首页> 外文期刊>Spine >Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lumbar spinal fusion.
【24h】

Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with patient-controlled epidural analgesia after lumbar spinal fusion.

机译:前瞻性随机临床试验比较了腰椎融合术后患者控制的静脉镇痛与患者控制的硬膜外镇痛。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with that of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in terms of overall patient satisfaction with postoperative pain management after lumbar spine fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In numerous surgical disciplines, PCEA and PCA have proved to be effective methods of postoperative pain control. The literature states that with PCEA, less opioid use is required during the immediate postoperative period to maintain equivalent pain control compared to PCA. Continuous epidural infusion has been assessed in spine fusion patients, but PCEA has not been evaluated. Furthermore, this is the first prospective randomized clinical trial to assess overall patient satisfaction while stratifying patients for both anxiety level and preoperative opioid use. METHODS: For this study, 74 patients were assigned randomly to one of two treatment groups, with PCA and PCEA administered in a double-blind manner for a 3-day postoperative course. All the patients received both PCA and PCEA delivery systems. Assessment was by a blinded, independent observer. Overall patient satisfaction with pain management was assessed by a visual analog scale at the end of postoperative day 3. Secondary measures included: three scales from the Functional Independence Measure instrument; opioid quantity; side effects; and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were randomized to PCA, and 36 were randomized to PCEA. No baseline variable differences between the groups were observed. The results showed no difference between the groups on the following measures: overall patient satisfaction with pain management, ambulation, and length of stay. The PCA patients used significantly more opioid than the PCEA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Both postoperative analgesic regimens provided good overall patient satisfaction. The only clinical advantage of PCEA over PCA for spine fusion patients was the lower amount of opioid consumed, although the PCEA group experienced significantly more side effects than the PCA group. There were no other significant differences. Therefore, patient or physician preference could select either postoperative pain management delivery system.
机译:研究设计:进行了一项前瞻性,随机,双盲临床试验。目的:比较患者自控镇痛(PCA)和患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)在腰椎融合术后患者对术后疼痛管理的总体满意度方面的疗效。背景数据摘要:在许多外科学科中,PCEA和PCA已被证明是控制术后疼痛的有效方法。文献指出,与PCA相比,使用PCEA可以在术后即刻减少阿片类药物的使用以维持等效的疼痛控制。脊柱融合患者已评估了连续硬膜外输注,但尚未评估PCEA。此外,这是第一个评估总体患者满意度,同时对患者的焦虑程度和术前使用阿片类药物进行分层的前瞻性随机临床试验。方法:对于本研究,将74例患者随机分配至两个治疗组之一,以双盲方式给予PCA和PCEA,为期3天。所有患者均接受了PCA和PCEA输送系统。评估由盲人,独立观察员进行。术后第3天结束时,通过视觉模拟量表评估患者对疼痛管理的总体满意度。次要措施包括:功能独立性测量仪中的三个量表;阿片类药物量副作用;和住院时间。结果:38例患者被随机分为PCA,36例被随机分为PCEA。两组之间未观察到基线变量差异。结果显示,在以下指标上两组之间没有差异:总体患者对疼痛管理,行走能力和住院时间的满意度。 PCA患者使用的阿片类药物明显多于PCEA患者。结论:两种术后镇痛方案均提供了良好的总体患者满意度。对于脊柱融合患者,PCEA优于PCA的唯一临床优势是阿片类药物的消耗量较低,尽管PCEA组比PCA组经历了更多的副作用。没有其他显着差异。因此,患者或医生的偏爱可以选择术后疼痛管理递送系统。

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