目的 比较不同方式引导腋路置管对肘关节松解术后镇痛的影响。方法 选取2011-03至2014-09北京积水潭医院行90例肘关节松解术后患者,随机分成3组,每组30例,分别为超声引导组(U组)、神经刺激器组(N组)和神经刺激器联合超声引导组(NU组)。分别运用超声、神经刺激器和超声联合刺激器在桡神经周围置入导管镇痛。记录3组患者的置管时间、是否有血管损伤及术后(静息和功能锻炼时)24、48、72 h的数字疼痛分级法(NRS)评分,并同时监测3组患者术后镇痛泵的舒芬太尼按压总次数(72 h)及患者不良反应的发生情况(恶心、呕吐、皮肤瘙痒、呼吸抑制等)。结果 N组置管时间(5.2±1.6)min明显比U组(3.2±0.5)min和NU组(3.6±1.2)min长,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。N组有7例在置管过程中血管损伤而U组与NU组无损伤血管发生。3组的NRS评分不论是在静息状态下还是在功能锻炼时均无明显差异。3组患者术后72 h舒芬太尼的按压总次数N组(20.8±5.5)明显多于U组(15.7±3.5)和NU组(17.0±3.7),差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。3组患者不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义。结论 在超声引导下桡神经部位置管术后镇痛效果优于神经刺激器,同时在超声引导下腋路置管可以避免血管损伤。
Abstract
Objective To compare the analgesic efficacy of different continuous auxillary brachial plexus block after elbow stiffness.Methods Ninety patients were randomly and equally allocated into three groups: U group(ultrasound-guided alone), N group( nerve stimulator-guided) and NU group(nerve stimulator-guided and ultrasound-guided). The catheter was placed around radial nerves, respectively. The time taken to place the catheter and injury to blood vessels were recorded, respectively. The numerical rating scale scores(NRS) were assessed at rest and during passive mobilization at 24 h , 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively. The number of times the sufentanil PCA button was pressed was recorded at 72 h,postoperatively and the occurrence of such adverse reactions as nausea, vomiting, itching and respiratory depression was observed.Results The time it took to place the catheter in the N group(5.2±1.6)min was significantly longer than that of U group(3.2±0.5)min and NU group(3.6±1.2)min (P<0.05). The difference of NRS scores was not significant between the three groups at rest or during passive mobilization at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after operation. There were seven cases of injury to blood vessels in the N group, but there was none in the U group or NU group (P<0.05). The sufentanil PCA button was pressed more often in the N group than in the other two groups(P<0.05).Conclusions The postoperative analgesia effect of the ultrasound guided approach is better than that of the nerve stimulator. Placing the catheter around radial nerves guided by ultrasound can prevent injury to blood vessels.
关键词
罗哌卡因 /
腋路臂丛 /
肘关节松解术
Key words
ropivacaine /
axillary brachial plexus /
elbow stiffness
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] 闵红巍,刘克敏. 继发性肩关节僵硬的诊断与治疗进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2014,8(3):388-390.
[2] 查晔军,蒋协远,王满宜. 肘关节松解术时两种手术切口的比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2010,12(6):46-51.
[3] Mcgrath B, Elgendy H, Chung F, et al. Thiety percent of patients have moderate to severe pain 24 hr after ambulatory surgery: a survey of 5703 patients[J]. Can J Anaesth,2004,51(9):886-891.
[4] Abrahams M S, Aziz M F, Fu R F et al. Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Br J Anaesth ,2009, 102(3): 408-417.
[5] Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block[J]. Casati ,2007,106(5):992-996.
[6] Liu F C, Liou J T, Tsai Y F, et al. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a comparative study with nerve stimulator-guided method[J]. Chang Gung Med J ,2005,28(6): 396-402.
[7] 王 华, 李少华. 肘关节僵硬治疗进展[J]. 医学综述, 2016,22(23):4660-4663.
[8] 夏 峰,王众林,朱敏娟,等. 手外伤术后连续臂丛镇痛与静脉镇痛的比较[J]. 医师进修杂志,2004,27(增刊):28-29.
[9] 安丽娜,岳 扬,李占军,等. 地佐辛联合罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞的麻醉效果[J]. 武警医学, 2014,25(8):780-781.
[10] 张大志,王 庚,王晓琳,等. 神经刺激器提高超声引导下腋路臂丛神经阻滞成功率[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志2014,30(2):160-162.
[11] 张大志,王怀江,张文杰. 超声引导下双侧腋路臂丛阻滞的临床效果[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2015,31(11):1048-1050.
[12] Abrahams M S, Aziz M F, Fu R F, et al. Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Br J Anaesth,2009,102(3):408-417.
[13] Ang T L, Kwek A B, Seo D W, et al. A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses[J]. Endosc Int Open,2015,3(4):E329-333.
PDF(647 KB)
