|
|
|
| Clinical application of ultrasound-guided sacral block in anorectal surgery |
| LI Min, HUANG Yiyong, LI Jing, Abulimiti·Tuerdi, MA Jun |
| Department of Anesthesiology, Urumqi Friendship Hospital, Urumqi 830049,China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To explore the clinical effect of ultrasound-guided sacral block in anorectal surgery. Methods Between January 2017 and March 2018, 208 patients were selected for anorectal surgery in our hospital. These patients were divided into the ultrasound group (104 cases) and traditional group (104 cases) by random allocation. The ultrasound group received ultrasound guided localization of sacral block anesthesia and in the traditional group, sacral block anesthesia was located by traditional anatomy. The puncture conditions (the duration of puncture, numbers of times of needles were adjusted, onset time and duration of analgesia), success rate of anesthesia, satisfaction rate of patients and postoperative complications were recorded respectively in the two groups. Results The number of times needle penetration was adjusted was (2.50±0.50 vs 5.00±1.00), the onset time of anesthesia (2.85±1.30 vs 4.88±0.92) and the duration of analgesia was (4.85±1.24 vs 7.86±2.12)min in the ultrasound group, lower than those in the traditional group ( P<0.05).The duration of puncture of the ultrasound group was significantly longer than that of the traditional group (12.82±3.50 vs 5.73±2.12). The percentage of anesthesia level Ⅰ in the ultrasound group (63.5% vs 43.3%) and success rate of anesthesia (94.2% vs 83.7%) were significantly higher than those of the traditional group (P<0.05). The percentage of ultrasonic anesthesia level Ⅲ in the ultrasound group was significantly lower than in the traditional group (1.0% vs 7.7%), P<0.05. The incidence of hematoma (9.6% vs19.2%), bleeding (7.7% vs 18.3%)and neuroinjection-related complications (2.9% vs 9.6%) in the ultrasound group was significantly lower than that in the traditional group. Conclusions Sacral block anesthesia guided by ultrasonography can be accurately positioned in anorectal surgery to improve the success rate of block, reduce complications and increase patient satisfaction, which is worthy of clinical application.
|
|
Received: 01 November 2018
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
梁 磊,蒋远斌.穴位注射脉络宁对肛肠手术患者术后镇痛及相关并发症影响的临床研究[J].中国中医急症,2018,27(8):1429-1431.
|
| [2] |
江 维,张虹玺,隋 楠,等. 中国城市居民常见肛肠疾病流行病学调查[J]. 中国公共卫生,2016,32(10):1293-1296.
|
| [3] |
张浩臣,王 丽. 最新中国肛肠疾病流行病学调查结果在京发布[J]. 中国医药导报,2015,22(27):169.
|
| [4] |
蓝英年,韦 惠,黄 霄,等.超声引导下神经阻滞的应用现状及研究进展[J].中国当代医药,2018,25(24):30-32.
|
| [5] |
邓婉欣.超声引导定位骶管阻滞麻醉与传统解剖定位骶管阻滞在肛瘘手术中的应用[J].中外医学研究,2018,16(18):11-13.
|
| [6] |
王云云,王振宜. 肛瘘手术镇痛机制及镇痛的研究进展 [J]. 河北医科大学学报,2017,38(3):367-369.
|
| [7] |
孙丽娜,赵军舰.老年腹股沟斜疝两种麻醉方式的效果比较[J].武警医学,2015,26(6):570-572.
|
| [8] |
黄贻勇,李 敏,马 军,等.超声引导下骶管阻滞麻醉的临床效果分析[J].世界最新医学信息文摘,2017,17(51):73-74.
|
| [9] |
Kao S C, Lin C S. Caudal epidural block: an updated review of anatomy and techniques[J]. Biomed Res Int,2017;2017:9217145.
|
| [10] |
Taicher B M, Routh J C, Eck J B,et al. The association between caudal anesthesia and increased risk of postoperative surgical complications in boys undergoing hypospadias repair[J]. Paediatr Anaesth,2017;27(7):688-694.
|
| [11] |
何金哲, 袁建虎, 杨茜芳.3681 例肛肠手术改良骶管阻滞的效果分析 [J].北京医学 ,2012,34(8):699-700.
|
| [12] |
王清兵,路 超. 不同麻醉方式对复杂性肛瘘手术及术后镇痛效果观察[J]. 成都医学院学报,2013,8(1):52-55.
|
| [13] |
何晨辉,解淑灿,王建光,等.传统盲法与超声引导骶管阻滞学习曲线的比较[J].中国疼痛医学杂志,2015,21(4):275-278.
|
| [14] |
杨文超,刘义超,黄华艳.超声引导椎旁联合低浓度骶管阻滞在泌尿系结石腔道手术中的效果分析[J].中国医学创新,2017,14(36):20-23.
|
| [15] |
Lee H J, Choi Y S, Koo B N,et al. Influence of caudal block on postoperative oliguria in infants undergoing bilateral ureteroneocystostomy: a retrospective analysis[J]. Paediatr Anaesth,2017,27(7):695-701.
|
| [1] |
. [J]. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2019, 30(9): 802-803. |
|
|
|
|
2019, Vol. 30 
