Mowar Ashita, Singh Vishwadeep, Pahade Akhilesh, Karki Geeta
Department of Anesthesiology, Shri Ram Murti Smarak Institute of Medical Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Anesth Essays Res. 2021 Apr-Jun;15(2):220-226. doi: 10.4103/aer.aer_107_21. Epub 2021 Dec 16.
Open inguinal hernia repair is one of the routine day-care procedures performed across the world. A multitude of anesthetic techniques have been outlined for painless inguinal hernia repair, comprising general anesthesia and regional anesthesia such as spinal, epidural, and nerve blocks; with regional anesthetic techniques often favored for uncomplicated open inguinal hernia repair. Ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks have made rapid strides and are gaining popularity because of the reduced incidence of adverse events.
We aim to compare the efficacy of two regional anesthesia techniques to compare the adequacy of surgical anesthesia and their efficacy to ease postoperative pain with least potential side effects.
This prospective, interventional, single-centric, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, Helsinki protocol-compliant clinical study was registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2021/04/033109). It was conducted after obtaining written informed consent from all patients and approval from the institutional review board.
Sixty patients of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classes I/II, in the age group of 18-60 years of either sex, scheduled for elective open inguinal hernia repair, were enrolled into two groups of 30 patients each according to the anesthetic technique used. Group T comprised patients receiving ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block (TAP block), whereas the Group S comprised patients administered spinal anesthesia for elective open inguinal hernia repair. The primary end points of this study were to assess the adequacy of surgical anesthesia and duration of postoperative analgesia, whereas the secondary end points included assessment of patients' hemodynamic profile post institution of the block and comparing the incidence of adverse events associated with the two techniques.
SPSS version 20.0 was used for analysis. Frequency, mean distribution, standard deviation, Chi Square test and student t Test were calculated to value. < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Continuous variables were expressed as mean + SD, whereas categorical variables were expressed as absolute numbers and percentages. Intergroup nominal categorical data were compared by Chi-square test.
The visual analog scale score was found significantly lower in Group T at all time points except immediate postsurgery (3, 6, 12, 24, and 48 h) as compared to Group S (0.357 ± 0.4880 vs. 1.393 ± 1.8527; = 0.006, 1.393 ± 0.4973 vs. 2.893 ± 2.3148; = 0.001, 2.429 ± 0.9201 vs. 3.321 ± 2.0377; = 0.039, 1.214 ± 0.4179 vs. 2.286 ± 1.9217; = 0.006, and 1.143 ± 0.3563 vs. 1.643 ± 1.5685; = 0.106, respectively), and the duration of postoperative analgesia was highly significant ( < 0.001) in Group T (724.00 ± 103.2914 min) as compared to Group S (256.643 ± 73.4218 min). Difference in the number of rescue analgesics administered over the first 24 and 24-48 h was significantly higher in the spinal group which comprised patients administered with the TAP block.
Ultrasound-guided TAP block provides better intra-operative and postoperative analgesia as compared to subarachnoid block especially in respiratory and cardiovascular cripples without any significant adverse events and hemodynamic changes.
开放式腹股沟疝修补术是全球范围内常规开展的日间手术之一。为实现无痛腹股沟疝修补,已概述了多种麻醉技术,包括全身麻醉和区域麻醉,如脊髓麻醉、硬膜外麻醉和神经阻滞;区域麻醉技术通常更适用于单纯性开放式腹股沟疝修补术。超声引导下的外周神经阻滞取得了快速进展,因其不良事件发生率降低而越来越受欢迎。
我们旨在比较两种区域麻醉技术的疗效,以比较手术麻醉的充分性及其缓解术后疼痛且副作用最小的效果。
这项前瞻性、干预性、单中心、双盲、随机、平行组、活性对照、符合赫尔辛基协议的临床研究已在印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2021/04/033109)注册。在获得所有患者的书面知情同意和机构审查委员会的批准后进行。
将60例年龄在18 - 60岁、美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级为I/II级、计划进行择期开放式腹股沟疝修补术的患者,根据所采用的麻醉技术分为两组,每组30例。T组患者接受超声引导下的腹横肌平面阻滞(TAP阻滞),而S组患者接受脊髓麻醉用于择期开放式腹股沟疝修补术。本研究的主要终点是评估手术麻醉的充分性和术后镇痛的持续时间,而次要终点包括评估阻滞实施后患者的血流动力学特征以及比较两种技术相关不良事件的发生率。
采用SPSS 20.0版进行分析。计算频率、均值分布、标准差、卡方检验和学生t检验以得出p值。p < 0.05被认为具有统计学意义。连续变量以均值 + 标准差表示,分类变量以绝对数和百分比表示。组间名义分类数据采用卡方检验进行比较。
除术后即刻外,T组在所有时间点(3、6、12、24和48小时)的视觉模拟量表评分均显著低于S组(0.357 ± 0.4880对1.393 ± 1.8527;p = 0.006,1.393 ± 0.4973对2.893 ± 2.3148;p = 0.001,2.429 ± 0.9201对3.321 ± 2.0377;p = 0.039,1.214 ± 0.4179对2.286 ± 1.9217;p = 0.006,以及1.143 ± 0.3563对1.643 ± 1.5685;p = 0.106)及术后镇痛持续时间在T组显著长于S组(p < 0.001)(724.00 ± 103.2914分钟对256.64 ± 73.4218分钟)。在接受TAP阻滞的脊髓组患者中,前24小时和24 - 48小时使用的补救镇痛药数量差异显著更高。
与蛛网膜下腔阻滞相比,超声引导下的TAP阻滞提供了更好的术中及术后镇痛效果,尤其是对于呼吸和心血管功能不全的患者,且无任何显著不良事件和血流动力学变化。