氯普鲁卡因腰麻或腰-硬联合麻醉的临床研究

目的 探讨国产氯普鲁卡因用于腰麻或腰一硬联合麻醉的效果和安全性.方法 回顾性分析10 000例下腹部以下手术患者采用国产氯普鲁卡因冻干粉(生理盐水稀释成2.5%或3%溶液)腰麻或腰-硬联合麻醉.结果 腰麻平均起效时间24 s,平面固定时间7.7 min.最高阻滞平面平均为T_5.下肢运动阻滞3级者超过94%.腰麻效果平均满意率99.8%,硬膜外辅助麻醉后满意率提高到99.9%.单次腰麻完全消失平均72 min.产科患者腰麻后低血压和恶性呕吐发生率较高(分别为34%和43%).未见明显神经系统并发症和其他不良反应.结论 国产氯普鲁卡因冻干粉溶解后用于腰麻或腰一硬联合麻醉安全、有效.     

氯普鲁卡因脊-硬联合麻醉用于妇科手术

目的探讨国产氯普鲁卡因（CP）脊-硬联合麻醉用于妇科手术的效果。方法120例子宫切除患者随机均分为A、B、C、D组，接受脊-硬联合麻醉。各组脊麻用药分别为2．5％CP 1ml＋10％GS（葡萄糖）0．5ml＋3％Eph（麻黄碱）0．5ml、2．5％CP 1．2ml＋10％GS 0．5ml＋3％Eph 0．5ml、2．5％CP 1．4ml＋10％GS 0．5ml＋3％Eph 0．5ml和2．5％CP 1．6ml＋10％GS 0．5ml＋3％Eph 0．5ml。脊麻效果欠佳时则硬膜外用2．5％CP。结果①各组在脊麻起效时间、达到最高阻滞平面时间、下肢阻滞程度上相似，但在阻滞范围上依次增加，平均分别为T7.2±1.37、T5.85±1.25、T4.37±1.18和L3.30±1.47，差异有统计学意义。②脊麻效果不满意率A、B组分别为80％和16．7％，但在硬膜外追加2．5％CP后不满意率消失。C、D组脊麻效果均为极好。③D组低血压发生率较高，并有9例呼吸困难。④未见全身及脊神经不良反应。结论妇科子宫切除手术选用2．5％CP 30mg～35mg脊麻效果理想安全。     

氯普鲁卡因、布比卡因和罗哌卡因在下肢手术腰-硬联合麻醉中的比较

目的比较氯普鲁卡因、布比卡因和罗哌卡因在下肢手术腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA)中的应用效果。方法择期行髋关节及以下部位手术患者300例,随机均分成三组:氯普鲁卡因组(C组)、布比卡因组(B组)和罗哌卡因组(R组),蛛网膜下腔分别给予1.5%氯普鲁卡因、0.5%布比卡因和0.5%罗哌卡因各2 ml。记录患者感觉阻滞起效时间、平面固定时间、阻滞平面、腰麻持续时间和运动阻滞效果。结果 C组阻滞平面固定时间、腰麻持续时间明显短于B、R组(P<0.05)。C组感觉阻滞起效时间短于B组,但长于R组(P<0.05)。C组最高阻滞平面明显高于B、R组(P<0.05)。结论与0.5%罗哌卡因和0.5%布比卡因比较,1.5%氯普鲁卡因具有起效快、阻滞完善和运动阻滞效果弱的特点,小剂量氯普鲁卡因可用于手术时间较短的CSEA中的脊麻。     

氯普鲁卡因与产科麻醉

不含任何防腐添加剂的国产局麻药盐酸氯普鲁卡因（可谱诺）上市临床使用8年．在产科椎管内麻醉上得到广泛应用．不仅大量报道应用于硬膜外。而且在蛛网膜下腔麻醉上也积累了万余例以上的经验,证实其起效快,效能强、持续时间较短．对胎儿无不利影响。至今均未见其神经毒性等不良反应个案。这种新型的不含防腐剂的氯普静卡因可作为剖宫产安全有效的椎管内麻醉药。     

