目的:比较硬膜外阻滞复合全麻与单纯全麻在胸科肿瘤手术中的临床应用,在麻醉效果、血流动力学、术后苏醒等方面的影响。方法:46例择期胸科肿瘤手术患者(ASAⅠ～Ⅲ),随机分成两组,Ⅰ组应用硬膜外阻滞复合全麻并行PCEA,Ⅱ组应用单纯全身麻醉。并对术中MAP、HR、SPO2、全麻药用量,术后苏醒程度,拔管时间及术后并发症进行观察。结果:Ⅰ组病例术中血流动力学平稳,围拔管期心血管反应轻微,全麻药用量少,苏醒迅速彻底,术后并发症少。Ⅱ组病例术中血流动力学波动大,围拔管期心血管反应较强,苏醒时间相对较长,术后并发症较多。结论:硬膜外阻滞复合全麻能更有效抑制胸科肿瘤手术的应激反应,保持血流动力学平稳,促进术后呼吸功能的恢复。麻醉效果及安全性优于单纯全麻。
ObjectiveTo review the research on the reasons of unplanned reoperation (URP) for degenerative lumbar spine diseases, and to provide new ideas for improving the quality of surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. Methods The literature about the URP of degenerative lumbar spine diseases at home and abroad in recent years was reviewed and analyzed. Results At present, the reasons for URP include surgical site infection (SSI), hematoma formation, cerebrospinal fluid leakage (CSFL), poor results of surgery, and implant complications. SSI and hematoma formation are the most common causes of URP, which happen in a short time after surgery; CSFL also occurs shortly after surgery but is relatively rare. Poor surgical results and implant complications occurred for a long time after surgery. Factors such as primary disease and surgical procedures have an important impact on the incidence of URP. ConclusionThe main reasons for URP are different in various periods after lumbar spine surgery. Interventions should be given to patients with high-risk URP, which thus can reduce the incidence of URP and improve the surgery quality and patients’ satisfaction.
【摘要】 目的 观察不同剂量的舒芬太尼用于剖宫产术后硬膜外自控镇痛的效果比较。 方法 将2009年4-11月60例硬膜外麻醉下行剖宫产手术术后的患者随机分为三组，术后镇痛液A组采用0.125%罗哌卡因复合0.3 μg/mL舒芬太尼；B组为0.125%罗哌卡因复合0.4 μg/mL舒芬太尼；C组0.125%罗哌卡因复合0.5 μg/mL舒芬太尼，观察三组患者的术后镇痛效果（视觉模拟法评分，即VAS评分）及不良反应。 结果 A组VAS评分高于B组和C组，B组VAS评分高于C组（Plt;0.05）。三组患者术后恶心呕吐、运动阻滞、嗜睡及肠蠕动抑制等并发症无统计学差异（Pgt;0.05）。 结论 0.125%罗哌卡因复合0.5 μg/mL舒芬太尼以4 mL/h持续输注用于剖宫产术后患者自控硬膜外镇痛术后疼痛VAS评分最小，患者镇痛满意度最高。【Abstract】 Objective To observe the effect of postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with three different doses of sufentanil combined with 0.125% ropivacaine after cesarean section. Methods Data was collected from April 2009 to November 2009. Sixty patients after cesarean section under continuous epidural anesthesia were randomly divided into three different groups.Group A was given sufentanil 0.3 μg/mL and 0.125% ropivacaine for PCEA, group B was given sufentanil 0.4 μg/mL and 0.125% ropivacaine, group C was given sufentanil 0.5 μg/mL and 0.125% ropivacaine. The analgesia effects were evaluated by the visual analogue scales (VAS). Side effects were also recorded. Results The VAS scores were significantly the highest in group A than that in group B and group C, the VAS scores in group B were higher than that in group C (Plt;0.05). The incidence of side effects, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting, lethargy, and pruritus, was not significant among the three groups (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion 0.5 μg/ mL sufentanil and 0.125% ropivacaine recommended for PCEA with background 4 mL/h is safe and effective for patients after cesarean section.
