罗哌卡因在高位硬膜外麻醉中的效果观察

目的 探讨罗哌卡因在高位硬膜外麻醉中对呼吸循环系统的影响以及临床效果.方法 选择ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级乳腺手术患者40例,随机分为两组,每组20例,常规于T3-4间隙行硬膜外穿刺向头端置管.A组用0.25%罗哌卡因行硬膜外麻醉,B组用0.25%布比卡因行硬膜外麻醉.分别于麻醉前(T0)、麻醉后10 min(T1)、30 min(T2)、60 min(T3)及术毕(T4),测定心率、血压、潮气量、呼吸频率、分钟通气量、阻滞时间和镇痛效果等指标. 结果 40例麻醉效果均佳,两组在T2、T3时心率、血压较麻醉前均有下降(P＜0.05),各项呼吸指标与术前比较差异无统计学意义.组间比较,在T2、T3时A组HR下降幅度小于B组,呼吸频率较B组变化更小(P＜0.05).结论 罗哌卡因能明显缩短阻滞起效时间,对感觉神经阻滞完善,镇痛效果好,对循环、呼吸功能影响小,用于高位硬膜外麻醉安全、有效.     

腹腔镜胆囊切除术后利多卡因和罗哌卡因局部应用的镇痛效果

目的探讨腹腔镜胆囊切除术后的疼痛特点及利多卡因、罗哌卡因的术后镇痛效应。方法将80例接受择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者随机分为4组:A组为0.9%盐水对照组,B组为利多卡因组,C组为罗哌卡因组,D组为利多卡因、罗哌卡因混合组。术后即刻腹壁戳孔浸润注射、腹腔内膈下及胆囊床喷洒上述药物,观察术后1、3、6、24 h患者视觉模拟尺疼痛评分(VAS)。结果组内不同时间比较,术后1 h VAS最低,3、6 h VAS依次上升,24h VAS又有所下降;其中1、3、6 h之间VAS比较差异有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。组间比较,术后1 h A或B组VAS分别与C、D组比较有统计学差异(P均<0.05)。术后6 h及24 h A组与B、C、D组比较VAS有统计学差异(P均<0.05)。结论利多卡因和罗哌卡因切口浸润、腹腔内喷洒均可产生较好的术后镇痛效果,罗哌卡因效果优于利多卡因。     

甲磺酸罗哌卡因用于高位硬膜外麻醉效果观察

目的 探讨甲磺酸罗哌卡因用于高位硬膜外麻醉的临床效果和安全性.方法 将80例拟于高位硬膜外麻醉下施行手术的80例患者随机分成观察组和对照组各40例,观察组予0.447％甲磺酸罗哌卡因进行麻醉,对照组予0.375％盐酸布比卡因进行麻醉.观察两组阻滞起效时间、最大阻滞时间、运动阻滞恢复时间、镇痛效果、生命体征、麻醉恢复情况.结果 两组镇痛效果均满意,观察组阻滞起效时间、最大阻滞时间和运动阻滞恢复时间明显短于对照组(P＜0.01).观察组麻醉后MAP、HR、SPO2均明显低于麻醉前(P均＜0.05).结论 0.447％甲磺酸罗哌卡因用于上胸段硬膜外阻滞麻醉效果满意,与布比卡因比较对呼吸和循环功能的影响小,更适合于高位硬膜外阻滞.     

罗哌卡因和利多卡因混合液用于小儿单次硬膜外麻醉效果观察

目的 探讨罗哌卡因和利多卡因混合液用于小儿单次硬膜外麻醉的安全性。方法将60例择期手术患儿分为观察组和对照组各30例,均采用氯胺酮基础加单次硬膜外阻滞,观察组用0．375％罗哌卡因和1％利多卡因混合液,对照组用0．375％布比卡因和1％利多卡因混合液,容量均为0．6ml／kg,观察两组阻滞前后平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）、血氧饱和度（SpO2）的变化,感觉和运动阻滞时间,不良反应。结果两组阻滞前后MAP、HR、SpO2比较,P〉0．05;观察组运动阻滞时间短于对照组,P〈0．05;感觉时间长于对照组,P〉0．05;对照组不良反应稍多;两组不良反应发生率比较P〉0．05。结论罗哌卡因和利多卡因用于小儿单次硬膜外麻醉安全,效果确切。     

