首页> 外文期刊>Pakistan journal of medical sciences. >Clinical comparison of propofol-remifentanil TCI with sevoflurane induction/maintenance anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy
【24h】

Clinical comparison of propofol-remifentanil TCI with sevoflurane induction/maintenance anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

机译:丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼TCI与七氟醚诱导/维持麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的临床比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: We aimed to compare the anesthetic characteristics between total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using propofol-remifentanil with target control infusion (TCI) and volatile induction and maintenance anesthesia (VIMA) using sevoflurane and sufentanyl for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods: A total of 120 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly assigned to two groups. Patients in group T received TCI of propofol-remifentanil for induction and maintenance. Patients in group S received sevoflurane-sufentanyl for induction and maintenance.Results: Patients in group S had a significantly faster induction time than patients in group T (109s vs.44s). The emergence time in terms of time to extubation was comparable between the two groups, while the time to eyes opening (419s vs.483s, p=0.006) and duration in PACU were longer in group S (44 min vs.53 min, p=0.017). Ten (17.2%) patients in group S were administered an antihypertensive drug when gallbladder issues were present, while only 1(1.7%) patient needed this drug in group T (p=0.004).More patients in group T than in group S received fentanyl for analgesia in PACU (88%vs.70%, p=0.013). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in PACU was higher in group S than in group T (20% vs.38%, p=0.027).Conclusion: Both techniques had advantages and disadvantages in laparoscopic cholecystectomy; none of the techniques studied was superior.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5196How to cite this:Deng X, Zhu T. Clinical comparison of propofol-remifentanil TCI with sevoflurane induction/maintenance anesthesia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pak J Med Sci 2014;30(5):1017-1021. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5196This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
机译:目的:比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者使用丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼联合靶控输注(TCI)进行全静脉麻醉(TIVA)和使用七氟醚和舒芬太尼进行挥发性诱导和维持麻醉(VIMA)的麻醉特性。将120例行腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者随机分为两组。 T组患者接受丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼的TCI诱导和维持。结果:S组患者的诱导时间明显快于T组(109s vs.44s)。两组拔管时间的出现时间相当,而S组PACU的睁眼时间(419s vs.483s,p = 0.006)和持续时间更长(44分钟vs.53分钟,p = 0.017)。当出现胆囊问题时,S组中的十名患者(17.2%)被给予了降压药,而T组中只有1(1.7%)的患者需要这种药物(p = 0.004).T组中的患者比S组中的患者多芬太尼用于PACU镇痛(88%vs.70%,p = 0.013)。 S组PACU术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的发生率高于T组(20%vs.38%,p = 0.027)。结论:两种技术在腹腔镜胆囊切除术中各有利弊。所研究的技术均未达到最佳。doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5196如何引用这一点:邓X,朱婷。腹腔镜胆囊切除术。 Pak J Med Sci 2014; 30(5):1017-1021。 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.305.5196这是根据知识共享署名许可(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)的条款分发的开放获取文章,允许在任何媒体中无限制地使用,分发和复制,但要正确引用原始作品。

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