胫骨平台骨折术后不同镇痛方法效果的比较

李玉锦, 张晓光, 袁爽, 王庚

武警医学 ›› 2016, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (9) : 917-919.

PDF(722 KB)
PDF(722 KB)
武警医学 ›› 2016, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (9) : 917-919.
论著

胫骨平台骨折术后不同镇痛方法效果的比较

  • 李玉锦, 张晓光, 袁爽, 王庚
作者信息 +

Comparison of different analgesia methods after tibial plateau fracture surgery

  • LI Yujin, ZHANG Xiaoguang, YUAN Shuang, and WANG Geng
Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

目的 比较胫骨平台骨折患者术后不同镇痛方法的镇痛效果。方法 将90例胫骨平台骨折手术患者根据术后镇痛方式分为股神经阻滞组(F组)、坐骨神经阻滞组(S组)和静脉术后镇痛组(V组),每组30例,3组均采用腰-硬联合麻醉。F组术毕利用神经刺激器在股神经周围置入导管;S组术毕利用神经刺激器在坐骨神经周围置入导管用于术后镇痛,两组镇痛泵设置:0.2%罗哌卡因250 ml,背景剂量5 ml/h,单次追加剂量5 ml,锁定时间30 min,持续至术后48 h;V组术后给予持续静脉自控镇痛48 h。VAS(视觉模拟疼痛评分)高于4分即给予补救镇痛。观察并记录术后4、8、12、24、36、48 h的静息状态下VAS,术后24、48 h的用药量及患者自控按压次数,患者镇痛满意度,补救镇痛情况,不良反应和凝血功能等。结果 F组、S组术后8、12、24、36 h静息状态VAS均明显低于V组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),术后24、48 h F组的用药剂量分别为(133.9±10.7)ml、(169.3±13.4)ml;S组的用药剂量为(124.6±11.6)ml、(155.7±12.9)ml,分别与V组的用药剂量(172.1±15.2)ml、(233.4±14.1)ml进行对比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);F组、S组术后24、48 h的按压次数分别与V组相比,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 胫骨平台骨折术后持续神经阻滞镇痛效果优于静脉镇痛,坐骨神经阻滞镇痛优于股神经阻滞,但差异无显著性意义。

Abstract

Objective To compare the different effects of the three analgesic Methods in surgical patients with fracture of tibial plateau. Methods Ninety surgical patients with fracture of tibial plateau in Beijing Jishuitan Hospital were randomly divided into three groups: continuous femoral nerve block group (group F), continuous sciatic nerve block group (group S) and continuous intravenous analgesia group (group V). All anesthesia Methods were combined with spinal-epidural anesthesia. In group F and group S, the catheter for nerve block was respectively placed after operation and analgesic Methods in two groups, including analgesic total volume of 0.2% ropivacaine, basic doses of 5 ml/h, single adding dose of 5 ml and locking time of 30 minutes. In group V, 1 μg/ml sufentanil 250 ml, 3 ml/h, 3 ml and 15 minutes were corresponding Methods with group F and group S. For visual analogue scale (VAS) above 4, 50 mg pethidine acting as remedial analgesic drug was given. VAS scores in the three groups were compared at 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48 h after operation. The times of adding, total doses in 24 h and 48 h, the satisfaction with pain management, complications and coagulation function were recorded. Results The VAS scores in group F and group S were significantly lower than in group V, the difference was statistically significantly different (P<0.05). After 24 h, 48 h, dosages in Group F were (133.9±10.7) ml, (169.3±13.4) ml; (124.6±11.6) ml, (15.57±12.9) ml dosage in group S, respectively with the group V, the dosage of (172.1±15.2) ml, (233.4±14.1) ml were compared, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The pressing times in Group F and Group S after operation 24 h and 48 h were compared with that in Group V, the difference was statistically significantly different (P<0.05). Conclusions Analgesic effect of the nerve block has an advantage over that of intravenous anesthesia. The effect of sciatic nerve block is better than that of femoral nerve block.

关键词

胫骨平台骨折 / 股神经阻滞 / 坐骨神经阻滞 / 静脉 / 自控镇痛

Key words

fracture of tibial plateau / femoral nerve block / sciatic nerve block / vein / controlled analgesia

引用本文

导出引用
李玉锦, 张晓光, 袁爽, 王庚. 胫骨平台骨折术后不同镇痛方法效果的比较[J]. 武警医学. 2016, 27(9): 917-919
LI Yujin, ZHANG Xiaoguang, YUAN Shuang, and WANG Geng. Comparison of different analgesia methods after tibial plateau fracture surgery[J]. Medical Journal of the Chinese People Armed Police Forces. 2016, 27(9): 917-919
中图分类号: R971.2   

参考文献

[1] 中华创伤骨科杂志编辑委员会.胫骨平台骨折诊断与治疗的专家共识[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2015,17(1):3-10.
[2] Kandemir U,Maclean J. Surgical approaches for tibialplateau fractures [J]. J Knee Surg,2014, 27(1):21-23.
[3] Weaver M J, Harris M B, Strom A C, et al. Fracture patternand fixation type related to loss of reduction in bicondylartibial plateau fractures [J]. Injury, 2012,43(6): 864-869.
[4] Sun H,Luo C F,Rang G,et al.Anatomical evaluation of the modified posterolateral approach for posterolateral tibial plateau fracture[J].Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol,2013,23(7):809-818.
[5] Heidari N,Lidder S,Grechenig W,et al.The risk of injury to theanterior tibialartery in the posterolateral approach to the tibia plateau:a cadaver study[J].J Orthop Trauma,2013,27(4):221-225.
[6] He X,Ye P,Hu Y,et al.A posterior inverted L-shaped approach forthe treatment of posterior bicondylar tibial plateau fractures[J].Arch Orthop Trauma Surg,2013,133(1):23-28.
[7] Solomon L B,Stevenson A W,Lee Y C,et al.Posterolateral and anterolateral approaches to unicondylar posterolateral tibial plateau fractures:acomparative study[J].Injury,2013,44(11):1561-1568.
[8] 韩传宝,钱燕宁,周钦海,等.术后镇痛对机体应激反应的调控[J]. 国外医学(麻醉学与复苏分册), 2005,26(2):74-77.
[9] 杜建龙,王 琦,张寒冰,等.氟比洛芬酯、帕瑞昔布钠用于创伤骨科手术后镇痛对机体应激反应的影响[J].中国医刊, 2013, 48(9):77-79.
[10] Helmy S A,Wahby M A,Nawaway M. The effect of anesthesia and surgery on plasma cytokine production[J].Anesthesiology, 1999,54(8):733-738.
[11] 张云慧,顾新宇,刘清仁,等.超声引导神经阻滞复合全身麻醉在胫骨骨折手术中应用,[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2015,31(3):228-230.
[12] 陈希刚,田茂生,段俊峰.两种不同神经阻滞方法对全膝关节置换术后疼痛的影响[J].中外医学研究,2015, 13(20):8-9.
[13] 张高峰,陈 斐,孙立新,等.不同镇痛方式对全膝关节置换术后镇痛效果及炎性反应的影响[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2015,31(3):234-237.
[14] 黄天丰,张 扬,方向志,等.股神经阻滞用于全膝关节置换术患者术后镇痛的Meta分析[J].国外医学(麻醉学与复苏分册),2016,27(3):230-235.

PDF(722 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/