Gadekar Ishan R, Rawat Hukam S, Paul Amreesh
Anaesthesiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Anaesthesiology, Dr. Vithalrao Vikhe Patil Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Ahmednagar, IND.
Cureus. 2024 Aug 20;16(8):e67354. doi: 10.7759/cureus.67354. eCollection 2024 Aug.
Background Neuraxial blockade includes epidural and spinal anesthesia (SA) that have gained wide acceptance for major lower limb orthopedic surgery. Both techniques are competent in rendering surgical anesthesia and pain relief, with specific advantages and disadvantages. SA has the merits of rapid onset and adequate anesthesia with a small volume of the drug but has significant hypotension and unpredictable duration. Epidural anesthesia allows for finer control over analgesia and the duration of anesthesia but requires more substantial volumes of drugs and is slower in onset. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) combines the rapid commencement of action of SA with flexibility in epidural anesthesia, thus optimizing the management of the intraoperative and postoperative phases. This study aims to evaluate hemodynamic changes, compare the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, and track any problems related to CSEA and SA in major lower limb orthopedic procedures. Additionally, this study contrasts the hemodynamic, motor, and sensory changes in the two groups. Methodology A total of 30 individuals were randomized to one of two groups in this prospective comparative trial, which included 60 patients receiving major lower limb orthopedic surgery and meeting the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II criteria. Group A received CSEA, and Group B received SA. The degree and duration of sensory and motor blockade, hemodynamic changes, and complications were all recorded. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to evaluate statistical significance using Student's t-test and chi-square test. Results The onset of sensory block in our study was earlier in Group B compared to Group A. In both groups, hemodynamic stability was maintained throughout the study. We recorded the onset/duration of sensory and motor block and hemodynamic changes and took mean values to find any significant difference. Postoperative complications and rescue analgesic requirements were monitored and managed and were a part of our study. Conclusions This study compared CSEA and SA regarding the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, and associated complications in major lower limb orthopedic surgeries. The results shed light on the advantages and shortcomings of each anesthesia technique and, therefore, will help choose the correct method of anesthesia in a given surgery.
背景 神经轴索阻滞包括硬膜外麻醉和脊髓麻醉(SA),这两种麻醉方法在下肢主要骨科手术中已被广泛接受。这两种技术在提供手术麻醉和疼痛缓解方面都很有效,各有其特定的优缺点。脊髓麻醉具有起效迅速、使用少量药物即可获得充分麻醉效果的优点,但会导致显著的低血压且麻醉持续时间不可预测。硬膜外麻醉能更精细地控制镇痛效果和麻醉持续时间,但需要使用更多的药物,且起效较慢。腰麻 - 硬膜外联合麻醉(CSEA)结合了脊髓麻醉起效迅速的特点和硬膜外麻醉的灵活性,从而优化了术中和术后阶段的管理。本研究旨在评估血流动力学变化,比较感觉和运动阻滞的严重程度及持续时间,并追踪下肢主要骨科手术中与腰麻 - 硬膜外联合麻醉和脊髓麻醉相关的任何问题。此外,本研究还对比了两组患者的血流动力学、运动和感觉变化。
方法 在这项前瞻性比较试验中,共有30名个体被随机分为两组,该试验纳入了60例接受下肢主要骨科手术且符合美国麻醉医师协会身体状况I - II级标准的患者。A组接受腰麻 - 硬膜外联合麻醉,B组接受脊髓麻醉。记录感觉和运动阻滞的程度及持续时间、血流动力学变化和并发症。使用学生t检验和卡方检验,以p值小于0.05评估统计学意义。
结果 在我们的研究中,B组感觉阻滞的起效时间比A组更早。在整个研究过程中,两组患者的血流动力学均保持稳定。我们记录了感觉和运动阻滞的起效/持续时间以及血流动力学变化,并取平均值以发现任何显著差异。对术后并发症和补救性镇痛需求进行了监测和管理,这些都是我们研究的一部分。
结论 本研究比较了腰麻 - 硬膜外联合麻醉和脊髓麻醉在下肢主要骨科手术中感觉和运动阻滞的严重程度及持续时间、血流动力学稳定性和相关并发症。研究结果揭示了每种麻醉技术的优缺点,因此将有助于在特定手术中选择正确的麻醉方法。