右美托咪定添加到罗哌卡因中对腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞及镇静的影响

目的观察右美托咪定添加到罗哌卡因中对腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞及镇静的影响。方法择期在腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞下行单侧膝关节检查、美国麻醉医师协会(American Society of Anesthesiology,ASA)分级Ⅰ~Ⅲ级的患者120例,按照数字生成的方法随机分为不使用右美托咪定(R组)、腰丛阻滞给予右美托咪定(RLD组)、坐骨神经阻滞给予右美托咪定(RSD组),腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞均给予右美托咪定(RD组),每组30例。记录腰丛和坐骨神经的感觉和运动阻滞起效时间、阻滞持续时间及患者第一次需要镇痛药的时间(镇痛时间)。记录患者麻醉前(T0)、麻醉后15分钟、30分钟、45分钟、60分钟(T1~T4)的镇静评分(Ramsay评分)、心率、血氧饱和度、平均动脉压及局麻药中毒的发生率。结果四组间腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞起效时间比较,差异无统计学意义,RLD组、RD组、RSD组和R组腰丛感觉和运动维持时间(min)分别为1008.00±104.99、800.00±97.56,922.00±149.05、732.00±139.52,768.00±108.48、602.00±84.09和742.00±129.44、612.00±109.62,差异有统计学意义(P0.01);RLD组、RD组、RSD组和R组坐骨神经阻滞感觉和运动维持时间分别为1006.00±117.58、810.00±105.41,932.00±144.18、744.00±136.09),738.00±120.16、582.00±96.04和708.00±126.45、548.00±111.12,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。RLD、RSD及RD组在T1~T4点的Ramsay评分高于R组,心率低于R组(P0.05)。RLD组、RD组、RSD组和R组镇痛持续时间分别为1004.00±135.48、918.00±83.60、898.00±131.34和808.00±1 19.72,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)。无局麻药中毒发生。结论右美托咪定能随着剂量的增加而增强罗哌卡因腰丛-坐骨神经阻滞效果。右美托咪定能起到镇静作用,同时导致患者心率下降。     

右美托咪定不同途径给药对罗哌卡因腰丛-坐骨神经联合阻滞效果的影响

目的 评价右美托咪定(dexmedetomidine,Dex)不同途径给药方式对0.375％罗哌卡因腰丛挫骨神经联合阻滞(combined lumber plexus and sciatic nerve block,CLPSNB)效果的影响. 方法 90例CLPSNB患者按随机数字表法分为3组(每组30例):罗哌卡因组(R组),0.375％罗哌卡因50 ml行CLPSNB;罗哌卡因+Dex静脉注射组(D+R组),静脉输注Dex 1 μg/kg(输注时间10 min)同时0.375％罗哌卡因50 ml行CLPSNB;罗哌卡因局部麻醉药液混合Dex组(DR组),局部麻醉药Dex 1 μg/kg+0.375％罗哌卡因至50 ml行CLPSNB.R组和DR组同时静脉输注与D+R组相同容量的生理盐水.记录感觉阻滞和运动阻滞的起效时间和维持时间、术者的满意情况及副作用发生情况. 结果 3组感觉阻滞和运动阻滞的起效时间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);运动阻滞持续时间和首次使用镇痛药的时间DR组[(768±246) min和(1 080±300) min]、D+R组[(732±204) min和(1 050±288) min]显著长于R组[(420±126) min和(840±306) min] (P＜0.05);感觉阻滞持续时间DR组[(1008±258) min]显著长于R组[(624±216) min]、D+R组[(672±144) min](P＜0.05),而R组与D+R组比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).术者满意率DR组(100％)高于R组(85％)(P＜0.05).3组患者均未出现恶心、呕吐、低血压、呼吸抑制等副作用. 结论 Dex混合于0.375％罗哌卡因行CLPSNB麻醉效果及术者满意度佳.     

