Suppr超能文献

全髋关节置换术中联合神经阻滞与关节周围浸润对术后疼痛缓解效果的比较评估

A Comparative Evaluation of Combined Nerve Block Versus Periarticular Infiltration on Postoperative Pain Relief in Total Hip Arthroplasty.

作者信息

Wadhawan Akhil, Arora Sumit, Krishna Anant, Mandal Mainak, Bhalotra Anju, Kumar Manoj

机构信息

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.

出版信息

Indian J Orthop. 2023 Jun 19;57(8):1251-1266. doi: 10.1007/s43465-023-00924-4. eCollection 2023 Aug.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

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).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III (therapeutic).

摘要

引言

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。

患者与方法

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)。

结果

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。

结论

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。

证据水平

III(治疗性)

相似文献

本文引用的文献

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验