Suppr超能文献

翻修全髋关节置换术后持续腰丛阻滞与持续竖脊肌平面阻滞用于术后疼痛控制的比较

Continuous Lumbar Plexus Block vs Continuous Lumbar Erector Spinae Plane Block for Postoperative Pain Control After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

作者信息

Chen Amy, Kolodzie Kerstin, Schultz Alison, Hansen Erik Nathan, Braehler Matthias

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.

出版信息

Arthroplast Today. 2021 Apr 27;9:29-34. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.03.016. eCollection 2021 Jun.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Optimal pain management is key to successful recovery in revision total hip arthroplasty. Lumbar plexus blocks (LPBs) have traditionally been used for postoperative pain management. Recently, the lumbar erector spinae plane block (LESPB) has emerged as a promising regional anesthesia technique and is relatively simple to perform. Our study aimed to evaluate whether continuous LESPB provided better analgesia and clinical outcomes than continuous LPB in revision hip arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We compared 25 LPBs with 25 LESPBs performed from October 2017 to November 2018 for revision hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome of this study was difference in opioid consumption between the groups at 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include pain scores, hospital lengths of stay, pain adjunct consumption, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in average opioid consumption between the LPB and LESPB groups during the first 24 hours postoperatively (73.8 ± 68.1 mg vs 85.1 ± 69.7 mg, respectively,  = .57). Similarly, there was no significant difference in average pain scores (3.3 ± 2.1 vs 3.7 ± 1.8, respectively,  = .42).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in opioid consumption and pain scores in patients with continuous LESPB compared with those with continuous LPB. While our study did not show a difference in these outcomes, the LESPB is a straightforward regional block that avoids many of the risks of LPBs and may be as effective for pain control.

摘要

背景

在翻修全髋关节置换术中,优化疼痛管理是成功康复的关键。传统上,腰丛阻滞(LPB)一直用于术后疼痛管理。最近,腰竖脊肌平面阻滞(LESPB)已成为一种有前景的区域麻醉技术,且操作相对简单。我们的研究旨在评估在翻修髋关节置换术中,持续LESPB是否比持续LPB提供更好的镇痛效果和临床结局。

材料与方法

我们比较了2017年10月至2018年11月期间为翻修髋关节置换术实施的25例LPB和25例LESPB。本研究的主要结局是术后24小时两组之间阿片类药物消耗量的差异。次要结局包括疼痛评分、住院时间、辅助镇痛药物消耗量以及术后恶心呕吐的发生率。

结果

术后24小时内,LPB组和LESPB组的平均阿片类药物消耗量无显著差异(分别为73.8±68.1mg和85.1±69.7mg,P = 0.57)。同样,平均疼痛评分也无显著差异(分别为3.3±2.1和3.7±1.8,P = 0.42)。

结论

与持续LPB的患者相比,持续LESPB的患者在阿片类药物消耗量和疼痛评分方面无显著差异。虽然我们的研究未显示这些结局存在差异,但LESPB是一种简单的区域阻滞,可避免LPB的许多风险,并且在疼痛控制方面可能同样有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3e8c/8099915/dcb8dcf03875/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验