...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Anesthesiology >Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial
【24h】

Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial

机译:鞘内吗啡与连续患者控制硬膜外麻醉与单独剖腹产骨髓切片镇痛的鞘内吗啡的比较:随机对照试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. However, little is known whether adding PCEA to IM is effective or not. The aim of this study was to compare post-cesarean section analgesia between IM with PCEA and IM alone. Fifty patients undergoing elective cesarean section were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: IM group and IM?+?PCEA group. All patients received spinal anesthesia with 12?mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10?μg of fentanyl, and 150?μg of morphine. Patients in IM?+?PCEA group received epidural catheterization through Th11–12 or Th12-L1 before spinal anesthesia and PCEA (basal 0.167% levobupivacaine infusion rate of 6?mL/h, bolus dose of 3?mL in lockout interval of 30?min) was commenced at the end of surgery. A numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and on movement at 4,8,12,24,48?h after the intrathecal administration of morphine were recorded. In addition, we recorded the incidence of delayed ambulation and the number of patients who requested rescue analgesics. We examined NRS using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test following repeated measures analysis of variance; p??0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Twenty-three patients in each group were finally analyzed. Mean NRS at rest was significantly higher in IM group than in IM?+?PCEA group at 4 (2.7 vs 0.6), 8 (2.2 vs 0.6), and 12?h (2.5 vs 0.7), and NRS during mobilization was significantly higher in IM group than in IM?+?PCEA group at 4 (4.9 vs 1.5), 8 (4.8 vs 1.9), 12 (4.9 vs 2), and 24?h (5.7 vs 3.5). The number of patients who required rescue analgesics during the first 24?h was significantly higher in IM group compared to IM?+?PCEA group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in incidence of delayed ambulation. The combined use of PCEA with IM provided better post-cesarean section analgesia compared to IM alone. UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000032475). Registered 6 May 2018 – Retrospectively registered.
机译:几种神经技术已经证明了剖腹产后镇痛的有效。根据之前的报道,可能没有阿片类药物的患者控制的硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)差不多单独用于剖腹产段镇痛的鞘内吗啡(IM)。但是,很少知道是否将PCEA添加到IM是有效的。本研究的目的是将CESAREAN段镇痛与PCEA和IM单独进行比较。在这项前瞻性随机研究中注册了接受选修剖宫产的五十名患者。患者随机分为两组:IM组和IM?+?PCEA组。所有患者均接受脊髓麻醉,12μgmg为0.5%高压布卡纳酸,10〜μg芬太尼,150μg吗啡。患者在IM?+?PCEA组通过脊髓麻醉和PCEA之前通过TH11-12或TH12-L1接收硬膜外导管插管(基础0.167%左旋蛋白输注6?ml / h,锁定间隔为30的锁定间隔为3?ml分钟)在手术结束时开始。记录了在鞘内给予吗啡的鞘内施用后休息的数值评定量表(NRS)和在4,8,12,24,48℃下的运动。此外,我们录制了延迟动手的发病率和要求救援镇痛药的患者的数量。我们使用Bonferroni的多个比较测试检查了NRS,在重复措施的方差分析之后; p?<?0.05被认为是统计学意义。最终分析了每组二十三名患者。 IM组的静止的平均值显着高于IM?+?PCEA组在4(2.7 Vs 0.6),8(2.2 Vs 0.6)和12?H(2.5 Vs 0.7),并且动员期间NRS显着提高在IM组中比IM?+?PCEA组在4(4.9 Vs 1.5),8(4.8 Vs 1.9),12(4.9 Vs 2)和24?H(5.7 Vs 3.5)。与IM + + PCEA组相比,IM组在前24〜H期间需要救援镇痛药的患者的数量显着高。在延迟借调的延迟行动的群体之间没有显着差异。与IM单独相比,PCEA与IM的结合使用提供了更好的后剖宫产镇痛。 UMIN-CTR(注册号UMIN000032475)。 2018年5月6日注册 - 回顾性注册。

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