孫征 張成明 李秀華
超聲引導(dǎo)髂筋膜間隙阻滯在老年患者全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)中的應(yīng)用
孫征 張成明 李秀華
目的 觀察超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯對老年患者全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)術(shù)中血流動力學(xué)及術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的影響。 方法 選擇行擇期全麻下全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)的老年患者48例,隨機(jī)分為髂筋膜間隙阻滯組(Y組,n=24)和未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組(N組,n=24)。Y組于術(shù)前15 min行0.4%羅哌卡因髂筋膜間隙注射。2組于手術(shù)結(jié)束前10 min開始采用2 μg/kg的舒芬太尼行經(jīng)靜脈患者自控鎮(zhèn)痛(PCA),N組予背景劑量2 ml/h,Y組予背景劑量0,2組均為PCA 2 ml,鎖定時間5 min,最大劑量5 μg/h。Y組自第1次PCA后改背景劑量至2 ml/h。記錄切皮時至切皮后3 min內(nèi)、拔管時至拔管后3 min內(nèi)收縮壓(SBP)>140 mmHg,心率(HR)>90次/min的例數(shù),進(jìn)行術(shù)后6、12、24 h靜態(tài)疼痛視覺模擬評分(VAS),記錄術(shù)后PCA按壓次數(shù)及2組患者惡心嘔吐的發(fā)生率。 結(jié)果 Y組患者切皮時至切皮后3 min內(nèi)SBP>140 mmHg,HR>90次/min的例數(shù)明顯少于N組(P<0.05);術(shù)中舒芬太尼的追加量明顯小于N組(P<0.05);術(shù)后6、12 h評估靜態(tài)VAS評分低于N組(P<0.05);術(shù)后PCA的按壓次數(shù)低于N組(P<0.05);術(shù)后惡心嘔吐發(fā)生率低于N組(P<0.05)。 結(jié)論 超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯能明顯降低老年全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者術(shù)中及術(shù)后阿片類藥物的使用量,且術(shù)中血流動力學(xué)平穩(wěn),術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛效果好,不良反應(yīng)少。
髂筋膜;超聲引導(dǎo);髖關(guān)節(jié)置換;鎮(zhèn)痛;老年人
髂筋膜間隙阻滯可同時阻滯股神經(jīng)、股外側(cè)皮神經(jīng)和閉孔神經(jīng),因其操作簡單,幾乎無不良反應(yīng)發(fā)生,國外許多醫(yī)院已要求將其作為急診髖關(guān)節(jié)及股骨處損傷患者入院后的首要鎮(zhèn)痛處理[1?3]。全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)的患者多為中老年患者[4],選擇不良反應(yīng)少、有利于患者康復(fù)的麻醉技術(shù)尤為重要。超聲引導(dǎo)下髂筋膜間隙阻滯可辨別闊筋膜和髂筋膜,在直視下看見針的行走路徑,并可清楚觀察到藥液的擴(kuò)散,阻滯成功率高,可緩解髖關(guān)節(jié)骨折患者手術(shù)切口區(qū)域的疼痛[5]。本研究擬觀察老年全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者術(shù)前超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯術(shù)中血流動力學(xué)的穩(wěn)定性及術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的效果。
1.1 研究對象 選擇擇期行單側(cè)髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者48例,美國麻醉醫(yī)師協(xié)會分級(ASA)Ⅰ~Ⅱ級,年齡60~76歲,平均(67±12)歲。隨機(jī)分為髂筋膜間隙阻滯組(Y組)和未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組(N組),每組24例。本研究已獲濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬醫(yī)院倫理委員會批準(zhǔn),并與患者或其授權(quán)委托人簽署了知情同意書。
