Dauphin A, Lubanska-Hubert E, Young J E, Miller J D, Bennett W F, Fuller H D
Department of Anesthesia, St. Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ont.
Can J Surg. 1997 Dec;40(6):431-6.
To compare the efficacy of continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block with bupivacaine 0.5% in 1:200,000 epinephrine and continuous lumbar epidural block with morphine in controlling post-thoracotomy pain and to measure serum bupivacaine concentrations during extrapleural infusion.
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
St. Joseph's Hospital, Hamilton, Ont., a tertiary care teaching centre.
Sixty-one patients booked for elective thoracotomy were randomized by scaled envelope to two groups.
Group A received a continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block with bupivacaine 0.5% in 1:200,000 epinephrine as a bolus of 0.3 mL/kg followed by an infusion of 0.1 mL/kg every hour for 72 hours. Group B received a continuous lumbar epidural block with morphine as a bolus of 70 g/kg followed by an infusion of 7 g/kg every hour for 72 hours.
Pain was assessed by a linear visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score. The cumulative amount of "rescue" intravenous morphine used, and serum bupivacaine concentrations were measured as secondary outcomes.
Pain control was the same in both groups as assessed by linear VAS score (p = 0.33). The cumulative dose of intravenous morphine for supplemental analgesia was statistically significant between the groups: group A patients used more morphine than group B (p < 0.05). Accumulation of serum bupivacaine was present with no clinical toxicity.
There is no significant difference in the degree of post-thoracotomy pain control measured by the VAS score when analgesia is provided by continuous extrapleural intercostal nerve block with bupivacaine 0.5% in 1:200,000 epinephrine or lumbar epidural block with morphine. Larger amounts of rescue analgesia were used by patients in the continuous extrapleural group with bupivacaine than those in the continuous lumbar epidural block with morphine. Serum bupivacaine concentrations rise without clinical toxicity.
比较0.5%布比卡因与1:200,000肾上腺素混合液持续胸膜外肋间神经阻滞和吗啡持续腰段硬膜外阻滞在控制开胸术后疼痛方面的疗效,并测定胸膜外输注期间血清布比卡因浓度。
一项前瞻性、随机、对照试验。
安大略省汉密尔顿市圣约瑟夫医院,一家三级护理教学中心。
61例预定择期开胸手术的患者通过随机数字表法随机分为两组。
A组接受0.5%布比卡因与1:200,000肾上腺素混合液持续胸膜外肋间神经阻滞,初始剂量为0.3 mL/kg推注,随后每小时输注0.1 mL/kg,共72小时。B组接受吗啡持续腰段硬膜外阻滞,初始剂量为70 μg/kg推注,随后每小时输注7 μg/kg,共72小时。
采用线性视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分评估疼痛。测定“补救”静脉注射吗啡的累积用量以及血清布比卡因浓度作为次要观察指标。
通过线性VAS评分评估,两组的疼痛控制情况相同(p = 0.33)。两组间补充镇痛的静脉注射吗啡累积剂量具有统计学差异:A组患者使用的吗啡比B组多(p < 0.05)。血清布比卡因有蓄积,但无临床毒性。
当采用0.5%布比卡因与1:200,000肾上腺素混合液持续胸膜外肋间神经阻滞或吗啡持续腰段硬膜外阻滞进行镇痛时,通过VAS评分测得的开胸术后疼痛控制程度无显著差异。布比卡因持续胸膜外组患者使用的补救性镇痛药物量比吗啡持续腰段硬膜外阻滞组患者多。血清布比卡因浓度升高,但无临床毒性。