应用右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因行臂丛神经阻滞效果观察

目的观察上肢骨折手术中应用右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因实施臂丛神经阻滞的效果。方法将择期行上肢骨折手术的76例患者随机分为2组,各38例。均在超声引导下行肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞麻醉。对照组应用0.5%罗哌卡因75 mg。观察组给予0.5%罗哌卡因75 mg+右美托咪定1μg/kg。观察2组患者入室后(T_0)、臂丛麻醉后15 min(T_1)、手术开始即刻(T_2)、手术开始后30 min(T_3)、术毕即刻(T_4)时的心率(HR)及平均动脉压(MAP)变化情况;记录感觉和运动神经阻滞起效时间、持续时间、镇痛持续时间和不良反应发生率。结果 2组患者T_0时HR、MAP差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。与对照组相比,观察组T_1~T_4时间点HR、MAP低,感觉、运动阻滞起效时间短,感觉、运动阻滞维持时间和镇痛持续时间长,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。2组不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论上肢骨折手术应用右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因行超声引导下臂丛阻滞,麻醉起效迅速,镇痛效果好,不良反应无明显增加,安全性高。     

罗哌卡因复合右美托咪定或地塞米松竖脊肌平面阻滞用于腰椎后路植骨融合内固定术的效果

目的比较罗哌卡因复合右美托咪定或地塞米松竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)在腰椎后路植骨融合内固定术中的临床效果。方法选择2019年10月至2020年10月择期行腰椎后路植骨融合内固定术患者75例,男42例,女33例,年龄35～65岁,BMI 18～35 kg/m~2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级。采用随机数字表法将患者分为三组:罗哌卡因复合右美托咪定组(RX组)、罗哌卡因复合地塞米松组(RS组)和单纯罗哌卡因组(R组)。三组麻醉诱导前均行ESPB,RX组两侧分别注射0.375%罗哌卡因+右美托咪定0.5μg/kg混合液20 ml, RS组两侧分别注射0.375%罗哌卡因+地塞米松5 mg混合液20 ml, R组两侧分别注射0.375%罗哌卡因20 ml。记录术中瑞芬太尼和舒芬太尼用量。记录术后4、8、12、24、48 h静息和翻身时数字评价量表(NRS)评分。记录感觉阻滞持续时间、镇痛泵首次按压时间和补救镇痛例数。记录术后24 h内镇痛满意度及术后当晚睡眠质量。记录术后下肢运动阻滞、穿刺部位血肿、恶心呕吐、低血压、心动过缓、手术部位感染和切口延迟愈合等发生情况。结果与R组比较,术后12、24 h RX组和RS组静息和翻身时NRS评分明显降低(P0.05),感觉阻滞时间和镇痛泵首次按压时间明显延迟(P0.05),补救镇痛率明显降低(P0.05),24 h内镇痛效果及术后当晚睡眠质量满意度评分明显升高(P0.05)。三组穿刺部位血肿和恶心呕吐发生率差异无统计学意义。三组均无一例发生术后下肢运动阻滞、低血压、心动过缓、手术部位感染和切口延迟愈合。结论右美托咪定或地塞米松复合罗哌卡因用于后路腰椎手术竖脊肌阻滞,可以延长感觉阻滞时间,有效控制术后急性疼痛,临床效果相似。     

