...
首页> 外文期刊>Emergency medicine journal: EMJ >Percutaneous regional compared with local anaesthesia for facial lacerations: a randomised controlled trial.
【24h】

Percutaneous regional compared with local anaesthesia for facial lacerations: a randomised controlled trial.

机译:经皮局部麻醉与局部麻醉治疗面部撕裂伤的比较:一项随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

OBJECTIVE: Facial lacerations are usually repaired after local infiltration of an anaesthetic agent. Regional nerve blocks of the face offer several theoretical advantages over local infiltration. This study compared the pain of injection and anaesthetic efficacy of percutaneous regional and local anaesthesia for facial lacerations. STUDY DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of emergency department patients with facial lacerations requiring suturing in anatomical areas innervated by a regional nerve (supraorbital, infraorbital, or mental). INTERVENTIONS: Facial lacerations treated using standard wound care. Lacerations were randomised to local or regional infiltration of lidocaine (lignocaine) 1% with adrenaline (epinephrine) 1:100 000 using a number 27 needle. OUTCOMES: Pain of injection on 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and need for rescue anaesthetic infiltration before suturing. DATA ANALYSIS: Group comparisons were with Student's t test and chi(2) test. This study had 80% power to detect a 20 mm difference in pain of injection (two tailed, alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: 36 patients were randomised to local (18) and regional (18) anaesthesia. Mean (SD) age was 20 (14); 19% were female. Groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Patients in the regional anaesthesia group experienced more pain during infiltration than patients in the local anaesthesia group (42.4 mm v 24.8 mm, mean difference 17.6 mm (95% CI 0.3 to 35.6 mm) and were more likely to require additional infiltration of a local anaesthetic (28% v 0%, (95% CI 6% to 50%)) than patients in the local anaesthetic group. CONCLUSIONS: Local infiltration of anaesthetics for facial lacerations is less painful and results in more effective anaesthesia than percutaneous regional infiltration.
机译:目的:通常在麻醉剂局部浸润后修复面部撕裂伤。与局部浸润相比,面部局部神经阻滞具有一些理论优势。这项研究比较了注射痛和经皮局部和局部麻醉对面部裂伤的麻醉效果。研究设计:随机临床试验。参与者:需要在局部神经支配的解剖区域(眶上,眶下或精神)进行缝合的面部撕裂伤急诊患者的便利性样本。干预措施:使用标准伤口护理治疗面部撕裂伤。使用27号针,以1:100 000的肾上腺素(肾上腺素)将裂隙随机分为1%的利多卡因(利多卡因)局部或区域浸润。结果:注射疼痛达到100毫米视觉模拟评分(VAS),需要在缝合前进行麻醉药的浸润。数据分析:组比较采用学生t检验和chi(2)检验。这项研究具有80%的功效,可检测出20毫米的注射疼痛差异(两条尾巴,α= 0.05)。结果:36例患者被随机分为局部麻醉(18)和区域麻醉(18)。平均(SD)年龄为20(14); 19%是女性。各组的基线特征相似。局部麻醉组的患者比局部麻醉组的患者(42.4 mm v 24.8 mm,平均差17.6 mm(95%CI 0.3至35.6 mm))在浸润过程中遭受的疼痛更大,并且更有可能需要局部麻醉药的进一步浸润(28%vs 0%,(95%CI 6%至50%))高于局部麻醉组的患者。结论:局部浸润麻醉可减轻面部裂伤,并且比经皮局部浸润麻醉更有效。

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