首页> 外文期刊>Indian journal of Anaesthesia >Comparing epidural and wound infiltration analgesia for total abdominal hysterectomy: A randomised controlled study
【24h】

Comparing epidural and wound infiltration analgesia for total abdominal hysterectomy: A randomised controlled study

机译:硬膜外和伤口浸润镇痛比较:全腹子宫切除术:一项随机对照研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Background and Aims: Continuous wound infiltration (CWI) is emerging as an alternative to continuous epidural infusion (CEI). This study compared postoperative pain scores of CEI with CWI in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Methods: This prospective randomised controlled trial included 102 patients planned for TAH who were randomised into either Group E (CEI) or Group L (CWI). The catheter (epidural/wound infiltration) was inserted in Group E before induction) and Group L at the end of surgery. General anaesthesia was administered according to standard protocol. At the end of surgery, both groups received 10 mL bolus of 0.2% ropivacaine followed by infusion at 6 mL/h through the respective catheters. They also received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine. The primary outcome was the visual analogue score at rest (VASR) and at deep breathing (VASDB) post-operatively. Secondary outcomes were post-operative morphine consumption, side effects and patient satisfaction. Results: The mean VASR between two groups were comparable up to 8 h. Group E showed significantly reduced VASR compared to Group L at 12 h (2.32 ± 0.59 vs 2.62 ± 0.67, P = 0.019) and 24 h (2.30 ± 0.58 vs 2.62 ± 0.57, P = 0.006). Group E showed significantly reduced VASDB compared to Group L at 5 min and from 4 to 24 h. Total morphine consumption, side effects and patient satisfaction were comparable. Conclusion: We conclude that CEI is a superior analgesic technique compared to CWI in total abdominal hysterectomy in terms of reduced pain scores.
机译:背景与目的:持续伤口浸润(CWI)可以替代持续硬膜外输注(CEI)。这项研究比较了接受全腹子宫切除术(TAH)的患者的CEI与CWI的术后疼痛评分。方法:该前瞻性随机对照试验包括102位计划进行TAH的患者,这些患者被随机分为E组(CEI)或L组(CWI)。在手术结束时将导管(硬膜外/伤口浸润)插入E组和L组。根据标准方案进行全身麻醉。在手术结束时,两组均接受10 mL大剂量的0.2%罗哌卡因推注,然后通过各自的导管以6 mL / h的速度输注。他们还接受了患者使用吗啡的静脉内自控镇痛。主要结果是术后静息状态(VAS R )和深呼吸状态(VAS DB )的视觉模拟评分。次要结果是术后吗啡消耗,副作用和患者满意度。结果:两组之间的平均VAS R 长达8小时是可比的。与L组相比,E组在12 h(2.32±0.59 vs 2.62±0.67,P = 0.019)和24 h(2.30±0.58 vs 2.62±0.57,P = 0.006)时,VAS R 明显降低。与L组相比,E组在5分钟和4至24小时内的VAS DB 显着降低。吗啡的总消耗量,副作用和患者满意度是可比的。结论:我们得出的结论是,就减轻疼痛评分而言,CEI在全腹子宫切除术中是优于CWI的镇痛技术。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号