罗哌卡因臂丛麻醉用于上肢手术

罗哌卡因是一种较新的局部麻醉药，3年来，我们用于臂丛神经阻滞麻醉400余例，效果满意。现将资料比较完整的380例臂丛阻滞下实施上肢各类手术的体会总结报道如下。     

左旋布比卡因、罗哌卡因在妇科手术硬膜外麻醉中的应用效果比较

目的比较左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因在妇科手术硬膜外麻醉中的应用效果。方法妇科手术患者102例,随机分为观察组和对照组各51例,观察组采用左旋布比卡因连续硬膜外麻醉,对照组采用罗哌卡因连续硬膜外麻醉。观察两组感觉阻滞起效时间、恢复时间及运动阻滞起效时间、恢复时间,检测麻醉诱导前(T0)、手术45min(T1)、术后1 d(T2)血清皮质醇(Cor)和超敏C反应蛋白(hs-CRP)。观察两组麻醉过程中不良反应。结果两组感觉阻滞起效时间、恢复时间及运动阻滞起效时间、恢复时间比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05);T0时两组血清Cor、hs-CRP比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05),T1、T2时观察组血清Cor、hs-CRP均低于对照组(P<0.05或<0.01)。两组麻醉过程中不良反应比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论妇科手术硬膜外麻醉中应用左旋布比卡因和罗哌卡因的麻醉效果相当,不良反应均轻微,但左旋布比卡因可减轻手术引起的应激反应。     

甲磺酸罗哌卡因在下腹部手术中的应用探讨

2005年1月-2006年4月，我们对比例下腹部手术患者采用甲磺酸罗哌卡硬膜外麻醉。现报告如下。     

重比重罗哌卡因单侧腰麻在老年下肢手术中的效果

目的探讨重比重罗哌卡因单侧腰麻用于老年下肢手术的临床效果。方法老年下肢手术患者60例。随机分为单侧腰麻组（A组）和硬膜外麻醉组（B组）,每组30例。结果两组患者麻醉时间、手术时间无明显差异。A组效果优27例、良3例、差0例、失败0例,B组分别为15、10、2、3,P〈0.05。A组Bromage评分术中健肢评分多在1~2分,B组多在3~4分,P〈0.01。结论重比重罗哌卡因单侧腰麻起效快、阻滞范围小,而且患者血流动力学平稳,是一种比较适合老年患者下肢手术的麻醉方法。     

高乌甲素、罗哌卡因用于术后镇痛效果观察

高乌甲素具有较强的镇痛作用,并具有局部麻醉作用,罗哌卡因是长效的局部麻醉药,二者合用于术后镇痛(PCEA)少见报道。2004年3月至2004年7月,我们对高乌甲素联合罗哌卡因的有效性及不良反应进行了观察。现报告如下。     

腹腔内盐酸罗哌卡因与甲磺酸罗哌卡因表面麻醉对老年腹腔镜病人术后的镇痛观察

腹腔镜胆囊切除术（laparoscopic cholecystectomy,LC）具有创伤小、干扰轻、恢复快等优点,现已广泛用于临床.但术后24h内还有一定程度的内脏性疼痛和二氧化碳气腹引起的肩背痛,需要给予镇痛药.因此,腹腔镜术后的镇痛近年来引起了人们的重视,本研究选择老年腹腔镜手术为研究对象,探讨并比较腹腔内局麻药的镇痛疗效.     

Comparative effects of ajmaline and lidocaine on hemodynamics in myocardial infarct

Haemodynamic changes after single intravenous injection of antiarhythmic doses of ajmaline (50 mg) and lidocain (100 mg) were measured comparatively in 10 patients with acute myocardial infarction, stable cardiac rhythm and without manifest left heart failure. The effects of ajmaline were characterized by a significant decrease of systolic arterial pressure (9%), of left ventricular stroke work index (15%) as well as by an increase of the mean pressure of the pulmonary artery (7%) in the early phase after application. No significant changes in cardiac index, stroke volume index, systemic vascular resistance, right and left ventricular filling pressures and heart rate occurred. The effects of lidocain on the cardiac circulation were comparatively small. The intravenous administration of lidocain did not result in significant changes of the cardiac index or left and right ventricular filling pressures. Diastolic arterial pressure increased significantly (5%), while the heart rate decreased (5%).     

Comparative effects of lidocaine and procainamide on acutely impaired hemodynamics

Controversy exists regarding the relative safety of intravenously administered lidocaine and procainamide to patients with acutely impaired hemodynamics. Accordingly, their effects were studied in 15 such patients, 14 with acute myocardial infarction and one with cardiomyopathy and severe congestive heart failure. All had elevated levels of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (>15 mm Hg) and/or low cardiac index (<2.5 liters/min/m²). Patients were given lidocaine, a 100 mg bolus followed by a 3 mg/min infusion and, after at least a 30 minute recovery period, procainamide, a 100 mg bolus over 2 minutes followed by a 20 mg/min infusion for 20 to 25 minutes. Hemodynamic measurements were compared early and late in the infusion of each drug. Small, clinically insignificant differences were observed in the hemodynamic responses to the drugs, and no clinically significant deterioration occurred with either. Conventional therapeutic doses of intravenous procainamide can be administered by this regimen, to patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiac failure or low cardiac output, without producing deleterious hemodynamic effects.     