腰—硬联合麻醉的不良反应

腰－硬联合阻滞汲取了腰麻和硬膜麻醉的同共特点，但麻醉管理相对复杂，麻醉并发症也相对增多。临床应用时既要发现其优点，更要密切观察其可能的不良反应。     

改造国产硬外针与进口腰麻针在腰-硬联合麻醉的应用

腰 硬联合麻醉一般应用进口或国产套件 ,针身较长 ,偏软 ,且价格较贵。我院采用改造国产 16Ｇ普通硬膜外针配合进口 2 6Ｇ特殊无损伤腰麻针应用于腰 硬联合麻醉(ＣＳＥＡ) ,取得了满意效果 ,现报告如下。腰 硬联合麻醉共 15 0例 ,麻醉针具及药物 :硬膜外穿刺针是将国产普通 16Ｇ硬膜外针加工缩短 2ｃｍ放入硬膜外麻醉包消毒灭菌后备用 ,腰麻穿刺针采用的是德国贝朗公司生产的 2 6Ｇ无损伤腰麻针。腰麻用的是重比重混合局麻药 ,即 0 5 %布比卡因 1 5～ 2ｍｌ与 10 %葡萄糖 1 5ｍｌ混合液 ,或 0 75 %布比卡因 1 0～ 2ｍｌ与等量 10 %葡萄糖…     

腰-硬联合麻醉的不良反应

腰-硬联合阻滞汲取了腰麻和硬膜麻醉的共同特点,但麻醉管理相对复杂,麻醉并发症也相对增多。临床应用时既要发现其优点,更要密切观察其可能的不良反应。     

腰-硬联合镇痛致术后下肢麻醉恢复延迟三例

例1,女,24岁。在联合腰麻(CSEA)下行剖宫产术。左侧卧位,于L3～4椎间隙直入法用18号针顺利做好硬膜外腔穿刺。针内针法用25号针行蛛网膜下隙穿刺,顺利获得清亮脑脊液。缓慢向骶端注入1：1：1的局麻药混合液(1％丁卡因1ml,10％葡萄糖1ml,3％麻黄碱1m1)3ml。退出针内针,向头端硬膜外腔置入导管3cm备用。改平卧位后,调整麻醉平面至T9以下。     

腰-硬联合麻醉应用于剖宫产术中效果观察

剖宫产术要求麻醉诱导迅速,效果确切,肌松好,镇痛完善,药物对胎儿影响小,目前腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉（CSEA）以一种新型麻醉方法,在剖宫产术中已得到广泛应用。本研究观察小剂量等比重的布比卡因CSEA用于剖宫产手术的麻醉效果,并与硬膜外麻醉（EA）进行比较。     

腰-硬联合麻醉在剖宫产术中的应用

<正>随着社会的发展进步,医疗水平的提高,人们对产妇母婴安全要求越来越高,剖宫产的比率也就越来越高,特别是急诊剖宫产术要求麻醉诱导迅速、效果完善、肌肉松驰,对母婴安全。2011-01—2012-01,我院将500例接受剖宫产手术的产妇随机分为2组。应用腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA组)250例,采用硬膜外麻醉(EA组)250例,对2种麻醉方法分析比较,报告     

国产氯普鲁卡因用于剖宫产脊麻

目的探讨国产氯普鲁卡因脊麻的可行性和安全性。方法40例产妇经L2~3行脊麻-硬膜外联合穿刺,向蛛网膜下隙注入氯普鲁卡因脊麻合剂(2·5%氯普鲁卡因1·2ml 10%葡萄糖0·5ml 3%麻黄碱0·5ml)2·2ml/30~40s。结果(1)麻醉起效时间、T11无痛时间、双下肢不能抬起时间、达到最高阻滞平面的时间分别为(22·78±9·52)s、(3·65±0·86)、(3·67±0·73)和(8·04±1·11)min;最高阻滞平面为T4·05±1·38;麻醉消退T11开始疼痛时间、双下肢能抬起时间、麻醉完全消失时间分别为(54·75±8·60)、(68·63±13·22)和(77·50±16·97)min。(2)术中产妇无诉痛,腹肌松弛。(3)麻醉后出现低血压反应17例(42·5%),出现时间(5·21±1·67)min,给予麻黄碱15mg后均好转。心率相对稳定。SpO2正常。(4)麻醉后恶心22例(55%),其中12例(30%)发生在切开子宫前,与低血压有关,其他与手术操作有关;呕吐16例(40%),娩胎前5例,娩胎后11例。(5)麻醉后及其术后1个月内未见任何精神神经系统不良反应。(6)氯普鲁卡因脊麻合剂pH值和比重分别为6·12±0·46,1·012±0·003。结论国产氯普鲁卡因可安全有效地用于脊麻。     