Objective To explore effective substances and methods for prevention of peridural adhesion. Methods Laminectomy was performed on the 5th lumbar segment in 64 rabbits, which were equally divided into 4 groups. The duramater (12 mm×6 mm) was exposed. The exposed duramater was left uncovered in Group A; the exposed dura mater was covered with sodium hyaluronate jel (high molecular weight, 1 ml) in Group B; the lamina repair was performed with the autologous spinous process in Group C; the lamina repair was performed with the sodium hyaluronate jel filling and the autologous spinousprocess in Group D. The specimens were observed grossly and histologically at 2, 4, 6 and 8 weeks postoperatively. The computed imaging analysis on the epidural adhesion was also performed at 6 weeks postoperatively. Results ①The gross anatomical evaluation: Severe peridural adhesion was formed in Group A, less adhesion formed in Groups B and C, but no obvious adhesion formed in Group D. ②The area percentage of the epidural scar: The area percentage ofthe epidural scar was 15.89%±1.88% and 13.94%±1.89% in Groups C and D respectively, which were significantly lower than those in Groups A and B (22.66%±2.89% and 20.70%±2.82%,Plt;0.05). ③The density of epidural scar: Thedensity of the epidural scars were 42.03%±7.36% and 36.50%±9.08% in Groups B and D, which were significantly lower than those in Groups A and C (63.73%±6.06% and 52.11%±4.10%，Plt;0.05). Conclusion The high molecular weight sodium hyaluronate jel filling combined with the lamina repair using the autologous spinous process has the best preventive effect on the peridural adhesion after laminectomy.
Objective To investigate the clinical effect of polylactic acid membrane in prevention of epidural scar and adhesion. Methods From July 1998 to April 2000, 62 patients with lumbar disc herniation were randomly assigned into two groups. All were treated surgically with discectomy by fenestration or laminectomy.One group were placed with a thin of polylactic acid membrane covering the interlaminar space(n=32). The thickness of the film was 0.1mm. The other group was blank control(n=30). After 2 weeks of operation, we observed the local and systemic reactions. After 6 months clinical symptoms were revaluated and the degrees of epidural scar and adhesion were determined by CT scans. Results After 2 weeks, we found no adverse systemic reactions in all patients. Wound healing was excellent. No abnormalities of hepatic and renal functions as well as blood for routine were found. Temperature after operation was normal. After 6 months, the curative effects were as follows in experimental group and in control group: excellent in 27 patients and in 24 patients, good in 4 patients and in 4 patients, fair in 1 patient and in 1 patient, and poor in 0 patient and in 1 patient, respectively. There are no significant difference between two groups. The CT scans showed no adhesion between the epidural scar and the dural sac in all patients of experimental group. There existed various extents of adhesion in control group. Conclusion The results demonstrate that the polylactic acidmembrane can effectively prevent the epidural scar adhesion with a good biocompatibility and no toxity. Its clinical application was promising.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia versus epidural patient-controlled analgesia for postoperative analgesia, sedation, and the incidence of side effects. Methods We searched the specialized trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, The Cochrane Library (CCTR), MEDLINE (1966 to Sept. 2008), EMbase (1966 to Sept. 2008), PubMed (1966 to Sept. 2008), and handsearched some Chinese anesthesia Journals and Clinical anesthesia journals. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of intravenous versus epidural analgesia for post-operation were included. The quality of the trials was critically assessed. RevMan 4.2.8 software was used for meta-analyses. Results Thirteen RCTs involving 580 patients of intravenous versus epidural analgesia for post-operation were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that there were no significant differences in postoperative analgesia and sedation at the hour-points of 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 24th hours after operation. There were no significant differences in plasma fentanyl concentration in the two groups on the same analgesia effects. There were also no significant differences in side effects. Conclusion Both intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and epidural patient-controlled analgesia have the same clinical effects. Compared with epidural patient-controlled analgesia, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia has fewer side effects and is more convenient. At the same time, it can reduce more costs of hospitalization. But because of the low quality and small sample size of the included studies, more well-designed, large scale, randomized controlled trials are needed.