右美托咪定对罗哌卡因腋路臂丛神经阻滞时效的影响

目的探讨右美托咪定与局麻药罗哌卡因混合用于腋路臂丛阻滞对阻滞效果及有效时间的影响。方法择期或急诊在腋路臂丛神经阻滞下行上肢手术患者60例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机均分为:罗哌卡因+右美托咪定组(RD组)和罗哌卡因组(R组)。以神经刺激器定位腋路臂丛神经主分支(桡神经、正中神经、尺神经和肌皮神经),RD组和R组分别注射0.375%罗哌卡因40ml+右美托咪定1ml(1μg/kg)和0.375%罗哌卡因40ml+生理盐水1ml,记录感觉和运动神经阻滞起效时间、作用时间、镇痛时间、首次疼痛VAS评分;记录入室时(T0)、阻滞后5min(T1)、10min(T2)、15min(T3)、30min(T4)、60min(T5)HR、MAP、SpO2,记录不良反应的发生情况。结果与R组比较,RD组感觉和运动阻滞起效时间缩短,作用时间及术后镇痛时间延长(P<0.05)。与R组比较,T1～T5时RD组HR减慢(P<0.05),MAP差异无统计学意义;与T0时比较,T2～T5时两组MAP下降,T1～T5时HR减慢(P<0.05),但仍在正常范围;两组患者阻滞后SpO2差异无统计学意义。RD组有5例患者心动过缓;两组患者未出现恶心、呕吐、低血压、低氧血症及局麻药中毒等不良反应。结论右美托咪定1μg/kg与局麻药混合应用于腋路臂丛神经阻滞可增强罗哌卡因的镇痛效果,缩短起效时间,延长作用时间及术后镇痛时间,但是易诱发心动过缓。     

不同剂量右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因胸椎旁神经阻滞在非插管胸腔镜手术中的比较

目的比较不同剂量右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因胸椎旁神经阻滞在非插管胸腔镜手术中的效果。方法择期行胸腔镜肺大泡切除术的患者114例,男90例,女24例,年龄25～60岁,BMI25 kg/m~2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,随机分为四组。麻醉诱导前行胸椎旁神经阻滞,C组注入0.375%罗哌卡因20 ml, D1、D2、D3组分别注入右美托咪定0.5、1.0、2.0μg/kg复合0.375%罗哌卡因20 ml。记录感觉阻滞起效时间和持续时间;入室时(T_0)、注药后30 min(T_1)、手术开始时(T_2)、手术开始后30 min(T_3)的RR、PaO_2和PaCO_2;术毕全麻药的用量;术中低血压、心动过缓和使用麻黄碱与阿托品的情况。结果与C、D1组比较,D2、D3组感觉阻滞起效时间明显缩短(P0.05),持续时间明显延长(P0.05),T_2、T_3时PaCO_2明显降低(P0.05),RR、PaO_2明显升高(P0.05),术毕丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼的用量明显减少(P0.05);D3组心动过缓和低血压的发生率明显高于其他三组(P0.05)。结论右美托咪定1.0μg/kg复合罗哌卡因行胸椎旁神经阻滞可缩短感觉阻滞起效时间,延长持续时间,减少全麻药用量,无明显血流动力学不良反应发生。     

右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因骶管阻滞在小儿腹腔镜疝手术中的应用

目的 探讨右美托咪定(dexmedetomidine,Dex)复合罗哌卡因骶管阻滞在腹腔镜下小儿腹股沟疝手术中的作用. 方法采 用随机数字表法将52例斜疝患儿分为两组(每组26例):A组,Dex 1 μg/kg复合0.25％罗哌卡因1 ml/kg骶管阻滞;B组,0.25％罗哌卡因骶管阻滞组.记录两组患儿麻醉前(T0)、骶管阻滞后5 min(T1)、切皮时(T2)、手术结束时(T3)、拔气管导管时(T4)、苏醒后10 min时(T5)的MAP和HR,观察术后苏醒时间、苏醒时躁动发生率、躁动评分、术后镇痛评分、术后追加镇痛药的发生率及副作用. 结果 A组HR在T4时显著低于B组[(106±12)次/min比(117±12)次/min] (P＜0.05).与B组比较,A组苏醒期躁动发生率[3.8％比23.1％]、躁动评分[(1.9±0.6)分比(3.1±0.7)分]和术后4、8、12、16 h FLACC疼痛评分[(1.1±0.6)分比(2.2±0.7)分、(1.2±0.6)分比(3.8±0.9)分、(2.3±0.6)分比(4.2±0.7)分、(2.6±0.9)分比(3.8±0.8)分]均降低(P＜0.05);两组苏醒时及术后2、24 h的FLACC疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).B组术后使用镇痛药曲马多为4例,A组无使用曲马多者(P＜0.05).两组均未发生明显的副作用. 结论 与单独使用罗哌卡因相比,Dex复合罗哌卡因骶管阻滞用于腹腔镜下小儿腹股沟疝手术能降低拔管时的应激反应,减少小儿苏醒期躁动,明显延长罗哌卡因骶管阻滞的术后镇痛时间.     