氯普鲁卡因硬膜外阻滞时的药效学和药代动力学

目的通过对氯普鲁卡因（2-CP）在硬膜外阻滞时药效学和药代动力学的研究,探讨不同年龄因素及加入肾上腺素的2-CP进入硬膜外腔后在人体的吸收、分布和消除规律。方法选择ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级、在连续硬膜外阻滞下行择期下腹部手术患者30例,根据年龄和用药的不同随机分为三组,每组10例。青壮年组（C组）,年龄为30-55岁,以3％2-CP 6mg／kg行硬膜外阻滞;肾上腺素组（CE组）,青壮年患者,以3％2-CP6mg／kg加入1：200000肾上腺素行硬膜外阻滞;老年组（CO组）,年龄65岁以上,以3％2-CP6mg／kg行硬膜外阻滞。分别观察局麻药起效时间、运动阻滞起始时间和运动阻滞程度;用高效液相色谱仪测定注药后3、6、9、11、13、15、17、20、30、45、60、90min血浆2-CP浓度。用药代动力学计算程序（3p97）进行血药浓度数据处理,计算药代动力学参数。结果三组的局麻药起效时间、运动阻滞起始时间和运动阻滞程度差异均无统计学意义。三组的血浆药物浓度峰值（Cmax）分别为：（0．47±0．31）、（0．32±0．22）、（0．58±0．39）mg／L;血药浓度达峰时间（Tmax）分别为：（8．71±3．45）、（7．84±3．42）、（6．42±4．84）min;血浆药物浓度-时间曲线下面积（AUC）分别为：（9．16±4．09）、（8．66±3．47）、（7．71±3．82）μg·min^-1·ml^-1;清除速率常数（K）分别为：（0．53±0．48）、（0．45±0．42）、（0．52±0．42）／min。以上参数三组间比较差异均无统计学意义。结论1：200000肾上腺素和年龄对3％2-CP行硬膜外阻滞的药代动力学和药效学无明显影响。     

氯普鲁卡因与利多卡因小儿骶管麻醉的比较

目的研究氯普鲁卡因用于小儿骶管麻醉的可行性与安全性。方法62例在骶管麻醉下行下肢或会阴部手术患儿(3~8岁),随机、双盲均分为氯普鲁卡因组(研究组)和利多卡因组(对照组),每组31例。清醒或吸入七氟醚诱导后行骶管穿刺(垂直穿刺法),分别一次性注入1.5%氯普鲁卡因或0.8%利多卡因1ml/kg。观察记录HR、BP、RR、SpO2和阻滞作用。结果研究组起效[(1.52±0.71)min]、疼痛消失[(4.07±0.82)min]、麻醉平面固定[(6.50±0.71)min]时间均明显短于对照组[(3.95±0.97)、(5.93±1.57)、(8.59±1.68)min](P<0.01)。麻醉持续时间,研究组(78.52±5.71)min,对照组(81.38±6.68)min。两组最高感觉阻滞神经节段相当。用药后HR、BP、RR和SpO2变化两组对比差异无统计学意义。两组患儿均无明显不良反应。结论1.5%氯普鲁卡因骶管阻滞用于3~8岁小儿较0.8%利多卡因起效、疼痛消失及麻醉平面固定快。呼吸与循环功能基本稳定,无明显不良反应。     

腰麻联合双管硬膜外分娩镇痛的临床效果

目的评估腰麻联合双管硬膜外分娩镇痛的效果及对母婴的影响。方法 2015年4月至2016年1月于本院要求分娩镇痛的初产妇129例,随机分为两组。D组(n=68)腰麻后双管硬膜外阻滞分娩镇痛,S组(n=61)腰麻后单管硬膜外阻滞分娩镇痛。记录镇痛前(T0)及镇痛后10min(T1)、30 min(T2)、120 min(T3)、宫口开至7~8 cm(T4)、宫口开全(T5)、第二产程用力分娩时(T6)的VAS疼痛评分,各产程时间及缩宫素使用情况,镇痛泵按压及镇痛药物使用情况,分娩方式,产时出血量,新生儿情况和镇痛不良反应。结果 T0~T4时两组VAS评分差异无统计学意义,T5、T6时D组VAS评分明显低于S组(P0.05)。镇痛泵有效按压次数及镇痛药物使用量两组差异无统计学意义,但镇痛泵总按压次数D组明显少于S组(P0.05)。各产程时间、缩宫素使用率、分娩方式、产时出血量、新生儿情况和镇痛不良反应两组差异均无统计学意义。结论腰麻联合双管硬膜外分娩镇痛效果确切,不良反应少,产妇满意度高,对母婴是安全的。     