Comparative study of the anti-arrhythmic activity of mexiletine and lidocaine in ventricular hyperkinetic arrhythmias

The present study has been carried out on 50 patients admitted to C.C.U. for cardiovascular diseases of various ethiology (44 patients with ischemic heart disease) who required antiarrhythmic theory for different types of ventricular arrhythmias: monofocal ventricular extrasistoles greater than 6/min, bigeminal ventricular extrasistoles, polifocal and/or repetitive ventricular tachycardias. The patients have been randomly allocated into two groups of 25 subjects: the first one has been treated with Mexiletine and the second with Lidocaine. In Mexiletine treated group the following results have been obtained: 19 excellent (76%), 4 good (16%) and 2 ineffective (8%). In Lidocaine treated group: 11 excellent (44%), 5 good (20%) and 9 ineffective (36%). Statistical analysis by chi square test has shown significant prevalence of favourable results in Mexiletine treated patients (p less than 0.02; X(2) = 5.33). Moreover, in relation to the type of arrhythmias, Mexiletine succeded in a greater number of cases of complicated ventricular extrasistoles (bigeminal, polifocal and/or ripetitive) and in ventricular tachicardias. Mexiletine also has induced significant reduction of QTc and significant increase of cardiac rate, whereas it did not affect significantly the PR interval and blood pressure. None of these parameters has been influenced significantly by Lidocaine. Side effects have been similar for both drugs and generally mild. On the basis of results and in accord with the electrophysiological properties, the Authors discuss the possible mechanism of action and the role of Mexiletine in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias particularly those complicating acute phase of myocardial infarction.     

Mid-term study on the effects of arthroscopic discoid lateral meniscus plasty on patellofemoral joint: An observational study

In the present study, we aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) plasty and the adaptive changes in the patellofemoral joint after surgery. From September 2010 to March 2012, 25 patients with DLM injuries who underwent arthroscopic meniscus plasty were enrolled in the prospective study. All patients underwent clinical evaluation before the operation and at the last follow-up, and imaging evaluation was performed by upright magnetic resonance imaging before and 1 month after the operation as well as at the last follow-up. Clinical evaluation included Lysholm score, Kujala score, McMurray’s sign, patellar mobility, patella grind test, and quadriceps atrophy. Imaging evaluation included bisect offset index, patella tilt angle (PTA), and cartilage damage. Lysholm score, Kujala score, McMurray’s sign, and quadriceps atrophy at the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with the preoperative levels (P < .05). At the last follow-up, there were no statistical differences in patella mobility and patella grind test compared with the preoperative levels. In addition, bisect offset index and PTA showed a dynamic trend of rising and then falling over time (P < .05). At 1 month after the operation, bisect offset index and PTA were significantly increased compared with the preoperative levels or the values at the last follow-up (P < .05), while there were no differences between the preoperation and the last follow-up. Cartilage damage became worse with time (P < 0.05), and the 2 were positively correlated (Spearman = 0.368). At the last follow-up, the degree of cartilage damage was significantly increased compared with the preoperative level (P < .017), while there was no significant difference between the 1-month postoperative grade and the preoperational grade or the last follow-up grade. The effect of arthroscopic DLM plasty on the patellofemoral joint was dynamic, with the position of the patella deviating in the early stages and recovering in the mid-term, especially when the knee was in the biomechanical standing position. In addition, the patellofemoral joint cartilage might undergo accelerated degeneration after the operation, while the mid-term effect of the operation was positive, and the patellofemoral joint function was acceptable.     

Comparative clinical study of trimecaine and lidocaine as anti-arrhythmia agents in myocardial infarct

The article discusses the comparative antiarrhythmic effectiveness of trimecaine and lidocaine in patients with acute myocardial infarction in the first 24 hours of the disease. The 45 patients included in the study were separated into 3 groups: the 1st (control) group consisted of 15 patients with acute myocardial infarction who were not given antiarrhythmic or arrhythmogenic agents; the 2nd group was formed of 15 patients who from the time of admission were given trimecaine by intravenous drip at a rate of 2 mg/min for purposes of prevention after preliminary jet-injection of 80 mg of the drug; the 3rd group consisted of 15 patients given lidocaine by the same schedule. An antiarrhythmic effect was noted in 60% of group 2 patients and in 87% of group 3 patients. No antiarrhythmic effect was produced in 40% of patients treated with trimecaine and in 13% of those given lidocaine.     

