Bueno-Serrano Gonzalo, Alcoba-García María Pilar, Tabares-Jiménez Juan, González-López Raquel, Llanos-Jiménez Lucía, Mahillo-Fernández Ignacio, González-Enguita Carmen
Department of Urology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain.
Arch Esp Urol. 2022 Sep;75(7):624-629. doi: 10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20227507.90.
To compare the efficacy of 4 different analgesic regimens that include music and nitrous oxide during the treatment of renal lithiasis with ambulatory extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
A single-centre, longitudinal, prospective, randomized, open and parallel group study was conducted. Patients with renal lithiasis were included and were randomized to Group A (basal analgesia: midazolam (1 mg), fentanyl (0.05 mg) and dexketoprofen (50 mg)), Group B (basal analgesia and nitrous oxide), Group C (basal analgesia and music) and Group D (basal analgesia, nitrous oxide and music). For the measurement of pain, a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 100 (maximum pain imaginable) was used. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a Likert questionnaire. The epidemiological data of the patients in terms of lithiasis, previous clinical and ESWL sessions, and pain measured with the VAS before, during (maximum) at the end of the session and at discharge were recorded. Data on complications were also collected, as was the patients' subjective evaluation of the treatment and their satisfaction. The ESWL procedure was performed with a Storz Modulith SLX-F2® lithotripter. A maximum of 4000 waves were applied at a frequency of 1.5 Hz.
Eighty patients were included (20 per group). None of the analgesia guidelines proved to be superior to the others for pain control during the ESWL session. Patients younger than 50 years had significantly higher values for the maximum VAS. Only 13.75% of patients required rescue analgesia. A total of 77.5% described their experience as good, very good or excellent, regardless of the assigned group.
The addition of nitrous oxide and/or music did not result in a statistically significant improvement over the basal analgesia regimen of midazolam, fentanyl and dexketoprofen; however, the degree of patient satisfaction was very high.
比较4种不同镇痛方案(包括音乐和氧化亚氮)在门诊体外冲击波碎石术(ESWL)治疗肾结石过程中的疗效。
开展了一项单中心、纵向、前瞻性、随机、开放和平行组研究。纳入肾结石患者并随机分为A组(基础镇痛:咪达唑仑(1毫克)、芬太尼(0.05毫克)和右酮洛芬(50毫克))、B组(基础镇痛和氧化亚氮)、C组(基础镇痛和音乐)和D组(基础镇痛、氧化亚氮和音乐)。采用视觉模拟量表测量疼痛,范围从0(无疼痛)至100(可想象的最大疼痛)。使用李克特问卷评估患者满意度。记录患者关于结石、既往临床及ESWL治疗情况的流行病学数据,以及治疗前、治疗期间(最大疼痛时)、治疗结束时和出院时用视觉模拟量表测量的疼痛情况。收集并发症数据以及患者对治疗的主观评价和满意度。使用Storz Modulith SLX-F2®碎石机进行ESWL治疗。以1.5赫兹的频率最多施加4000次冲击波。
纳入80例患者(每组20例)。在ESWL治疗期间,没有一种镇痛方案在疼痛控制方面被证明优于其他方案。年龄小于50岁的患者最大视觉模拟量表评分显著更高。仅13.75%的患者需要急救镇痛。无论分配到哪一组,共有77.5%的患者将其体验描述为良好、非常好或极好。
添加氧化亚氮和/或音乐与咪达唑仑、芬太尼和右酮洛芬的基础镇痛方案相比,在统计学上没有显著改善;然而,患者满意度非常高。