Suppr超能文献

一项针对择期膝下手术患者的超声引导下坐骨神经-股神经联合阻滞与脊髓麻醉的前瞻性对比研究。

A Prospective Comparative Study Between Ultrasound-Guided Combined Sciatic-Femoral Nerve Block Versus Spinal Anesthesia for the Patients Undergoing Elective Below-Knee Surgeries.

作者信息

Pattajoshi Bibhuti, Panigrahi Sanjukta, Mohanty Premakanta, Mohanty Ranjeet K, Panigrahi Sandeep K

机构信息

Anesthesia and Critical Care, Ispat Post-graduate Institute and Superspeciality Hospital, Rourkela, IND.

Anesthesia and Critical Care, Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, IND.

出版信息

Cureus. 2022 Jun 20;14(6):e26137. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26137. eCollection 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Introduction The scope of anesthesia has shifted from general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) for below-knee surgery to peripheral nerve blocks (PNB). Combined sciatic-femoral nerve block (SFNB) with ultrasound (USG) guidance can be a better format for use.  Objectives The primary objectives were to compare the duration of onset of sensory and motor blockade, total duration of sensory and motor blockade, and time of first analgesic requirement between both groups. Methods A prospective, randomized comparative study was carried out at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Odisha, India, from April 2019 to April 2021 in the Department of Anaesthesiology. Patients admitted for elective below-knee surgeries with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) grade II or less were divided into two groups (Group A receiving USG-guided SFNB and group B receiving SA) by computer-generated sampling. The block randomization method was used to ensure equal samples in both groups. Data collection was done using the Magpi software (Magpi, Inc., Washington, D.C., United States) on android-based mobile phones. Data were analyzed using Stata Statistical Software: Release 12 (2011; StrataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, United States) for analysis. Relevant statistical tests were used to compare the results between the groups (independent sample t-test or Wilcoxson signed-rank test). Repeated measures ANOVA (RM-ANOVA) was used to check the hemodynamic stability within the groups. Results Thirty-seven subjects were enrolled in each arm (Group A and Group B). Baseline parameters in both groups were comparable. The most common indication among the study subjects was single or multiple meta-tarsal fractures (20, 27.0%) followed by malleolus (15, 20.3%) and calcaneum fractures (13, 17.6%). Most of the study subjects were from ASA grade I (around 80%). The time of onset of sensory and motor block was found to be more for USG-guided SFNB (8.08±2.11 minutes and 11.35±1.84 minutes, respectively) as compared to the SA group (3.03±0.50 minutes and 4.89±0.52 minutes, respectively) (p<0.001). Total anesthesia and time to first analgesic requirement were, however, more in USG-guided SFNB (349.43±53.49 minutes and 339.73±54.24 minutes, respectively) as compared to the SA group (137.30±34.21 minutes and 137.30±34.21 minutes, respectively) (p<0.001). The mean time to first urination in USG-guided SFNB (178.92±20.92) was significantly less (p<0.001) compared to the SA group (419.19±40.30). There were no adverse events (0%) in USG-guided SFNB while 64.9% of the subjects in the SA group experienced adverse events (p<0.001). The most common adverse events were nausea/vomiting and hypotension (around 50% for both). Hemodynamic stability was present in both the groups of anesthesia subjects, though fluctuations in blood pressure may be seen more frequently in cases of SA. All the subjects in both the groups had achieved a Bromage score of 3 universally. The grand mean score of pain by SA (2.347±0.044) was more (p<0.001) in comparison to that in subjects with USG-guided SFNB (1.961±0.073) and this was significant in both the groups. The mean increase in pain score at 24 hours in comparison to baseline was, however, significantly more (p<0.05) in the SA group (1.784±0.111) in comparison to those receiving USG-guided SFNB (1.324±0.190). Conclusion USG-guided SFNB is a better option for below-knee surgeries as compared to SA.

摘要

引言 麻醉范围已从用于膝下手术的全身麻醉(GA)和脊髓麻醉(SA)转变为周围神经阻滞(PNB)。超声(USG)引导下的坐骨 - 股神经联合阻滞(SFNB)可能是一种更好的应用方式。

目的 主要目的是比较两组之间感觉和运动阻滞的起效时间、感觉和运动阻滞的总时长以及首次需要镇痛的时间。

方法 2019年4月至2021年4月在印度奥里萨邦一家三级护理教学医院的麻醉科进行了一项前瞻性、随机对照研究。将美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级为II级或更低的择期膝下手术患者通过计算机生成抽样分为两组(A组接受USG引导的SFNB,B组接受SA)。采用区组随机化方法确保两组样本数量相等。使用基于安卓手机的Magpi软件(Magpi公司,华盛顿特区,美国)进行数据收集。使用Stata统计软件:版本12(2011;StataCorp LP,美国德克萨斯州大学城)进行数据分析。使用相关统计检验比较两组结果(独立样本t检验或Wilcoxon符号秩检验)。采用重复测量方差分析(RM - ANOVA)检查组内血流动力学稳定性。

结果 每组纳入37名受试者(A组和B组)。两组的基线参数具有可比性。研究对象中最常见的适应症是单处或多处跖骨骨折(20例,27.0%),其次是踝关节骨折(15例,20.3%)和跟骨骨折(13例,17.6%)。大多数研究对象来自ASA I级(约80%)。与SA组相比,USG引导的SFNB感觉和运动阻滞的起效时间更长(分别为8.08±2.11分钟和11.35±1.84分钟),而SA组分别为3.03±0.50分钟和4.89±0.52分钟(p<0.001)。然而,与SA组相比,USG引导的SFNB的总麻醉时间和首次需要镇痛的时间更长(分别为349.43±53.49分钟和339.73±54.24分钟),而SA组分别为137.30±34.21分钟和137.30±34.21分钟(p<0.001)。USG引导的SFNB首次排尿的平均时间(178.92±20.92)明显短于SA组(419.19±40.30)(p<0.001)。USG引导的SFNB无不良事件发生(0%),而SA组64.9%的受试者出现不良事件(p<0.001)。最常见的不良事件是恶心/呕吐和低血压(两者均约为50%)。两组麻醉受试者均保持血流动力学稳定,不过SA组血压波动可能更频繁。两组所有受试者的布罗麻醉评分均普遍达到3分。SA组的疼痛总体平均评分(2.347±0.044)高于USG引导的SFNB组(1.961±0.073)(p<0.001),且在两组中均具有显著性差异。然而,与接受USG引导的SFNB组相比,SA组术后24小时疼痛评分相对于基线的平均增加幅度明显更大(p<0.05)(1.784±0.111),而接受USG引导的SFNB组为(1.324±0.190)。

结论 与SA相比,USG引导的SFNB是膝下手术的更好选择。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/fb0f/9303828/4ddff1c3ddb2/cureus-0014-00000026137-i01.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