Radder Kiran, Shah Ashwin, Kothari Chaitanya, Giraddi Girish, Sharma Dinesh, Nayak Ranganath
Department of OMFS, SDM College of Dental Sciences, Sattur Dharwad, Karnataka India.
Department of OMFS, Al-Badar Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka India.
J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018 Sep;17(3):301-307. doi: 10.1007/s12663-017-1045-4. Epub 2017 Sep 27.
With definitive indications, extraoral techniques of achieving regional nerve blocks are a boon to oral and maxillofacial surgical practice. Though less commonly practiced, since general anesthesia is more favored, certain medical conditions favor the use of regional nerve blocks over general anesthesia. To block the maxillary nerve extraorally, sigmoid notch approach and frontozygomatic approach have been previously described in the literature, but a clinical trial comparing these techniques is sparse. This study attempts to compare both the approaches for their efficacies while paying an equal attention to the associated complications.
Two hundred patients aged between 40-90 years of ASA 1 and 2 category were equally divided into two groups and underwent extraction of maxillary teeth under local anesthesia using 2% lignocaine with 1:80,000 adrenaline. Frontozygomatic approach to reach the foramen rotundum was employed in group A ( = 100) and sigmoid notch approach in group B ( = 100). Pain during injection, time required for onset of subjective and objective symptoms of anesthesia and duration of anesthesia were the study parameters. Associated complications were documented and discussed. Student's unpaired test was used for statistical evaluation.
Although both the techniques were found to be feasible, statistical evaluations favored the frontozygomatic approach with respect to faster onset and a longer duration of the anesthetic effect. The anatomical considerations in either techniques suggested that the incidence of potential complications of accidental entry of the needle into the orbit, skull and vessel injuries was higher when using sigmoid notch approach as against the frontozygomatic approach.
Though sigmoid notch approach, described widely in the literature, can be employed successfully, certain anatomical considerations and technical modifications in the frontozygomatic approach have made the latter a more practical and feasible approach. When both the maxillary and the mandibular nerves need to be blocked simultaneously, sigmoid notch may be employed, but isolated maxillary nerve block is better achieved using frontozygomatic approach.
在有明确指征的情况下,口外区域神经阻滞技术对口颌面外科手术实践来说是一大福音。虽然由于更倾向于全身麻醉,这种技术不太常用,但某些医疗状况使得区域神经阻滞比全身麻醉更受青睐。以往文献中曾描述过口外阻滞上颌神经的乙状切迹入路和额颧入路,但比较这些技术的临床试验却很少。本研究试图比较这两种入路的疗效,同时同等关注相关并发症。
将200例年龄在40 - 90岁、ASA 1和2级的患者平均分为两组,在局部麻醉下使用含1:80,000肾上腺素的2%利多卡因拔除上颌牙。A组(n = 100)采用额颧入路到达圆孔,B组(n = 100)采用乙状切迹入路。注射时的疼痛、麻醉主观和客观症状出现所需时间以及麻醉持续时间为研究参数。记录并讨论相关并发症。采用学生非配对t检验进行统计学评估。
虽然发现两种技术均可行,但统计学评估表明,额颧入路在麻醉起效更快和麻醉效果持续时间更长方面更具优势。两种技术的解剖学考量表明,与额颧入路相比,使用乙状切迹入路时,针意外进入眼眶、颅骨和血管损伤等潜在并发症的发生率更高。
虽然文献中广泛描述的乙状切迹入路可以成功应用,但额颧入路中的某些解剖学考量和技术改进使其成为一种更实用、可行的方法。当需要同时阻滞上颌神经和下颌神经时,可以采用乙状切迹入路,但单独阻滞上颌神经时,采用额颧入路效果更佳。