切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2020, Vol. 14 ›› Issue (01) : 30 -34. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2020.01.007

所属专题: 超声医学 文献

临床研究

超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞用于≥70岁患者腹股沟疝修补术术后镇痛的临床观察
叶雷1, 顾丽莉1,()   
  1. 1. 214041 无锡,江南大学附属医院(无锡市第三人民医院)麻醉科
  • 收稿日期:2019-09-29 出版日期:2020-01-15
  • 通信作者: 顾丽莉

Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients≥ 70 years old undergoing inguinal hernia repair

Lei Ye1, Lili Gu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, the Third People′s Hospital of Wuxi, Wuxi 214041, China
  • Received:2019-09-29 Published:2020-01-15
  • Corresponding author: Lili Gu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Gu Lili, Email:
引用本文:

叶雷, 顾丽莉. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞用于≥70岁患者腹股沟疝修补术术后镇痛的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(01): 30-34.

Lei Ye, Lili Gu. Ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative analgesia in patients≥ 70 years old undergoing inguinal hernia repair[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2020, 14(01): 30-34.

目的

观察超声引导下腹横肌平面(TAP)阻滞对于≥70岁患者开放性腹股沟疝修补术术后镇痛的影响。

方法

选择择期行开放性腹股沟疝无张力修补术患者60例,采用蛛网膜下腔阻滞麻醉,均为男性,年龄≥70岁,美国麻醉师协会分级Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法将患者分为对照组和试验组,每组30例。试验组于手术结束后于患侧行超声引导下TAP阻滞。观察2组患者术中、术后有无恶心、呕吐、心慌、胸闷、呼吸困难及头晕、嗜睡等不良反应;记录试验组术中、术后有无血管、神经及腹腔脏器损伤,局部麻醉药物中毒、穿刺部位感染等不良事件发生;记录2组患者术后4、6、8、12、24 h时静息状态下和咳嗽时视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分;记录术后下床时间、术后住院天数、总住院天数、麻醉费用以及住院总费用,记录2组术后非甾体类镇痛药的使用例数。

结果

2组患者术中、术后均无恶心、呕吐、心慌、胸闷、呼吸困难及头晕、嗜睡等不良反应。试验组患者术中、术后无血管、神经及腹腔脏器损伤,无局部麻醉药物中毒及穿刺部位感染等不良事件。对照组在静息状态下[4 h:(3.8±1.2)分vs (1.6±0.5)分;6 h:(4.2±1.5)分vs (1.8±0.8)分;8 h:(4.8±1.5)分vs (2.0±0.7)分;12 h:(5.2±1.4)分vs (2.2±0.6)分;24 h:(3.2±?.?)分vs (1.6±0.6)分]和咳嗽时[4 h:(3.9±1.3)分vs (1.8±0.8)分;6 h:(4.6±1.5)分vs (2.0±0.8)分;8 h:(5.5±1.6)分vs (2.2±0.9)分;12 h:(5.8±1.8)分vs (2.4±0.8)分;24 h:(4.6±1.4)分vs (1.8±0.7)分]不同时间点的VAS评分均大于试验组(P<0.01);2组住院总费用差异无统计学意义,试验组麻醉费用高于[(780.06±63.10)元vs (566.69±93.23)元]、下床活动时间早于[(5.26±1.43)天vs (8.62±1.62)天]、非甾体类药物使用例数少于(2 vs 28)对照组(P<0.01)。

结论

超声引导下TAP阻滞因其镇痛效果确切,且操作简单,相关并发症少,对于≥70岁患者的开放性腹股沟疝修补术是一种安全有效的术后镇痛方法。

Objective

To observe the efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients ≥70 years old undergoing inguinal hernia repair.

Methods

Sixty American Society of AnesthesiologistsⅠ orⅡ patients, aged ≥70 years old, scheduled for elective unilateral inguinal hernia repair under spinal-epidural anesthesia were randomly divided into two groups (n=30 each) using a random number table: control group and test group. Ultrasound-guided TAP block was performed at the end of surgery in the test group. Adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, palpitation, dyspnea, dizziness, and sleepiness in the two groups were observed during and after operation. In the test group, the occurrence of adverse events such as blood vessel, nerve, and abdominal organ injury, local anesthetic toxicity, and puncture site infection related to nerve block during and after operation were recorded. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores at rest and cough were recorded at 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours after operation in both groups. Time to ambulation after operation, days of hospitalization after operation, total days of hospitalization, cost of anesthesia, and total cost of hospitalization were recorded. The use of non-steroidal analgesics in the two groups after operation was also recorded.

