机构地区:[1]南方医科大学附属南海医院麻醉科,广东省佛山市528000 [2]中南大学湘雅医院麻醉科
出 处:《中国医药》2012年第4期403-405,共3页China Medicine
摘 要:目的比较盐酸氯普鲁卡因和罗哌卡因分别联合舒芬太尼用于剖宫产术后硬膜外镇痛的效果及安全性,以期为盐酸普鲁卡因的临床安全合理用药提供依据。方法取美国麻醉师协会分级Ⅰ-Ⅱ级剖宫产手术患者60例,采用随机数字表法分为2组:研究组患者剖宫产术后,给予1.0%盐酸氯普鲁卡因+0.4mg/L舒芬太尼镇痛;对照组患者剖宫产术后,给予0.125%罗哌卡因+0.4mg/L舒芬太尼镇痛。采用双盲法进行不同时间点静态和动态视觉模拟评分(VAS)和下肢运动神经阻滞改良Bromage评分,并观察术后不同时间点患者平均动脉压(MAP)、HR变化及术后排气时间、药物不良反应等。结果研究组和对照组患者术后均可获得满意的镇痛效果,研究组患者剖宫产术后4、8、12、24、48h的静态VAS评分与对照组比较[4h:(2.9±0.4)分比(2.7±0.6)分,8h:(1.8±0.8)分比(1.8±0.9)分,12h:(1.8±0.5)分比(1.6±0.4)分,24h:(1.2±0.6)分比(1.1±0.6)分,48h:分(1.5±0.4)分比分(1.5±0.3)分],研究组患者动态VAS评分与对照组比较[4h:(3.9±1.1)分比(3.7±1.2)分,8h:(3.2±0.8)分比(3.3±0.9)分,12h:(2.8±0.5)分比(2.7±0.6)分,24h:(2.6±0.4)分比(2.5±0.6)分,48h:(2.0±0.7)分比(2.2±0.5)分],组间差异均无统计学意义(均P〉0.05)。研究组和对照组患者下肢运动神经改良Bromage评分均为0分(P〉0.05)。研究组和对照组患者不同时间点感觉阻滞平面值比较[4h:(7.9±0.8)分比(7.7±0.6)分,8h:(6.7±1.0)分比(6.8±0.9)分,12h:(6.7±0.8)分比(6.6±0.7)分,24h:(6.8±0.9)分比(6.74-0.8)分,48h:(6.6±0.7)分比(6.5±0.9)分],差异均无统计学意义(均P〉0.05)。�Objective To study the effects and safety of Chlorpromazine Hydrochloride(CP) or ropivacaine combined with sufentanil for patient controlled epidural analgesia( PCEA) during cesarean section. Methods Sixty patients(ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ )receiving cesarean section were randomly divided into two groups. Postcaesarean section patients with PCEA in group C were given mixture of 1.0% CP and 0.4 mg/L sufentanil. Postcaesarean section patients with PCEA in group R were given mixture of 0. 125% ropivacaine and 0. d mg/L sufentanil. The analgesia effects were evaluated by visual analogue scales (VAS) and Bromage scores. The analgesia effects were evaluated by visual analogue scales (VAS)and Bromage scores. Results The analgesia effects were recorded at 4,8,12,24 and 48 hours after caesarean section. There were no respectively significant differences of static VAS scores (4,8,12, 24,48 hours) between Group C and Group R [ (2. 9 ± 0. 4) scores vs (2.7 ± 0. 6) scores, ( 1.8 ± 0. 8 ) scores vs ( 1.8 ± 0. 9) scores, ( 1.8 ± 0. 5 ) scores vs ( 1.6 ± 0. 4) scores, ( 1.8 ± 0. 5 ) scores vs ( 1.6 ± 0.4) scores, ( 1.2 ± 0. 6 ) scores vs ( 1.1 ± 0.6) scores, ( 1.5 ± O. 4) scores vs ( 1.5 ± 0. $ ) scores, P 〉 0.05 ]. Dynamic VAS scores (4,8,12, 24,48hours) in group C was respectively similar to that in group R [ ( 3.9 ± 1.1 ) scores vs (3.7 ± 1.2) scores, (3. 2 ± 0. 8) scores vs (3.3 ± 0. 9) scores, (2. 8 ± 0. 5 ) scores vs (2. 7 ± 0. 6) scores, (2. 6 ± 0. 4) scores vs ( 2. 5 ± 0.6 ) scores, (2. 0 ± 0. 7) scores vs (2. 2 ± 0. 5 ) scores, P 〉 0.05 ]. No motor function block was reported in any group and the modified Bromage score.was zero. There were no respectively significant differences in sensory block levels (4,8,12, 24,48hours) between Group C and Group R [ (7. 9 ± 0. 8 ) scores vs (7. 7 ± 0. 6) scores, (6. 7 ± 1.0 ) scores vs (6. 8 ± 0. 9 ) scores, (6. 7 ±0. 8 ) scores
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...