【摘要】 目的 探讨腰硬联合麻醉复合丙泊酚恒速输注清醒镇静的可行性、理想的药物剂量、术中知晓情况以及麻醉质量和效果。 方法 收集2009年3-12月480例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅲ级拟在腰硬联合麻醉下行下腹部、会阴部、下肢手术的患者480例，随机分为咪达唑仑组（M组）、丙泊酚Ⅰ组（PA组）、丙泊酚Ⅱ组（PB组）、丙泊酚Ⅲ组（PC组），每组各120例。四组患者均于腰2-3或腰3-4行腰硬联合麻醉，蛛网膜下腔注入轻比重0.2 %布比卡因12～15 mg，麻醉平面确切后，M组予以咪达唑仑0.04~0.06 mg/kg，PA组先予以负荷量丙泊酚0.50 mg/kg再以2.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PB组予以负荷量丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg再以3.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PC组予以负荷量丙泊酚1.00 mg/kg再以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注。观察患者给药前（T0）、给药1（T1）、3（T2）、5（T3）、10（T4）、30（T5）、60 min（T6）各时点血流动力学平均动脉血压（MAP）、心率（HR）的变化、脑电双频指数（BIS）值及镇静评分、术中所看到的图片的回忆及不良反应。 结果 各组在给予镇静药后MAP、HR均有所下降，但测量值的变化在正常范围内；在T3时间点，各组BIS值及镇静/警醒OAA/S评分降低，与T0比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；与其他3组比较，在T4、T5、T6时点PC组BIS值与OAA/S评分降低，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），PC组的镇静遗忘满意率高于其他3组；各组间未见发生严重的舌后坠、呼吸暂停和血氧饱和度（SpO2）lt;90%。 结论 在下腹部、下肢手术中，应用腰硬联合麻醉复合1.00 mg/kg负荷量的丙泊酚继而以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，可取得良好的镇静效果，不良反应小。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the feasibility, ideal dose, intra-operative awareness as well as the quality and effectiveness of constant infusion of propofol under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for conscious sedation. Methods A total of 480 patients at ASA grade Ⅰ-Ⅲ to be operated in the lower abdomen, perineum and lower limbs under CSEA from March to December 2009 were randomly divided into four groups: midazolam group (M group), propofol group Ⅰ (PA group), propofol group Ⅱ (PB group), and propofol group Ⅲ (PC group), with 120 patients in each group. All four groups of patients underwent CSEA at L2-3 or L3-4 and accepted pinal injection of 12-15 mg of 0.2% hypobaric bupivacaine. After the anesthetic plane was confirmed, patients in M group accepted 0.04-0.06 mg/kg of midazolam; patients in PA group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.50 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 2.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PB group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.75 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PC group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h). The change of hemodynamics including the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the heart rate (HR), bispectral index (BIS) values, sedation scores, memory of pictures seen during operation and adverse effects before drug administration (T0), at minute 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 5 (T3), 10 (T4), 30 (T5) and 60 (T6) after drug administration were observed. Results MAP and HR decreased in all the four groups after administration of sedatives, but the changes of measured values were within normal ranges. BIS value and the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAA/S) scale decreased in all groups at T3, compared with those at T0 (Plt;0.05). Compared with the other 3 groups, BIS valueand OAA/S scale were significantly lower in PC group at T4, T5 and T6 (Plt;0.05), and the satisfaction rate of sedation and amnesia was much higher. No serious glossocoma, apnea and SpO2 below 90% was observed in all the four groups. Conclusion During the surgery of lower abdomen and lower limbs, application of CSEA combined with propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h) can achieve a good sedative effect, with little side effect.