Wadhawan Akhil, Arora Sumit, Krishna Anant, Mandal Mainak, Bhalotra Anju, Kumar Manoj
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maulana Azad Medical College, Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, Delhi 110002 India.
Department of Orthopaedics, SGT Medical College Hospital, Research Institute, Gurugram, Haryana 122505 India.
Indian J Orthop. 2023 Jun 19;57(8):1251-1266. doi: 10.1007/s43465-023-00924-4. eCollection 2023 Aug.
To minimize the side effects of the central neuraxial blockade to obtain postoperative pain relief, there has been an increasing preference for targeting the peripheral structures in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).
This prospective study was performed between September 2019 and September 2021 and involved 30 patients that were randomized to two groups. One group ( = 15) received combined nerve block (CNB) [obturator nerve, nerve to quadratus femoris, superior gluteal nerve, and femoral nerve], while another group ( = 15) received periarticular infiltrative analgesia (PIA). All the patients were given the same volume and composition of the drug cocktail (20 ml 0.5% ropivacaine, 1 ml (100 mcg) dexmedetomidine, and 29 ml normal saline).
The patients in group CNB had a significantly lower visual analog score (VAS) at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 and 48 h after surgery ( < 0.05). Patients in group CNB required fewer ( < 0.001) doses of the rescue analgesic (1.67 ± 0.90 doses) as compared to group PIA (3.53 ± 0.64 doses). Time to the first rescue analgesia was significantly longer ( = 0.01) in group CNB (6.71 ± 2.36 h) as compared to group PIA (4.80 ± 1.26 h). However, patients in group PIA had significantly faster sensory ( < 0.001) and motor recovery ( < 0.001) as compared to group CNB. It took significantly longer ( < 0.001) to administer the nerve block (16.87 ± 1.80 min) as compared to periarticular infiltration (6.53 ± 1.18 min). There were no complications in either group.
CNB registered significant superiority over PIA with respect to postoperative pain relief and time to rescue analgesia. However, the time taken to administer CNB was significantly higher and the patients in the PIA group had early recovery in sensory and motor modalities.
III (therapeutic).
为了尽量减少中枢神经轴索阻滞的副作用以实现术后疼痛缓解,在接受全髋关节置换术(THA)的患者中,越来越倾向于针对外周结构进行处理。
这项前瞻性研究于2019年9月至2021年9月进行,纳入30例患者并随机分为两组。一组(n = 15)接受联合神经阻滞(CNB)[闭孔神经、股方肌神经、臀上神经和股神经],另一组(n = 15)接受关节周围浸润镇痛(PIA)。所有患者均给予相同体积和成分的药物混合液(20 ml 0.5%罗哌卡因、1 ml(100 mcg)右美托咪定和29 ml生理盐水)。
CNB组患者在术后6、12、18、24、30、36、42和48小时的视觉模拟评分(VAS)显著更低(P < 0.05)。与PIA组(3.53 ± 0.64剂)相比,CNB组患者所需的补救镇痛药剂量更少(P < 0.001)(1.67 ± 0.90剂)。CNB组首次使用补救镇痛药的时间显著更长(P = 0.01)(6.71 ± 2.36小时),而PIA组为(4.80 ± 1.26小时)。然而,与CNB组相比,PIA组患者的感觉(P < 0.001)和运动恢复(P < 0.001)明显更快。与关节周围浸润(6.53 ± 1.18分钟)相比,实施神经阻滞的时间明显更长(P < 0.001)(16.87 ± 1.80分钟)。两组均无并发症发生。
在术后疼痛缓解和使用补救镇痛药的时间方面,CNB比PIA具有显著优势。然而,实施CNB所需的时间明显更长,且PIA组患者的感觉和运动模式恢复较早。
III(治疗性)