Suppr超能文献

32G导管连续蛛网膜下腔麻醉与单剂量24G无创伤穿刺针麻醉用于年轻患者的比较。

Comparison of continuous spinal anaesthesia using a 32-gauge catheter with anaesthesia using a single-dose 24-gauge atraumatic needle in young patients.

作者信息

de Andrés J, Bellver J, Bolinches R

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology, Valencia University General Hospital, Tres Cruces, Spain.

出版信息

Br J Anaesth. 1994 Dec;73(6):747-50. doi: 10.1093/bja/73.6.747.

Abstract

One hundred and twenty-eight ASA I-III patients less than 40 yr of age, undergoing orthopaedic or trauma lower limb surgery, were allocated randomly to receive either continuous spinal anaesthesia (CSA) using a 32-gauge polyimide microcatheter with a permanent stylet (Rusch/TFX Medical, Duluth, GA, USA) or single-dose spinal anaesthesia (SDSA) with a 24-gauge x 103-mm Sprotte spinal needle (Pajunk, Germany). Plain bupivacaine (0.5%) was used as the local anaesthetic. The initial doses were 1 ml (5 mg) of CSA and 3 ml (15 mg) of SDSA, while the re-injection doses were 1 ml (5 mg) in the CSA group. SDSA was quicker to perform: mean 4.4 (SD 1.6) min compared with 6.2 (2.6) min for CSA (P < 0.01). Times to onset and surgical anaesthesia were also significantly greater in the CSA group (P < 0.01). The quality of the block was better in the SDSA group (P < 0.05), but was associated with greater haemodynamic instability (P < 0.05). The segmental level of analgesia was significantly lower in the CSA group (median T10 (range T12-T8)) than in the SDSA group (T9 (T11-T5)) (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications, with two mild spinal headaches in both groups. We conclude that CSA using a microcatheter in young patients is difficult to perform and affords no advantages over SDSA with a small gauge atraumatic needle.

摘要

128例年龄小于40岁、拟行骨科或创伤性下肢手术的ASA I-III级患者,被随机分配接受使用带有永久性芯针的32G聚酰亚胺微导管(美国佐治亚州德卢斯市Rusch/TFX Medical公司)进行的连续脊麻(CSA),或使用24G×103mm Sprotte脊麻针(德国Pajunk公司)进行的单次脊麻(SDSA)。使用普通布比卡因(0.5%)作为局部麻醉药。初始剂量为CSA组1ml(5mg)、SDSA组3ml(15mg),CSA组的再次注射剂量为1ml(5mg)。SDSA操作更快:平均用时4.4(标准差1.6)分钟,而CSA为6.2(2.6)分钟(P<0.01)。CSA组的起效时间和手术麻醉时间也显著更长(P<0.01)。SDSA组的阻滞质量更好(P<0.05),但与更大的血流动力学不稳定相关(P<0.05)。CSA组的镇痛节段水平显著低于SDSA组(中位数T10(范围T12-T8))(T9(T11-T5))(P<0.05)。两组术后并发症发生率无显著差异,两组均有2例轻度脊麻后头痛。我们得出结论,在年轻患者中使用微导管进行CSA操作困难,与使用小口径无创伤针进行SDSA相比没有优势。

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