Ramachandran Srinivasan, Velayudhan Savitri, Ramaraj Krishna Prabu, Desingh Dilip Chandar, Kuppusamy Sureshkumar, Shanmugam Balasubramanian
Department of Anaesthesiology, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry, India.
Department of Anaesthesiology, Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute, Puducherry, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2023 Mar;67(3):256-261. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_704_22. Epub 2023 Mar 16.
Ultrasound-guided central venous (CV) cannulation is the standard of care for inserting CV catheter in the right internal jugular vein (RIJV). However, mechanical complications can still occur. The primary objective of this study was to compare the incidence of posterior vessel wall puncture (PVWP) using conventional needle holding technique with pen holding method of needle holding technique for IJV cannulation. Secondary objectives were comparison of other mechanical complications, access time and ease of the procedure.
This prospective, randomised parallel-group study included 90 patients. Patients requiring ultrasound-guided RIJV cannulation under general anaesthesia were randomised into two groups P (n = 45) and C (n = 45). In group C, the RIJV was cannulated using the conventional needle holding technique. In group P, the pen holding method of needle holding technique was used. Incidence of PVWP, complications (arterial puncture, haematoma) number of attempts for successful cannulation, time to insertion of guidewire and performer's ease were compared. The data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 24.0). A value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
In our study, there was no significant difference in incidence of PVWP and complications between the two groups. Number of attempts and time for successful guidewire insertion were comparable. Ease of the procedure was scored a median of 10 in both the groups.
There was no significant difference in the incidence of PVWP between the two techniques in this study, necessitating further evaluation of this novel technique.
超声引导下中心静脉置管是在右颈内静脉插入中心静脉导管的标准治疗方法。然而,机械性并发症仍可能发生。本研究的主要目的是比较在颈内静脉置管时,使用传统持针法与笔式持针法导致后血管壁穿刺(PVWP)的发生率。次要目的是比较其他机械性并发症、穿刺时间及操作的难易程度。
这项前瞻性、随机平行组研究纳入了90例患者。需要在全身麻醉下进行超声引导下右颈内静脉置管的患者被随机分为两组,P组(n = 45)和C组(n = 45)。C组采用传统持针法进行右颈内静脉置管。P组采用笔式持针法。比较两组PVWP的发生率、并发症(动脉穿刺、血肿)、成功置管的尝试次数、导丝插入时间及操作者的操作难易程度。使用社会科学统计软件包(SPSS 24.0版)对数据进行分析。P值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
在我们的研究中,两组PVWP的发生率和并发症无显著差异。成功插入导丝的尝试次数和时间相当。两组操作难易程度的中位数均为10分。
本研究中两种技术在PVWP发生率上无显著差异,需要对这种新技术进行进一步评估。