Comparison of combined spinal epidural anesthesia and epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

BACKGROUND: Epidural anesthesia (EA) is popular for cesarean section, but has some drawbacks such as incomplete block, inadequate muscle relaxation and delayed onset. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) has gained increasing interest as it combines the reliability of a spinal block and the flexibility of an epidural block. We investigated the efficacy of CSEA that combines the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, comparing with pH-adjusted EA, for cesarean section. METHODS: Sixty-four pregnant women at full term were divided into two groups. Patients in the CSEA group (n=32) were given 1.5-1.6 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine intrathecally, followed by 10 ml of 0.25% plain bupivacaine through the epidural catheter 10 min later. Patients in the EA group (n=32) received 20-25 ml of 2% lidocaine which was already mixed with 0.1 ml of 0.1% epinephrine, 100 g of fentanyl and 1.5 ml of 8.4% sodium bicarbonate. The quality and side effects of surgical anesthesia, neonatal state, and postoperative course were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the EA group, 22% (7 cases) complained of intraoperative pain but none in the CSEA group (P=0.011). Muscle relaxation and motor block were much better in the CSEA group (P<0.001 and P=0.011 each). Significantly more women in the EA group had shivering (P=0.001). They also had more nausea and vomiting but the differences were not significant. Not only the time to T4 block (9.7 vs. 18.3 min, mean, P<0.001) but also the stay in the postanesthesia care unit, recovery of sensory and motor block and start of postoperative pain were all significantly shorter in the CSEA group. No one in either group had postdural puncture headache (PDPH). CONCLUSION: We can conclude that, when combining the main spinal and the supporting epidural anesthesia, CSEA has greater efficacy and fewer side effects than the pH-adjusted EA in cesarean sections.     

Intrathecal bupivacaine versus chloroprocaine for transvaginal cervical cerclage placement: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundBupivacaine is commonly used in spinal anesthesia for cervical cerclage placement, but its long duration of action can delay hospital discharge. Chloroprocaine has a short duration of action and has re-emerged as an agent for ambulatory neuraxial anesthesia. There are limited data comparing intrathecal bupivacaine and chloroprocaine when used for cerclage placement. This retrospective study compares the time to hospital discharge between these drugs when used in spinal anesthesia for cervical cerclage placement.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent transvaginal cerclage placement under neuraxial anesthesia with intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine or plain chloroprocaine between January 1, 2015 and October 31, 2020. The primary outcome was the time to hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of inadequate anesthesia, postoperative pain scores and postoperative neurologic symptoms.ResultsThree hundred and sixty patients were included in the final analysis (bupivacaine n=236, chloroprocaine n=124). The median (IQR) intrathecal dose was 7.5 (7.5, 9) mg and 45 (45, 50) mg in the bupivacaine and chloroprocaine groups respectively. The time (median [IQR]) from spinal anesthesia to hospital discharge was significantly shorter in the chloroprocaine group compared with the bupivacaine group (218 [180, 253] vs. 370 [309, 424] min, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups for secondary outcomes and neither group had a patient report neurologic symptoms.ConclusionWhen utilized in spinal anesthesia for transvaginal cervical cerclage placement, chloroprocaine may reduce the time to discharge while providing comparable anesthesia to that provided by bupivacaine.     

Comparison of visceral pain incidence during cesarean section performed under spinal or epidural anesthesia

The incidence of visceral pain during cesarean section performed under regional anesthesia was studied in 80 unpremedicated patients. They were divided in two similar groups concerning age, weight and height. Group 1 consisted of 40 patients submitted to cesarean section under spinal anesthesia, while in group 2 (40 patients) epidural anesthesia was used. Surgery was totally painless for all patients of group 1 patients, whereas in group 2 intraoperative analgesia was complete for 11, good in 18 and fair in 10 patients. One patient of group 2 required general anesthesia due to excrutiating pain during exteriorization of uterus despite a seemly adequate lebel of cutaneous analgesia of T₆. The authors conclude that spinal anesthesia favorably compares with epidural anesthesia for cesarean section, because the incidence of visceral pain with the former was nill and because both techniques are equally safe for mothers and neonates.(Weksler N, Ovadia L, Stav A, et al.: Comparison of visceral pain incidence during cesarean section performed under spinal or epidural anesthesia. J Anesth 6: 69–74, 1992)