1.2 研究方法 超聲引導(dǎo)下髂筋膜間隙阻滯方法:病人取仰臥位,將超聲探頭(HFL 38×/13?6MHz,SonoSite公司,美國)沿腹股溝皺褶處放置,以平面內(nèi)技術(shù)進(jìn)針,穿刺點(diǎn)位于髂前上棘和恥骨結(jié)節(jié)連線中外1/3交界點(diǎn)向尾側(cè)2 cm處,給予2~5 ml的生理鹽水觀察液體擴(kuò)散情況,若液體沿著間隙擴(kuò)散說明定位準(zhǔn)確,注入0.4%的羅哌卡因(體質(zhì)量>70 kg予40 ml;體質(zhì)量50~70 kg予35 ml;體質(zhì)量<50 kg予30 ml)。Y組于術(shù)前15 min行髂筋膜間隙注射0.4%的羅哌卡因。手術(shù)開始前2組患者均行全麻誘導(dǎo)氣管插管,靜脈給藥咪達(dá)唑侖0.03 mg/kg,舒芬太尼0.3 μg/kg,丙泊酚2 mg/kg和羅庫溴銨0.6 mg/kg。氣管插管后行機(jī)械通氣,維持呼氣末二氧化碳分壓(PetCO2)30~35 mmHg。切皮前3 min追加5 μg舒芬太尼,術(shù)中酌情追加舒芬太尼5 μg和羅庫溴銨10 mg。2組均于手術(shù)結(jié)束前10 min靜脈接鎮(zhèn)痛泵,N組:背景劑量2 ml/h,沖擊量2 ml,鎖定時間5 min,最大劑量5 μg/h;Y組:背景劑量0 ml/h,沖擊量2 ml,鎖定時間5 min,最大劑量5 μg/h,自第1次自控鎮(zhèn)痛(PCA)后重新設(shè)置背景劑量為2 ml/h。2組藥液配置為2 μg/kg舒芬太尼+生理鹽水至100 ml。患者拔管后安全返回病房。記錄切皮時至切皮后3 min收縮壓(SBP)>140 mmHg,心率(HR)>90次/min的例數(shù),術(shù)中追加舒芬太尼1次、2次和≥3次的例數(shù)(每次追加量為0.1 μg/kg),術(shù)中舒芬太尼用量,手術(shù)時間、術(shù)后6、12、24 h評估靜態(tài)疼痛視覺模擬評分(VAS)(0為無痛,10分為最痛),PCA 1次、2次和≥3次的例數(shù)以及術(shù)后惡心嘔吐的發(fā)生率。
1.3 統(tǒng)計學(xué)方法 采用SPSS 17.0統(tǒng)計學(xué)軟件進(jìn)行分析,正態(tài)分布的計量資料以均數(shù)±標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差(ˉx±s)表示,組間比較采用成組t檢驗;偏態(tài)分布的計量資料以中位數(shù)[M(Q)]表示,組間比較采用秩和檢驗。等級資料比較采用秩和檢驗。計數(shù)資料比較采用χ2檢驗,P<0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。
2.1 2組患者的一般資料情況 2組患者年齡、性別、體質(zhì)量指數(shù)(BMI)等一般資料比較無統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異(P>0.05)。見表1。
表1 2組一般資料及手術(shù)時間比較(n=24)
2.2 2組患者術(shù)中SBP>140 mmHg、HR>90次/min、舒芬太尼追加的次數(shù)比較 與N組相比,Y組切皮時至切皮后3 min內(nèi)SBP>140 mmHg和HR>90次/min的例數(shù)明顯減少(P<0.05)。拔管時至拔管后3 min內(nèi)SBP>140 mmHg和HR>90次/min的例數(shù)2組間無統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異(P>0.05)。Y組術(shù)中舒芬太尼追加的次數(shù)及總量較N組明顯降低(P<0.05)。見表2。
2.3 2組患者術(shù)后靜態(tài)VAS評分、PCA按壓次數(shù)及惡心嘔吐發(fā)生例數(shù)的比較 術(shù)后6、12 h靜態(tài)VAS評分,Y組低于N組(P<0.05);2組患者術(shù)后24 h靜態(tài)疼痛VAS評分差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P>0.05);Y組術(shù)后PCA按壓次數(shù)明顯低于N組(P<0.05);2組患者術(shù)后惡心嘔吐發(fā)生率Y組低于N組(P<0.05)。見表3。
探討老年全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者的多模式術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛已成為臨床醫(yī)生共同關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn),安全有效地實(shí)施多模式鎮(zhèn)痛,可降低阿片類藥物的使用量,減少其不良反應(yīng)[6]。周圍神經(jīng)阻滯(包括髂筋膜間隙阻滯)已成為多模式鎮(zhèn)痛的方式之一[7],本研究采用超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯用于老年全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者,可有效阻滯股神經(jīng)、股外側(cè)皮神經(jīng)及閉孔神經(jīng),阻滯成功率高,并發(fā)癥少。
表2 2組患者術(shù)中SBP>140 mmHg、HR>90次/min、舒芬太尼追加的次數(shù)比較(n,n=24)
表3 2組患者術(shù)后靜態(tài)VAS評分、PCA按壓次數(shù)及惡心嘔吐發(fā)生例數(shù)的比較(n,n=24)
