine.

Institute for Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Medical Informatics, Saarland University, University Medical Center, Homburg/Saar, Germany.

出版信息

Anesth Analg. 2018 Oct;127(4):1035-1043. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003480.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound, nerve stimulation, and their combination are all considered acceptable ways to guide peripheral nerve blocks. Which approach is most effective and associated with the fewest complications is unknown. We therefore used a large registry to analyze whether there are differences in vascular punctures, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia.

METHODS

Twenty-six thousand seven hundred and thirty-three cases were extracted from the 25-center German Network for Regional Anesthesia registry between 2007 and 2016 and grouped into ultrasound-guided puncture (n = 10,380), ultrasound combined with nerve stimulation (n=8173), and nerve stimulation alone (n = 8180). The primary outcomes of vascular puncture, multiple skin punctures, and unintended paresthesia during insertion were compared with conditional logistic regression after 1:1:1 propensity score matching. Results are presented as odds ratios and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Propensity matching successfully paired 2508 patients with ultrasound alone (24% of 10,380 patients), 2508 patients with a combination of ultrasound/nerve stimulation (31% of 8173 patients), and 2508 patients with nerve stimulation alone (31% of 8180 patients). After matching, no variable was imbalanced (standardized differences <0.1). Compared with ultrasound guidance alone, the odds of multiple skin punctures (2.2 [1.7-2.8]; P < .001) and vascular puncture (2.7 [1.6-4.5]; P < .001) were higher with nerve stimulation alone, and the odds for unintended paresthesia were lower with nerve stimulation alone (0.3 [0.1-0.7]; P = .03). The combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation showed higher odds of multiple skin punctures (1.5 [1.2-1.9]; P = .001) and lower odds of unintended paresthesia (0.4 [0.2-0.8]; P = .007) compared with ultrasound alone. Comparing the combined use of ultrasound/nerve stimulation with ultrasound alone, the odds for vascular puncture (1.3 [0.7-2.2]; P = .4) did not differ significantly. Systemic toxicity of local anesthetics was not observed in any patient with ultrasound guidance alone, in 1 patient with the combined use of ultrasound and nerve stimulation, and in 1 patient with nerve stimulation alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ultrasound alone reduced the odds of vascular and multiple skin punctures. However, the sole use of ultrasound increases the odds of paresthesia.

摘要

背景

超声、神经刺激及其联合应用均被认为是引导外周神经阻滞的可行方法。但目前尚不清楚哪种方法最有效,且并发症最少。因此,我们使用大型注册研究来分析血管穿刺、多次皮肤穿刺和非预期感觉异常的差异。

方法

2007 年至 2016 年,从德国区域麻醉网络的 25 个中心的注册系统中提取了 26733 例病例,并分为超声引导下穿刺(n=10380)、超声联合神经刺激(n=8173)和单纯神经刺激(n=8180)。在进行 1:1:1 倾向评分匹配后,采用条件逻辑回归比较三种方法在置入时发生血管穿刺、多次皮肤穿刺和非预期感觉异常的主要结局。结果以比值比(OR)和 95%置信区间(CI)表示。

结果

成功对 2508 例单独使用超声(10380 例中的 24%)、2508 例联合使用超声/神经刺激(8173 例中的 31%)和 2508 例单独使用神经刺激(8180 例中的 31%)的患者进行了匹配。匹配后,各变量均衡性良好(标准化差异<0.1)。与单独使用超声相比,单独使用神经刺激时多次皮肤穿刺(OR 2.2 [1.7-2.8];P<0.001)和血管穿刺(OR 2.7 [1.6-4.5];P<0.001)的可能性更高,而非预期感觉异常的可能性更低(OR 0.3 [0.1-0.7];P=0.03)。与单独使用超声相比,联合使用超声/神经刺激时多次皮肤穿刺(OR 1.5 [1.2-1.9];P=0.001)的可能性更高,而非预期感觉异常(OR 0.4 [0.2-0.8];P=0.007)的可能性更低。与单独使用超声相比,联合使用超声/神经刺激时血管穿刺(OR 1.3 [0.7-2.2];P=0.4)的可能性无显著差异。单独使用超声时,未观察到任何患者出现局部麻醉药全身毒性,联合使用超声和神经刺激时有 1 例,单独使用神经刺激时有 1 例。

结论

单独使用超声可降低血管穿刺和多次皮肤穿刺的可能性。然而,单独使用超声会增加感觉异常的可能性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验