Glynn Chris, O'Sullivan Katrina
Oxford Regional Pain Relief Unit, The Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LJ UK Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Adelaide Hospital, Dublin Ireland.
Pain. 1996 Feb;64(2):337-343. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(95)00119-0.
Twenty patients with chronic pain who previously had obtained analgesia from epidural clonidine and lignocaine agreed to participate in a double-blind crossover study of lumbar epidural clonidine (150 micrograms), lignocaine (40 mg) and the combination of clonidine (150 microgram) and lignocaine (40 mg), all drugs were given in a volume of 3 ml. There were 11 women and 9 men with a mean age 53 years (range: 23-78 years); 9 patients had low back and leg pain, 9 had neuropathic pain, 1 had pelvic pain and 1 Wegner's granulomatosis. Pain intensity and pain relief, as well as sensory and motor blockade, were assessed for 3 h following each injection. The combination was reported as the best pain relief by 12 of the 17 patients who completed all three arms of the study; 4 patients reported that clonidine was the best, 1 patient reported that none of the injections provided any analgesia and no patient reported that lignocaine was the best. SPID analysis revealed a significant difference between the combination and lignocaine (P < 0.05) but no other significant difference. TOTPAR analysis revealed no significant difference between any of the injections. All 3 injections produced evidence of neurological blockade; clonidine produced sensory blockade in 3 patients and motor blockade in 3 patients. Lignocaine produced sensory blockade in 6 patients and motor in 8 patients, while the combination produced evidence of neurological blockade in all 17 patients, sensory in 6 and motor in 11 patients. Overall there was no relationship between neurological blockade and analgesia. The reported side effects appeared to be related to clonidine. These data indicate that in these patients with chronic pain epidural clonidine had a supra-additive effect and behaved more like a co-analgesic than a pure analgesic.
20名曾通过硬膜外注射可乐定和利多卡因获得镇痛效果的慢性疼痛患者同意参与一项关于腰椎硬膜外注射可乐定(150微克)、利多卡因(40毫克)以及可乐定(150微克)与利多卡因(40毫克)联合用药的双盲交叉研究,所有药物均以3毫升的体积注射。研究对象中有11名女性和9名男性,平均年龄53岁(范围:23 - 78岁);9名患者有腰腿痛,9名有神经性疼痛,1名有盆腔疼痛,1名患有韦格纳肉芽肿。每次注射后3小时评估疼痛强度、疼痛缓解情况以及感觉和运动阻滞情况。在完成所有三个研究组的17名患者中,有12名报告联合用药的镇痛效果最佳;4名患者报告可乐定效果最佳,1名患者报告所有注射均未提供任何镇痛效果,没有患者报告利多卡因效果最佳。累积疼痛强度差(SPID)分析显示联合用药与利多卡因之间存在显著差异(P < 0.05),但无其他显著差异。总疼痛缓解率(TOTPAR)分析显示各次注射之间无显著差异。所有3次注射均产生了神经阻滞的证据;可乐定导致3名患者出现感觉阻滞,3名患者出现运动阻滞。利多卡因导致6名患者出现感觉阻滞,8名患者出现运动阻滞,而联合用药使所有17名患者均出现神经阻滞证据,其中6名患者出现感觉阻滞,11名患者出现运动阻滞。总体而言,神经阻滞与镇痛之间没有关联。报告的副作用似乎与可乐定有关。这些数据表明,在这些慢性疼痛患者中,硬膜外注射可乐定具有超相加效应,其表现更像是一种辅助镇痛药而非单纯的镇痛药。