右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合对ICU 腹部外科术后机械通气患者镇静镇痛的效果比较

目的:探讨右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合在ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中的应用效果及对镇静、镇痛作用的影响。方法:选择2018年5月—2019年6月ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者62例,随机分为对照组(n=31例)和观察组(n=31例)。两组均采用芬太尼持续静脉泵入,对照组采用咪达唑仑镇静镇痛,观察组采用右美托咪啶镇静镇痛,比较两组镇痛镇静效果、镇静剂使用剂量、苏醒及达到镇静所需时间、血流动力学水平及安全性。结果:两组T2、T3时间点VAS评分分别为(2.40±0.31 vs 2.43±0.32和2.01±0.12 vs 2.05±0.15)、Ramsay量表评分分别(3.21±0.35 vs 3.20±0.33和3.01±0.25vs 3.00±0.24)均低于T1时间点(VAS评分2.94±0.69 vs 2.96±0.71;Ramsay量表评分3.57±0.61 vs 3.58±0.62)(P0.05);观察组右美托咪啶联合芬太尼镇痛镇静达到镇静所需时间(34.29±3.56) min长于对照组(23.63±3.21)(t=5.535,P=0.043);观察组镇静剂使用剂量(220.59±15.25)μg、苏醒时间(3.29±0.69)min均少(短)于对照组镇静剂使用剂量(386.44±18.92)μg、苏醒时间(7.56±1.21)min(t=6.294、6.092,P=0.023、0.025);两组T1、T2时间点心率[观察组T1(88.47±9.76)次/min、T2(86.41±9.43)次/min;对照组T1(89.53±10.41)次/min、T2(87.46±9.58)次/min]均高于T0时间点[观察组(78.78±4.35)次/min、对照组(79.12±4.41)次/min](P0.05);观察组T1、T2时间点MVP(79.58±5.71、87.53±6.76)mmHg高于对照组(74.12±4.69、75.26±5.61)mmHg(t=9.613、7.223,P=0.011、0.016);观察组的不良反应发生率为6.45%,与对照组的12.90%差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.214, P=0.643)。结论:将右美托咪啶联合芬太尼用于ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中能获得良好的镇痛、镇静效果,缩短苏醒及达到镇静所需时间,血流动力学相对稳定,药物安全性较高,值得推广应用。     

单孔加一孔联合ERAS在高位直肠及乙状结肠癌中的应用

目的 探讨单孔加一孔腹腔镜手术联合 ERAS 治疗高位直肠及乙状结肠癌的近期疗效。方法 回顾性分析 2017 年 11 月至2018 年 10 月在福建省肿瘤医院胃肠肿瘤外科进行加速康复外科干预的 92 例高位直肠及乙状结肠癌患者资料，根 据手术方式的不同，分为单孔加一孔手术联合快速康复外科组39 例及常规腹腔镜手术联合ERAS 组 53 例，对比两组围术 期情况。结果 两组患者基线资料无明显统计学差异（P ＞ 0.05），且在手术时间、出血量、上下切缘、清扫淋巴结数量及 并发症方面无明显统计学差异（P ＞ 0.05）。但单孔加一孔手术联合ERAS 组较常规手术联合ERAS 组，总切口长度更短 [（6.7±1.1）cm 比（8.5±1.3）cm，P=0.000]，术后首次下床时间更早 [（22.2±5.2）h 比（27.1±7.9）h，P=0.001]，首次排便 时间更早[（70.2±19.8）h比（83.1±20.4）h，P=0.005]，术后第一天C反应蛋白值更低[（43.5±28.6）mg/L比（57.2±33.2） mg/L，P=0.038]，术后住院时间更短 [（7.0±1.7）d 比（8.1±2.1）d，P=0.010]，且术后 2~4 天疼痛评分更低（P ＜ 0.05）。 结论 经验丰富的腔镜医师采用单孔加一孔手术治疗高位直肠及乙状结肠癌并联合 ERAS 干预是安全可行的，且单孔加一孔 手术可减低操作难度，具有疼痛轻、术后恢复快等优势，值得临床推广。     

The art of consent: visual materials help adult patients make informed choices about surgical care

Abstract

Supporting patients in making informed healthcare decisions is a cornerstone of ethical medical practice. Surgeons frequently draw for and show images to patients when consenting them for operations but the value of this practice in informed decision-making is unclear. An audit was conducted in a General Surgery Department. 244 patients completed questionnaires on the value of visual materials when giving consent for surgery. The complexity of the operations was classified into “simple”, “moderate” or “complex”. 100% of patients felt they had given informed consent to surgery. 62% of patients received at least one form of visual material during the consenting process. All patients who received a drawing, and 99% of those provided with other images, valued these resources. Visual materials were considered more useful to patients when giving consent for moderate or complex operations than simple ones. Approximately one third of patients who did not receive visual materials would have appreciated these when making an informed decision. This research highlights the value of surgeons drawing for, and providing other visual resources to, their patients as part of the consent process. There is a role for further research and training materials in drawing skills for surgeons.     

Endoscopic gastroplasty to treat medically uncontrolled obesity needs more quality data: A systematic review

Endoscopic gastroplasty (EG) has been used in clinical practice to treat obesity. This systematic review has the objective of assessing if there is an acceptable level of scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of EG. A thorough search strategy was used up to October 2018, including the 2 most common techniques: endoscopic suturing and the primary obesity surgery endolumenal procedure. The quality of the studies was evaluated through the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in Systematic Reviews—“Checklist for Case Series”—and summarized using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Only 1 randomized controlled trial (moderate GRADE evidence) was found, and the remaining were case reports or small case series (very low GRADE evidence). The literature has low scientific quality. All studies, with 1 exception, are small case series with short follow-up. One of the randomized controlled trials did not meet the primary endpoint for weight loss in both groups (EG × sham) after 1-year follow-up. The case series reported from 16% to 19% total weight loss, but few had more than 6 months of follow-up. Serious adverse events ranged from 2% to 10%. Based on current literature, there is not enough quality scientific evidence regarding long-term weight loss and the procedure’s safety to recommend the use of EG in current clinical practice.