右美托咪定对罗哌卡因半数有效浓度的影响

目的 探讨罗哌卡因复合小剂量右美托咪定局部用药对其用于隐神经阻滞时半数有效浓度的影响.方法 拟行单侧膝关节置换术患者60例,年龄60～80岁,身体质量指数(BMI)<24 kg/m2,美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)分级Ⅰ～Ⅱ级.采用随机数字表法分为两组(n=30).超声引导下行隐神经阻滞,对照组神经阻滞时仅用罗哌卡因20 ...     

右美托咪定复合甲璜酸罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞30例

目的：观察右美托咪定复合甲璜酸罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞的效果。方法：将90例上肢手术患者随机分为3组,Ⅰ组麻醉用药为0．45％甲璜酸罗哌卡因20mL,Ⅱ组在局麻药中加右美托咪定1μg,kg,Ⅲ组阻滞完成后即静脉注射右美托咪定1μg/kg。结果：Ⅱ组感觉和运动阻滞起效时间缩短,作用时间及术后镇痛时间均明显长于Ⅰ、Ⅲ2组（均P〈o．01）。术中、术后VAs疼痛评分低于Ⅰ、Ⅲ组（P〈O．05,P〈O．01）;Ⅲ组不良反应的发生率高于Ⅰ、Ⅱ两组。结论：右美托咪定1μg/kg与局麻药混合用于臂丛神经阻滞,可增强甲璜酸罗哌卡因的镇痛效果,缩短起效时间,延长作时间及术后镇痛时间,不良反应少。     

右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因腹横肌平面阻滞在腹膜透析置管术中的效果

目的探讨右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因行腹横肌平面(transversus abdominis plane,TAP)阻滞在腹膜透析置管术中的安全性和有效性。方法选择在TAP阻滞下行腹膜透析置管手术患者60例,男45例,女15例,年龄35~60岁,ASAⅡ或Ⅲ级,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为两组,每组30例:罗哌卡因(R组)和右美托咪定复合罗哌卡因组(DR组)。R组以0.375%罗哌卡因45 ml,DR组以右美托咪定1μg/kg+0.375%罗哌卡因复合液45 ml行腹横肌平面阻滞。记录入室后10 min(T1)、手术开始即刻(T2)、术中分离腹横肌(T3)、术毕(T4)时的MAP、HR、SpO2、Ramsay镇静评分。T1-T4时抽取静脉血样,测定血浆皮质醇(Cor)、血浆肾上腺素(E)和去甲肾上腺素(NE)浓度。记录阻滞起效时间、持续时间、镇痛时间、患者满意度、术中舒芬太尼补救用量及围术期心动过缓、低血压、恶心等不良反应的发生情况。结果与R组比较,T2-T4时DR组MAP明显降低,HR明显减慢,Ramsay评分明显升高,血浆Cor、E、NE浓度明显降低(P<0.05),阻滞持续时间、镇痛时间明显延长(P<0.05),术中舒芬太尼用量明显减少(P<0.05),患者满意度明显升高(P<0.05)。两组阻滞起效时间、SpO2及心动过缓、低血压、恶心发生率差异无统计学意义。结论右美托咪定1μg/kg复合0.375%罗哌卡因行腹横肌平面阻滞用于腹膜透析置管术,可有效减轻应激反应,延长阻滞持续时间和镇痛时间,改善麻醉效果。     

Addition of dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine improves cervical plexus block