Electrophysiologic and hemodynamic effects of propafenone,a new antiarrhythmic agent,on the anesthetized,closed-chest dog: Comparative study with lidocaine

The relative hemodynamic and electrophysiologic effects of a new antiarrhythmic drug, propafenone, and lidocaine were evaluated in eight closed-chest, anesthetized dogs. Propafenone (4 mg/kg intravenously) significantly (p < 0.05) lowered aortic and pulmonary systolic pressures and caused a rise in heart rate (p < 0.05). Cardiac output decreased from 4.5 ± 1 to 3.8 ± 0.7 L/min (p < 0.05) during atrial pacing at 400 msec cycle length. Propafenone had no effect on pulmonary and aortic diastolic pressures. Lidocaine (5 mg/kg intravenously) caused a significant (p < 0.05) decrease in aortic systolic pressure and a rise in heart rate. Lidocaine had no significant effect on the other measured hemodynamic parameters. Propafenone, unlike lidocaine, significantly (p < 0.05) increased atrioventricular nodal functional refractory period and right ventricular endocardial (apex) cathodal (0.5 ± 0.1 mA to 1.9 ± 0.3 mA) and bipolar (1.4 ± 0.3 to 2.2 ± 0.4 mA) diastolic excitability threshold. Propafenone, unlike lidocaine, also caused a significant (p = 0.05) intraatrial conduction delay; however, neither drug caused conduction slowing in the His-Purkinje system. Both drugs had no effect on sinus nodal recovery time and on the effective refractory period of the right ventricular endocardium (apex). Mean plasma propafenone levels during hemodynamic and electrophysiologic measurement ranged between 3.2 ± 1.8 μg/ml and 1.7 ± 1.1 μg/ml. All of the propafenone-induced effects were reversible within 90 minutes. We conclude that propafenone differs from lidocaine in its atrial, AV nodal, and ventricular electrophysiologic properties, and thus these may explain propafenone's greater efficacy over lidocaine against both certain atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. Propafenone's negative inotropic effects, however, should necessitate caution in its use.     

A Comparative evaluation of the effects of Propafenone and lidocaine on early ventricular arrhythmias after acute myocardial infarction

A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial comparing the antiarrhythmiceffects of lidocaine (given intravenously as a bolus injectionof 100 mg followed by an infusion of 2 mg min^–1) and propafenone(given as a bolus of 105 mg followed by 300 mg orally every8 h) was conducted in the first 24 h following acute myocardialinfarction. Analysis of ventricular arrhythmias was carriedout by Holier recordings. The three treatment groups, propafenone(36 patients), lidocaine (28 patients), and placebo (25 patients),did not differ with respect to age, gender, prevalence of previousinfarction, delay from the onset of pain to hospitalization,clinical features on entry (the patients with heart failureor malignant arrhythmias were excluded), site of acute myocardialinfarction, or CPK peak. A decrease in the number of ventricularpremature beats was noted with lidocaine, but was not statisticallysignificant. The analysis of the first 8 h showed trends suggestingthat only lidocaine could suppress complex arrhythmias, coupletsand ventricular tachycardia. The drugs were well tolerated.Mean plasma concentrations of propafenone and lidocaine were517±464 ng ml^–1 and 3.84±1.10mg 1^–1,respectively. In conclusion, this study does not favour theuse of propafenone as an alternative to lidocaine therapy duringthe acute phase of myocardial infarction     

Comparison of lidocaine and ropivacaine stellate ganglion blockade in treating upper limb postherpetic neuralgia

To provide a basis for treating postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), we compared the efficacy of lidocaine and ropivacaine stellate ganglion block (SGB) in PHN treatment in the upper limbs.Data from 252 patients with upper-limb PHN were retrospectively analyzed. The lidocaine group (n = 118) was treated with oral pregabalin capsules 75 mg twice a day, tramadol hydrochloride sustained release tablets 100 mg twice a day, and amitriptyline 25 mg once at night combined with ultrasound-guided lidocaine SGB; the ropivacaine group (n = 134) was orally administered the same medicines combined with ultrasound-guided ropivacaine SGB. The visual analog scale (VAS), self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and adverse reactions were compared between the groups before treatment and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after treatment.There were no significant differences between the lidocaine and ropivacaine groups in terms of sex, age, height, weight, and pain duration (P > .05). There was no significant difference between the groups in VAS and SAS scores before treatment (P > .05). At 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after ultrasound-guided SGB treatment, the VAS and SAS scores were significantly lower in the ropivacaine group than in the lidocaine group (P < .05). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of adverse reactions (P > .05).For ultrasound-guided SGB treatment of upper limb PHN, ropivacaine is superior to lidocaine. Ultrasound-guided ropivacaine SGB is safe and effective for the treatment of upper limb PHN.