本研究所有患者術(shù)中均行有創(chuàng)動脈血壓監(jiān)測。與髂筋膜間隙阻滯組比較,未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組患者術(shù)中SBP、HR在切皮后及拔管時有較大的波動,前者血流動力學(xué)較穩(wěn)定。為避免切皮刺激下血流動力學(xué)的劇烈波動,切皮前3 min常規(guī)追加5 μg的舒芬太尼,髂筋膜間隙阻滯組的血壓在切皮時至切皮后3 min內(nèi)平穩(wěn),有2例患者血壓未升高反而有所下降,可能與髂筋膜下局麻藥的擴(kuò)散復(fù)合切皮前3 min舒芬太尼的使用有關(guān),有效抑制了手術(shù)切口區(qū)的疼痛刺激。2組患者在拔管時間段SBP、HR變化比較無差異,這與整個手術(shù)過程中根據(jù)血流動力學(xué)的情況,追加舒芬太尼的量有關(guān)。髂筋膜間隙阻滯組舒芬太尼追加量明顯低于未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組,且追加的次數(shù)前者也低于后者,說明術(shù)前行單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯有利于術(shù)中麻醉管理,明顯減少術(shù)中阿片類藥物的使用量,顯示了周圍神經(jīng)阻滯的優(yōu)點(diǎn)。
Fujihara等[2]研究表明在近端股骨頸骨折的患者在行髂筋膜間隙阻滯后10 min與手術(shù)后該間隙阻滯12 h比較,雖然后者的疼痛評分有所增加,但兩者比較無顯著差異,說明髂筋膜間隙阻滯能維持較長時間的鎮(zhèn)痛作用。本研究的結(jié)果與文獻(xiàn)報道相一致,研究表明在術(shù)后6、12 h評估患者的靜態(tài)VAS評分,2組間有差異,但評分均<4分,這與未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組PCA的按壓次數(shù)多有關(guān),也可說明髂筋膜間隙阻滯組的鎮(zhèn)痛效果好,維持時間長;術(shù)后24 h評估患者的靜態(tài)VAS評分,2組無統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異(P>0.05),隨著時間的延長局麻藥逐漸代謝,2組患者的鎮(zhèn)痛效果趨于一致。髂筋膜間隙阻滯組術(shù)后PCA的按壓次數(shù)明顯少于未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組,未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組75%的患者按壓PCA次數(shù)≥3次,而髂筋膜間隙阻滯組只有4%的患者,進(jìn)一步說明髂筋膜下0.4%羅哌卡因的擴(kuò)散在術(shù)后維持了較長時間的鎮(zhèn)痛作用,可有效緩解全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者的術(shù)后疼痛[8];髂筋膜間隙阻滯組惡心嘔吐的發(fā)生率低于未行髂筋膜間隙阻滯組,與髂筋膜間隙阻滯組鎮(zhèn)痛泵的按壓次數(shù)及舒芬太尼使用總量較少有關(guān),表明全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)患者髂筋膜間隙阻滯鎮(zhèn)痛可減少阿片類藥物的不良反應(yīng),增加圍術(shù)期病人的安全性[9]。
本研究過程中髂筋膜間隙阻滯使用的是超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙給藥方法,傳統(tǒng)的髂筋膜間隙阻滯依靠兩次突破感作為阻滯成功的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),雖然簡單易學(xué)但存在一定的失敗率[10]。超聲引導(dǎo)下行此技術(shù)具有可視性,可清楚看到藥液的擴(kuò)散,保證了該組患者髂筋膜間隙阻滯效果的可靠性。本研究中髂筋膜間隙阻滯組所有患者行超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙給藥方法均效果確切,術(shù)后6 h內(nèi)均未見患者按壓PCA,表明均成功阻滯,與超聲引導(dǎo)提高穿刺準(zhǔn)確率有關(guān)[11]。
結(jié)合本研究,我們認(rèn)為超聲引導(dǎo)下單次髂筋膜間隙阻滯是一項安全、有效、經(jīng)濟(jì)的區(qū)域阻滯技術(shù),應(yīng)用于老年患者全髖關(guān)節(jié)置換術(shù)可維持術(shù)中血流動力學(xué)平穩(wěn),減少圍術(shù)期阿片類藥物使用量,術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛效果好,維持時間長,不良反應(yīng)少。
[1] Rashid A,Beswick E,Galitzine S,et al.Regional analgesia in the emergency department for hip fractures:survey of cur?rent UK practice and its impact on services in a teaching hospital[J].Emerg Med J,2014,31(11):909?913.
[2] Fujihara Y,F(xiàn)ukunishi S,Nishio S,et al.Fascia iliaca com?partment block:its efficacy in pain control for patients with proximal femoral fracture[J].J Orthop Sci,2013,18(5):793?797.