ObjectiveTo investigate the sensory block onset time, duration time, and side effects of adding dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine for cervical plexus block.MethodsForty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class I or II adult patients who were scheduled to undergo thyroid surgery were randomly allocated to the following groups to receive cervical plexus block: 30 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine combined with 1 μg kg^?1 of dexmedetomidine; 30 mL of 0.375% ropivacaine combined with saline (control). The sensory block onset time, duration of analgesia, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and the incidences of side effects, such as hypotension, bradycardia, and hypoxemia were recorded.ResultsThe addition of dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine (Group D) shortened the sensory block onset time compared with the ropivacaine group (Group C) (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.18–5.26; p < 0.05). The duration of analgesia of cervical plexus block in Group D was significantly longer than that in Group C (95% CI 295.96–311.12; p < 0.05). The Ramsay sedation score at 5, 10, 20, 40, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after local anesthetic administration in Group D was significantly higher than that in Group C (p < 0.05). MAP level and HR level in Group D were significantly lower than that in Group C (p < 0.05).ConclusionThe addition of 1 μg kg^?1 dexmedetomidine to ropivacaine for cervical plexus block could shorten the sensory block onset time and extend the duration of analgesia, and increased the quality of analgesia, with the patients being sedated and arousable.     

地塞米松复合右美托咪定对罗哌卡因臂丛神经阻滞效果和血浆皮质醇的影响

目的 观察地塞米松复合右美托咪定静脉注射对肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞效果和血浆皮质醇的影响。方法 选择择期肩关节镜手术的患者75例,男45例,女30例,年龄18～65岁,ASA Ⅰ或Ⅱ级。采用随机数字表法随机分为三组：静脉注射生理盐水组（C组）,静脉注射地塞米松0.1 mg/kg组（D1组）和静脉注射地塞米松0.1 mg/kg复合右美托咪定1.0 μg/kg组（D2组）,每组25例。三组患者入室后超声引导下行肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞,给予0.5%罗哌卡因20 ml。臂丛神经阻滞完成后,三组分别将干预药物用生理盐水稀释至50 ml于麻醉诱导前30 min内静脉输注完毕。记录患者的运动、感觉阻滞持续时间,记录术后24 h内需补救镇痛率,术后1、6、12、18、24 h的疼痛VAS评分,麻醉诱导前和术后1、6、12、18、24 h的血浆皮质醇浓度,记录围术期不良反应的发生情况。结果 与C组比较,D1组和D2组运动、感觉阻滞持续时间均明显延长,24 h内补救镇痛率明显降低（P<0.05）,D1组术后12、18 h VAS评分明显降低（P<0.05）,D2组术后6、12、18、24 h VAS评分明显降低（P<0.05）,D1组和D2组术后1、6、12、18、24 h血浆皮质醇浓度明显降低（P<0.05）。与D1组比较,D2组感觉阻滞持续时间明显延长,术后18、24 h VAS评分明显降低,术后6、12、18、24 h血浆皮质醇浓度明显下降（P<0.05）。三组患者围术期不良反应差异无统计学意义。结论 静脉注射地塞米松复合右美托咪定能优化肩关节镜患者臂丛神经阻滞的术后镇痛效果,减轻围术期应激反应。     

Perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine: network meta-analysis of adjunctive effects on supraclavicular brachial plexus block

