Holmström B, Laugaland K, Rawal N, Hallberg S
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Lindesbergs Hospital, Sweden.
Can J Anaesth. 1993 Jul;40(7):601-6. doi: 10.1007/BF03009695.
In a controlled study a single segment combined spinal epidural (CSE) block was compared with spinal or epidural block for major orthopaedic surgery. Seventy-five patients, age 52-86 yr, were randomly assigned to receive one of the three blocks. Bupivacaine 0.5% was used for surgical analgesia. The postoperative pain relief after 4.0 mg epidural morphine was compared with the analgesic effect of 0.2 or 0.4 mg morphine administered intrathecally. With the spinal technique good or excellent surgical analgesia and muscle relaxation were achieved rapidly (11.8 +/- 1.1 min). The time taken to provide an equally effective and reliable block with the CSE technique was no longer (14.9 +/- 2.2 min). For epidural block with the catheter technique more time was required (35.9 +/- 3.9 min) to provide acceptable surgical conditions (P < 0.05). Perioperative sedatives and concomitant analgesics were required more frequently and in larger doses by the patients undergoing surgery with epidural block (P < 0.05) than with CSE or spinal block. Our study demonstrated that the analgesia after surgery provided by 0.2 and 0.4 mg morphine administered intrathecally was comparable to that provided by 4.0 mg of epidural morphine. It is concluded that the analgesia and surgical conditions provided by the spinal and CSE blocks were similar and were superior to those provided by an epidural block.
在一项对照研究中,将单节段联合蛛网膜下腔硬膜外阻滞(CSE)与蛛网膜下腔阻滞或硬膜外阻滞用于大型骨科手术进行比较。75例年龄在52至86岁的患者被随机分配接受三种阻滞中的一种。使用0.5%布比卡因进行手术镇痛。将4.0mg硬膜外吗啡术后的疼痛缓解情况与鞘内注射0.2mg或0.4mg吗啡的镇痛效果进行比较。采用蛛网膜下腔阻滞技术能迅速实现良好或极佳的手术镇痛和肌肉松弛(11.8±1.1分钟)。使用CSE技术达到同等有效且可靠阻滞所需的时间并无延长(14.9±2.2分钟)。采用导管技术进行硬膜外阻滞则需要更多时间(35.9±3.9分钟)才能提供可接受的手术条件(P<0.05)。与接受CSE或蛛网膜下腔阻滞的患者相比,接受硬膜外阻滞手术的患者围手术期更频繁且更大剂量地需要镇静剂和辅助镇痛药(P<0.05)。我们的研究表明,鞘内注射0.2mg和0.4mg吗啡术后的镇痛效果与4.0mg硬膜外吗啡相当。结论是,蛛网膜下腔阻滞和CSE阻滞提供的镇痛效果和手术条件相似,且优于硬膜外阻滞。