Suppr超能文献

后路腰椎椎间融合术中患者的手术出血:两种机械通气模式类型效果的随机临床试验评估。

Surgical bleeding in patients undergoing posterior lumbar inter-body fusion surgery: a randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of two mechanical ventilation mode types.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Kashan University of Medical Sciences (KAUMS), Kashan, IR, Iran.

Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Kashan University of Medical Sciences (KAUMS), Kashan, IR, Iran.

出版信息

Eur J Med Res. 2023 Mar 12;28(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01080-z.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to compare the effect of using volume-controlled ventilation (VCV) versus pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) on blood loss in patients undergoing posterior lumbar inter-body fusion (PLIF) surgery.

METHODS

In a randomized, single-blinded, parallel design, 78 patients, candidates for PLIF surgery, were randomly allocated into two groups of 39 to be mechanically ventilated using VCV or PCV mode. All the patients were operated in prone position by one surgeon. Amount of intraoperative surgical bleeding, transfusion requirement, surgeon satisfaction, hemodynamic parameters, heart rate, and blood pressure were measured as outcomes.

RESULTS

PCV group showed slightly better outcomes than VCV group in terms of mean blood loss (431 cc vs. 465 cc), transfusion requirement (0.40 vs. 0.43 unit), and surgeon satisfaction (82.1% vs. 74.4%); however, the differences were not statistically significant. Diastolic blood pressure 90 and 105 min after induction were significantly lower in PCV group (P = 0.043-0.019, respectively); however, blood pressure at other times, hemoglobin levels, and mean heart rate were similar in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing posterior lumbar inter-body fusion surgery, mode of ventilation cannot make significant difference in terms of blood loss; however, some minor benefits in outcomes may lead to the selection of PCV rather than VCV. More studies with larger sample size, and investigating more factors may be needed.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较容量控制通气(VCV)与压力控制通气(PCV)对接受后路腰椎体间融合术(PLIF)的患者失血量的影响。

方法

采用随机、单盲、平行设计,将 78 例接受 PLIF 手术的患者随机分为两组,每组 39 例,分别采用 VCV 或 PCV 模式进行机械通气。所有患者均由同一位外科医生采用俯卧位手术。测量术中手术出血量、输血需求、外科医生满意度、血流动力学参数、心率和血压作为结局。

结果

PCV 组在平均失血量(431cc 比 465cc)、输血需求(0.40 单位比 0.43 单位)和外科医生满意度(82.1%比 74.4%)方面略优于 VCV 组,但差异无统计学意义。诱导后 90 分钟和 105 分钟时,PCV 组舒张压明显降低(P 值分别为 0.043-0.019);然而,两组在其他时间点的血压、血红蛋白水平和平均心率相似。

结论

在接受后路腰椎体间融合术的患者中,通气模式在失血量方面没有显著差异;然而,在某些结局方面可能存在一些微小的优势,这可能导致选择 PCV 而不是 VCV。需要进行更多具有更大样本量和研究更多因素的研究。

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