Both perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine are used as local anaesthetic adjuncts to enhance peripheral nerve block characteristics. However, the effects of dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine based on their administration routes have not been directly compared, and the relative extent to which each adjunct prolongs sensory blockade remains unclear. This network meta-analysis sought to compare and rank the effects of perineural and intravenous dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine as supraclavicular block adjuncts. We sought randomised trials investigating the effects of adding perineural and intravenous dexamethasone or dexmedetomidine to long-acting local anaesthetics on supraclavicular block characteristics, including time to block onset and durations of sensory, motor and analgesic blockade. Data were compared and ranked according to relative effectiveness for each outcome. Our primary outcome was sensory block duration, with a 2-h difference considered clinically important. We performed a frequentist analysis, using the GRADE framework to appraise evidence. One-hundred trials (5728 patients) were included. Expressed as mean (95%CI), the control group (local anaesthetic alone) had a duration of sensory block of 401 (366–435) min, motor block duration of 369 (330–408) min and analgesic duration of 435 (386-483) min. Compared with control, sensory block was prolonged most by intravenous dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 477 (160–795) min], followed by perineural dexamethasone [411 (343–480) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [284 (235–333) min]. Motor block was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 294 (236–352) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [289 (129–448)min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [258 (212–304)min]. Analgesic duration was prolonged most by perineural dexamethasone [mean difference (95%CI) 518 (448–589) min], followed by intravenous dexamethasone [478 (277–679) min] and perineural dexmedetomidine [318 (266–371) min]. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not prolong sensory, motor or analgesic block durations. No major network inconsistencies were found. The quality of evidence for intravenous dexamethasone, perineural dexamethasone and perineural dexmedetomidine for prolongation of supraclavicular sensory block duration was 'low', 'very low' and 'low', respectively. Regardless of route, dexamethasone as an adjunct prolonged the durations of sensory and analgesic blockade to a greater extent than dexmedetomidine. Differences in block characteristics between perineural and intravenous dexamethasone were not clinically important. Intravenous dexmedetomidine did not affect block characteristics.     

Clonidine does not improve quality of ropivacaine axillary brachial plexus block in children

Background: The addition of clonidine to peripheral nerve blocks is controversial in children. Objective: The aim of our study was to evaluate the effect of clonidine added to ropivacaine in pediatric axillary brachial plexus block (ABPB). Methods: Children aged 1–6 years, scheduled to undergo forearm or hand surgery, were recruited into this prospective, double‐blind controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated to receive an ABPB either with ropivacaine 0.2% 0.4 ml·kg^?1 plus saline in 1 ml (RS) or ropivacaine 0.2% 0.4 ml·kg^?1 plus clonidine 1 μg·kg^?1 in 1 ml (RC). Primary endpoints were quality of postoperative analgesia as assessed by pain scores and total 24‐h postoperative analgesia requirements. Secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia request and duration of motor blockade. Results: Sixty patients were recruited (n = 30 per group) into the study. Pain scores were comparable throughout the first 24 h between the two groups. Ten children in the (RS) and six in (RC) groups required supplementary analgesia during the first 24 h (P = 0.24). Children who required further analgesia did so after 288 ± 94 min in the (RS) and 437 ± 204 min in the (RC) group (P = 0.06). There was no difference in the duration of motor block [186 ± 71 and 154 ± 56 min, P = 0.12 for (RS) and (RC), respectively]. Conclusion: Ropivacaine (0.2% 0.4 ml·kg^?1) for ABPB provides sufficient postoperative analgesia in children scheduled for forearm or hand surgery. The addition of clonidine to ABPB does not improve overall postoperative analgesia but may increase the time to first analgesia request.     

不同剂量右美托咪定混合罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞的效果

目的 评价不同剂量右美托咪定混合罗哌卡因用于臂丛神经阻滞的效果.方法 选择上肢手术患者120例,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,性别不限,年龄20 ～ 60岁,体重40 ～ 70 kg.采用随机数字表法,将其分为6组(n=20):罗哌卡因组(R组)、不同剂量右美托咪定混合罗哌卡因组(RD1-5组).采用经肌间沟法行臂丛神经阻滞,R组单次注射0.5％罗哌卡因25 ml;RD1-5组单次注射含右美托咪定[0.25 μg/kg(RD1组)、0.50 μg/kg(RD2组)、0.75 μg/kg(RD3组)、1.00 μg/kg(RD4组)、1.25 μg/kg(RD5组)]的0.5％罗哌卡因25 ml.记录感觉和运动神经阻滞起效时间、持续时间及心血管事件、过度镇静、气胸等不良反应的发生情况.结果 与R组比较,RD1-5组感觉和运动神经阻滞起效时间缩短,持续时间延长(P＜0.05).与RD组和RD2组比较,RD3-5组感觉和运动神经阻滞起效时间缩短,持续时间延长(P＜0.05).RD1-2组间上述指标差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).RD3-5组间上述指标差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).RD4组和RD5组少数患者出现心动过缓、低血压和过度镇静.其余各组未见不良反应发生.结论 右美托咪定0.75 μg/kg混合0.5％罗哌卡因25 ml可安全、有效地用于臂丛神经阻滞.     