Results

There were no adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, palpitation, dyspnea, dizziness, or sleepiness during and after operation in both groups. All patients in the test group had no injuries of blood vessels, nerves, and abdominal organs, local anesthetic toxicity, or puncture site infection during and after operation. VAS scores at resting state [4 h: (3.8±1.2) points vs (1.6±0.5) points; 6 h: (4.2±1.5) points vs (1.8±0.8) points; 8 h: (4.8±1.5) points vs (2.0±0.7) points; 12 h: (5.2±1.4) points vs (2.2±0.6) points; 24 h: (3.2±?.?) points vs (1.6±0.6) points] and cough [4 h: (3.9±1.3) points vs (1.8±0.8) points; 6 h: (4.6±1.5) points vs (2.0±0.8) points; 8 h: (5.5±1.6) points vs (2.2±0.9) points; 12 h: (5.8±1.8) points vs (2.4±0.8) points; 24 h: (4.6±1.4) points vs (1.8±0.7) points] at different time points were significantly higher in the control group than in the test group (P<0.01). The cost of anesthesia in the test group was significantly higher [(780.06±63.10) yuan vs (566.69±93.23) yuan] than that in control group (P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the total cost of hospitalization between the two groups. The time to ambulation in the test group was earlier [(5.26±1.43) days vs (8.62±1.62) days] than that in the control group (P<0.01), and the number of non-steroidal drugs used in the test group was significantly less (2 vs 28) than that in the control group (P<0.01).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided TAP block is a safe and effective method for postoperative analgesia in elderly patients ≥70 years old after open inguinal hernia repair.

表1 2组患者一般情况比较
表2 2组患者术后不同时间点静息状态和咳嗽时的VAS评分(分,±s
表3 2组患者术后下床时间、术后住院日、麻醉费用等比较(±s
1
张笛,谭嗣伟,梁存河,等. 腹股沟疝手术多模式镇痛及快通道外科研究进展 [J/CD]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2014, 8(4): 62-66.
2
Rahiri J, Tuhoe J, Svirskis D, et al. Systematic review of the systemic concentrations of local anaesthetic after transversus abdominis plane block and rectus sheath block [J]. Br J Anaesth, 2017, 1l8(4): 517-526.
3
Ma N, Duncan J K, Searfe A J. et al. Clinical safety and effectiveness of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in post-operative analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Anesth, 2017, 31(3): 432-452.
4
Mishriky BM, George RB, Habib AS. Transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia after cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Can J Anaesth, 2012, 59(8): 766-778.
5
田雪,安海燕,冯艺. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞用于腹股沟疝成形术病人术后镇痛的效果 [J]. 中华麻醉学杂志, 2013, 33(3): 275-278.
6
易红,何睿,周大春. 不同入路腹横肌平面阻滞的临床应用 [J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2016, 32(5): 510-514.
7
Sakae TM, Marehiom P, Schuehertrevisol F, et al. Dexamethasone as a ropivacaine adjuvant for ultrasound-guided interscalene brachial plexus block: A randomized, double-blinded clinical trial [J]. J Clin A nesth, 2017, 38: 133-136.
[1] 孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[2] 郝玥萦, 毛盈譞, 张羽, 汪佳旭, 韩林霖, 匡雯雯, 孟瑶, 杨秀华. 超声引导衰减参数成像评估肝脂肪变性及其对心血管疾病风险的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 770-777.
[3] 马东扬, 李斌, 陆安清, 王光华, 雷文章, 宋应寒. Gilbert 与单层补片腹膜前疝修补术疗效的随机对照研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 629-633.
[4] 王浩源, 汪海洋, 孙建明, 陈以宽, 祁小桐, 唐博. 腹腔镜与开放修补对肝硬化腹外疝患者肝功能及凝血的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 654-659.
[5] 周正阳, 陈凯, 仇多良, 邵乐宁, 吴浩荣, 钟丰云. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术后出血原因分析及处理[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 660-664.
[6] 顾熙, 徐子宇, 周澍, 张吴楼, 张业鹏, 林昊, 刘宗航, 嵇振岭, 郑立锋. 腹股沟疝腹膜前间隙无张力修补术后补片感染10 例报道[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 665-669.
[7] 宋俊锋, 张珍珍. 单侧初发性腹股沟斜疝老年患者经腹腹膜前疝修补术中残余疝囊腹直肌下缘固定效果评估[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 670-674.
[8] 高娟, 徐建庆, 闫芳, 丁盛华, 刘霞. Rutkow、TAPP、TEP 手术治疗单侧腹股沟疝患者的临床疗效及对血清炎症因子水平的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 675-680.
[9] 于新峰, 曾琦, 后强, 徐浩, 操谢芳. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前疝修补术和腹腔镜完全腹膜外疝修补术对成人腹股沟疝治疗效果及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 681-686.
[10] 方辉强, 黄杰, 随冰琰. 腰方肌阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞对腹股沟疝腹腔镜手术患者术后镇痛效果的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 697-702.
[11] 朱佳琳, 方向, 贵诗雨, 黄丹, 周小雨, 郭文恺. 大鼠切口疝腹膜前间隙补片修补术后血清中VEGF 和Ang-1 的表达情况[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 703-707.
[12] 杨媛媛, 林贤超, 林荣贵, 陆逢春, 黄鹤光. 肌后/腹膜前补片修补巨大切口疝术后并发症防治[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 645-648.
[13] 袁志静, 黄杰, 何国安, 方辉强. 罗哌卡因联合右美托咪定局部阻滞麻醉在老年腹腔镜下无张力疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 557-561.
[14] 张锋, 孙孟奇, 方秀春. 静注右美托咪定、利多卡因对腹腔镜疝修补术患者围手术期心率、麻醉苏醒质量的比较[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 562-565.
[15] 何岩, 向文采. 七氟醚与异丙酚联合氯胺酮麻醉在疝修补术中的镇静镇痛效果及安全性[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 566-569.
阅读次数
全文


摘要