|
|
|
| Analgesic efficacy of different continuous axillary brachial plexus block after elbow stiffness |
| LI Yujin, ZHANG Dazhi, and WANG Huaijiang |
| Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Jishuitan Hospital, Beijing 100035, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective To compare the analgesic efficacy of different continuous auxillary brachial plexus block after elbow stiffness.Methods Ninety patients were randomly and equally allocated into three groups: U group(ultrasound-guided alone), N group( nerve stimulator-guided) and NU group(nerve stimulator-guided and ultrasound-guided). The catheter was placed around radial nerves, respectively. The time taken to place the catheter and injury to blood vessels were recorded, respectively. The numerical rating scale scores(NRS) were assessed at rest and during passive mobilization at 24 h , 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively. The number of times the sufentanil PCA button was pressed was recorded at 72 h,postoperatively and the occurrence of such adverse reactions as nausea, vomiting, itching and respiratory depression was observed.Results The time it took to place the catheter in the N group(5.2±1.6)min was significantly longer than that of U group(3.2±0.5)min and NU group(3.6±1.2)min (P<0.05). The difference of NRS scores was not significant between the three groups at rest or during passive mobilization at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after operation. There were seven cases of injury to blood vessels in the N group, but there was none in the U group or NU group (P<0.05). The sufentanil PCA button was pressed more often in the N group than in the other two groups(P<0.05).Conclusions The postoperative analgesia effect of the ultrasound guided approach is better than that of the nerve stimulator. Placing the catheter around radial nerves guided by ultrasound can prevent injury to blood vessels.
|
|
Received: 15 December 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
闵红巍,刘克敏. 继发性肩关节僵硬的诊断与治疗进展[J]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版),2014,8(3):388-390.
|
| [2] |
查晔军,蒋协远,王满宜. 肘关节松解术时两种手术切口的比较[J].中华创伤骨科杂志,2010,12(6):46-51.
|
| [3] |
Mcgrath B, Elgendy H, Chung F, et al. Thiety percent of patients have moderate to severe pain 24 hr after ambulatory surgery: a survey of 5703 patients[J]. Can J Anaesth,2004,51(9):886-891.
|
| [4] |
Abrahams M S, Aziz M F, Fu R F et al. Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Br J Anaesth ,2009, 102(3): 408-417.
|
| [5] |
Casati A, Danelli G, Baciarello M, et al. A prospective, randomized comparison between ultrasound and nerve stimulation guidance for multiple injection axillary brachial plexus block[J]. Casati ,2007,106(5):992-996.
|
| [6] |
Liu F C, Liou J T, Tsai Y F, et al. Efficacy of ultrasound-guided axillary brachial plexus block: a comparative study with nerve stimulator-guided method[J]. Chang Gung Med J ,2005,28(6): 396-402.
|
| [7] |
王 华, 李少华. 肘关节僵硬治疗进展[J]. 医学综述, 2016,22(23):4660-4663.
|
| [8] |
夏 峰,王众林,朱敏娟,等. 手外伤术后连续臂丛镇痛与静脉镇痛的比较[J]. 医师进修杂志,2004,27(增刊):28-29.
|
| [9] |
安丽娜,岳 扬,李占军,等. 地佐辛联合罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞的麻醉效果[J]. 武警医学, 2014,25(8):780-781.
|
| [10] |
张大志,王 庚,王晓琳,等. 神经刺激器提高超声引导下腋路臂丛神经阻滞成功率[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志2014,30(2):160-162.
|
| [11] |
张大志,王怀江,张文杰. 超声引导下双侧腋路臂丛阻滞的临床效果[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2015,31(11):1048-1050.
|
| [12] |
Abrahams M S, Aziz M F, Fu R F, et al. Ultrasound guidance compared with electrical neurostimulation for peripheral nerve block: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Br J Anaesth,2009,102(3):408-417.
|
| [13] |
Ang T L, Kwek A B, Seo D W, et al. A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses[J]. Endosc Int Open,2015,3(4):E329-333.
|
| [1] |
. [J]. Med. J. Chin. Peop. Armed Poli. Forc., 2021, 32(8): 718-720. |
|
|
|
|
2017, Vol. 28 