0.75% and 0.5% ropivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block: a clinical comparison with 0.5% bupivacaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although ropivacaine has been extensively studied for epidural anesthesia, very few reports exist on brachial plexus block. We therefore decided to investigate the clinical features of axillary brachial plexus anesthesia with two different concentrations of ropivacaine (0.5% and 0.75%) and to compare the results with those obtained with 0.5% bupivacaine. METHODS: Three groups of patients were randomized and prospectively studied. They received, in a double-blind fashion, 32 mL of the local anesthetic solution into the midaxilla, by a nerve-stimulator technique. Onset time in each of the stimulated nerves was recorded both for the sensory and motor block. Peak time (ready to surgery), rate of supplemental blocks, need for intraoperative opioids, duration of sensory and motor block, postoperative analgesic requirements, and patient satisfaction were also recorded. RESULTS: The rate of complete sensory and motor block observed with both ropivacaine groups was higher at 10, 15, and 20 minutes postinjection (P < .001). The mean peak time was shorter with ropivacaine than with bupivacaine (R50 = 16.37 minutes, R75 = 14.7 minutes, B = 22.3 minutes, P < .05). The quality of the anesthesia was higher with ropivacaine, as measured by the intraoperative needs for opioids and the overall patient's satisfaction (P < .05). No significant differences were noted with all the other studied parameters. CONCLUSION: Ropivacaine showed advantages over bupivacaine for axillary brachial plexus block. Because no statistical differences were found between the two ropivacaine groups, we therefore conclude that 0.75% does not add benefit and that 0.5% ropivacaine should be used to perform axillary brachial plexus blocks.     

Cardiac arrest after interscalene brachial plexus block with ropivacaine and lidocaine

Serious adverse reactions to ropivacaine and lidocaine are rare. In this report, we describe a case of sudden cardiac arrest after an interscalene brachial plexus block with a mixture of 150 mg of ropivacaine and 360 mg of lidocaine in a previously healthy, 34-year-old, 97-kg man. Severe hypotension occurred after successful resuscitation, necessitating an infusion of epinephrine. The patient developed pulmonary oedema, and was mechanically ventilated for 22 h. He eventually made a good recovery. We conclude that although ropivacaine and lidocaine are often considered relatively safe local anesthetics, serious cardiovascular complications can occur after the use of these drugs.     

地塞米松对0·5%罗哌卡因腰丛-坐骨神经联合阻滞作用的影响

目的评价地塞米松给药方式对0.5%罗哌卡因腰丛-坐骨神经联合阻滞(CLPSNB)作用时效的影响。方法60例神经刺激器定位CLPSNB患者随机分为三组,每组20例。A组,0.5%罗哌卡因45ml加地塞米松10mg行神经阻滞,同时静脉注射生理盐水(NS);B组,0.5%罗哌卡因45ml加NS2ml行神经阻滞,同时静脉注射地塞米松10mg;C组,0.5%罗哌卡因45ml加NS2ml神经阻滞,同时静脉注射NS2ml。结果感觉、运动阻滞持续时间A组[(15.2±3.3)h、(12.6±2.8)h]显著长于B组[(10.1±2.1)h、(7.9±1.6)h]和C组[(10.4±2.5)h、(7.6±2.3)h](P0.05)。结论地塞米松可以通过局部作用机制延长0.5%罗哌卡因CLPSNB持续时间。