[3] Haslam L,Lansdown A,Lee J,et al.Survey of current practices:peripheralnerveblockutilizationbyED physicians for treatment of pain in the hip fracture patient population[J].Can Geriatr J,2013,16(1):16?21.
[4] Seagroatt V,Tan HS,Goldacre M,et al.Elective total hip replacement:incidence,emergency readmission rate,and postoperative mortality[J].BMJ,1991,303(6815):1431?1435.
[5] Haines L,Dickman E,Ayvazyan S,et al.Ultrasound?guided fascia iliaca compartment block for hip fractures in the emergency department[J].J Emerg Med,2012,43(4):692?697.
[6] Barrington JW,Dalury DF,Emerson RH,et al.Improving patient outcomes through advanced pain management tech?niques in total hip and knee arthroplasty[J].Am J Orthop,2013,42(10 Suppl):S1?S20.
[7] Mejía?Terrazas GE,Pe?a?Riveron A,Unzueta?Navarro D. Postoperative analgesia in joint replacement surgery[J]. Acta Ortop Mex,2013,27(4):273?278.
[8] 王庚,王曉林,李世忠.髂筋膜間隙阻滯用于小兒發(fā)育性髖脫位術(shù)后的早期鎮(zhèn)痛[J].中華醫(yī)學(xué)雜志,2011,91(37):2638?2640.
[9] Kearns RJ,Macfarlane AJ,Anderson KJ,et al.Intrathecal opioid versus ultrasound guided fascia iliaca plane block for analgesia after primary hip arthroplasty:study protocol for a randomized,blinded,noninferiority controlled trial[J].Tri?als,2011,12:51.
[10]Elkhodair S,Mortazavi J,Chester A,et al.Single fascia iliaca compartment block for pain relief in patients with frac?tured neck of femur in the emergency department:a pilot study[J].Eur J Emerg Med,2011,18(6):340?343.
[11]Dolan J,Williams A,Murney E,et al.Ultrasound guided fascia iliaca block:a comparison with the loss of resistance technique[J].Regional Anesth Pain Med,2008,33(6):526?531.
Efficacy of ultrasound?guided fascia iliaca compartment block in elderly patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery
SUN Zheng.
Department of Pathology,Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University,Weifang 261031,China;ZHANG Cheng?ming,LI Xiu?hua.Department of Anesthesiology,Weifang Medical University,Weifang 261053,China
Objective To observe the efficacy of ultrasound?guided fascia iliaca compartment block on pain control during or after total hip replacement surgery in the elderly patients. Methods Forty?eight elderly patients(ASAⅠ?Ⅱ)undergoing total hip replacement surgery with general anesthesia were selected.They were randomly di?vided into two groups with 24 patients in each group.The patients receiving fascia iliaca block were enrolled in group Y and the patients not receiving fascia iliaca block were enrolled in group N.Ropivacaine 0.4%was injected into fascia iliaca compartment guided by ultrasound 15 minutes before the surgery in group Y.Ten minutes before the end of operation,all patients of two groups received patient controlled analgesia(PCA)by intravenous infusion of sucfentanil 2 μg/kg,with a base dose of 2 ml/h in group N and 0 in group Y.Locked time was 5 min,and maximal dose was 5 μg/h in the two groups.The number of the patients with SBP>140 mmHg and HR>90 bpm during the period from skin incision to 3 min after incision and from tube drawing to 3 min after tube drawing,the dosage of sulfentanil during the operation,the VAS scores at the time of 6,12,24 h after operation at rest,the frequency of pressing the PCA but?ton after the operation and the incidence of nausea and vomiting were recorded. Results Compared with group N,the numbers of the patients with SBP>140 mmHg and HR>90 bpm were obviously reduced in group Y(P<0.05). The VAS scores in group Y was lower than that of group N at the time of 6,12 h after operation(P<0.05).The fre?quency of pressing the PCA button in group Y was lower than that in group N(P<0.05).The incidence rate of nausea and vomiting in group Y was lower than that in group N(P<0.05). Conclusions The ultrasound?guided fascia ilia?ca compartment block can obviously reduce the dosage of sulfentanil during and after the operation and maintain the stability of hemodynamics during the operation for the elderly patients.It has effective analgesia after the operation and seldom adverse reaction.
fascia iliaca;ultrasound?guided;hip re?placement;analgesia;aged
R 614;R 687.4
A
10.3969/j.issn.1003?9198.2015.03.018
2014?05?23)
261031山東省濰坊市,濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬醫(yī)院病理科(孫征);261053山東省濰坊市,濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院麻醉學(xué)系(張成明,李秀華)
李秀華,Email:life9708lxh@126.com