期刊文献+

右美托咪定复合甲磺酸罗哌卡因在腹横肌平面联合腹直肌鞘阻滞中对腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的影响 被引量:35

Effects of dexmedetomidine combined with ropivacaine mesylate on laparoscopic cholecystectomy in transverse abdominal muscle plane combined with rectus sheath blockade
在线阅读 下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的观察右美托咪定复合甲磺酸罗哌卡因在腹横肌平面阻滞(transversus abdominis plane block,TAPB)联合腹直肌鞘阻滞(rectus sheath block,RSB)中对腹腔镜胆囊切除患者的影响。方法选择2017年2月至2018年2月在湖南省长沙市第四医院择期在全身麻醉下行腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC)的患者90例,体重指数≤29kg/m^2,美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiologists,ASA)分级Ⅰ~Ⅱ级,将患者按照随机数字表法分为:全凭静脉镇痛组(C组),单纯甲磺酸罗哌卡因组(R组),右美托咪定复合甲磺酸罗哌卡因组(DR组),每组30例。术毕三组均在超声引导下行TAPB+RSB,记录三组患者术后2、6、12、24、48h视觉模拟评分法(visualanaloguescale,VAS)评分;术前24h,术后24、48、72h15项恢复质量评分量表(qualityof recovery-15,Qo R-15)评分分值;术后首次按压患者自控静脉镇痛(patient controlled intravenous analgesia,PCIA)泵时间,24h内的累积按压次数;不良反应发生情况。结果患者静息时,R组患者术后2(P<0.05)、6(P<0.01)、12h(P<0.05)VAS评分较C组低,差异有显著性(P<0.05),术后24、48h VAS评分较C组无差异(P>0.05);DR组患者术后2、6、12、24hVAS评分较C组低,其中术后12、24hVAS评分较R组低,差异有显著性(P<0.01),术后48h VAS评分较C组、R组无差异(P>0.05)。患者咳嗽时,R组患者术后2(P<0.01)、6(P<0.05)、12h(P<0.05)VAS评分较C组低,差异有显著性(P<0.05),DR组患者术后2、6、12h VAS评分较C组低,差异有显著性(P<0.01),其中DR组在术后12h VAS评分较R组低,差异有显著性(P<0.05),术后24、48h三组VAS评分无明显差异(P>0.05)。三组患者术前24h、术后72h QoR-15评分差异无显著性(P>0.05),R组及DR组在术后24、48h QoR-15评分明显高于C组,差异有显著性(P<0.01),DR组术后24h QoR-15评分明显高于R组,差异有显著性(P<0.01)。R组及DR组术后首次按压时间较C组延后,差异有显著性(P<0.01),R组及DR组术后24h累积按压次数较C组少,差异有显著性(P<0.01),DR组术后24h累积按压次数较R组少,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。与C组比较,R组、DR组患者恶心发生率较低,差异有显著性(P<0.05),其余不良反应差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论腹腔镜胆囊切除患者中,右美托咪定复合罗哌卡应用于TAPB联合RSB有助于增强并延长镇痛效果,促进快速康复。
作者 张晓青 赵倩 李玉芳 范玉红 柏满云 谭红保 员勃 ZHANG Xiao-qing;ZHAO Qian;LI Yu-fang
出处 《中国医刊》 CAS 2020年第1期108-112,共5页 Chinese Journal of Medicine
基金 湖南省卫生计生委科研计划项目(B20180351)
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献62

  • 1Schietroma, Mario,Piccione, Federica,Carlei, Francesco,Clementi, Marco,Bianchi, Zuleyka,de Vita, Fabiola,Amicucci, Gianfranco.Peritonitis from Perforated Appendicitis: Stress Response after Laparoscopic or Open Treatment[J]. EN . 2012 (5)
  • 2Bazzi WM, Stroup SP, Cohen SA, Sisul DM, Liss MA, MastersonJH, Kopp RP, Gudeman SR, Leeflang E, Palazzi KL, RamamoorthyS, Kane CJ, Horgan S, Derweesh IH. Comparison of transrectaland transvaginal hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopicsurgery partial nephrectomy in the porcine model. Urology 2013;82: 84-89 [PMID: 23676357 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.03.007].
  • 3Vieira JP, Linhares MM, Caetano EM, Moura RM, Asseituno V,Fuzyi R, Gir-o MJ, Ruano JM, Goldenberg A, de Jesus L Filho G,Matos D. Evaluation of the clinical and inflammatory responsesin exclusively NOTES transvaginal cholecystectomy versuslaparoscopic routes: an experimental study in swine. Surg Endosc2012; 26: 3232-3244 [PMID: 22729703 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2329-x].
  • 4Liu BR, Kong LJ, Song JT, Liu W, Yu H, Dou QF. Feasibilityand safety of functional cholecystectomy by pure NOTES: a pilotanimal study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2012; 22: 740-745[PMID: 22970657 DOI: 10.1089/lap.2012.0154].
  • 5Córdova H, Guarner-Argente C, Martínez-Pallí G, NavarroR, Rodríguez-D'Jesús A, Rodríguez de Miguel C, Beltrán M,Martínez-Zamora Mà, Comas J, Lacy AM, Thompson CC,Fernández-Esparrach G. Gastric emptying is delayed in transgastricNOTES: a randomized study in swine. J Surg Res 2012; 174:e61-e67 [PMID: 22225977 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.10.034].
  • 6Bernhardt J, K-hler P, Rieber F, Diederich M, Schneider-KoriathS, Steffen H, Ludwig K, Lamadé W. Pure NOTES sigmoidresection in an animal survival model. Endoscopy 2012; 44:265-269 [PMID: 22354825 DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291546].
  • 7Zheng Y, Wang D, Kong X, Chen D, Wu R, Yang L, Yu E, ZhengC, Li Z. Initial experience from the transgastric endoscopicperitoneoscopy and biopsy: a stepwise approach from thelaboratory to clinical application. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;26: 888-893 [PMID: 21251061 DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746].
  • 8Voermans RP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA,Fockens P. Hybrid NOTES transgastric cholecystectomywith reliable gastric closure: an animal survival study. SurgEndosc 2011; 25: 728-736 [PMID: 20721586 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-010-1242-4].
  • 9Sohn DK, Jeong SY, Park JW, Kim JS, Hwang JH, Kim DW, KangSB, Oh JH. Comparative study of NOTES rectosigmoidectomyin a swine model: E-NOTES vs. P-NOTES. Endoscopy 2011; 43:526-532 [PMID: 21425040 DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256239].
  • 10Earle DB, Romanelli JR, McLawhorn T, Omotosho P, Wu P,Rossini C, Swayze H, Desilets DJ. Prosthetic mesh contaminationduring NOTES(-) transgastric hernia repair: a randomizedcontrolled trial with swine explants. Hernia 2012; 16: 689-695[PMID: 22744411 DOI: 10.1007/s10029-012-0944-z].

共引文献40

同被引文献320

引证文献35

二级引证文献157

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部