腰-硬联合麻醉与连续硬膜外麻醉在剖宫产中应用的比较

目的:研究腰-硬联合麻醉与连续硬膜外麻醉在剖宫产手术中麻醉效果及母婴安全的比较.方法:选择ASAI级剖宫产孕妇100例,随机分两组,每组各50例.A组在L3-4或L2-3使用腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA),B组在L2-3使用连续硬膜外麻醉(EA),观察麻醉阻滞效果、血流动力学指标变化、新生儿Apgar评分及麻醉并发症.结果A组起效时间(2.55±0.73)分钟明显快于B组(5.44±1.52)分钟(P＜0.05),A组5分钟后平均动脉压下降值(20.05±7.15)mmHg明显大于B组(4.05±1.43)mmHg,(P＜0.05),但孕妇血压均在正常范围内,两组手术结束时平均动脉压下降值无显著性差异,A组牵拉反应发生率明显少于B组,新生儿Apgar评分无显著性差异,A组发生术后头痛1例.结论CSEA综合腰麻和硬膜外麻的优点,具有诱导快、阻滞完善、对循环呼吸干扰少、母婴安全的优点,在急诊剖宫产手术中,比连续硬膜外麻醉更为优越.     

腰-硬联合麻醉和持续硬膜外麻醉用于剖宫产术效果比较

目的探讨腰-硬联合麻醉(CSEA)与持续硬膜外麻醉(CEA)在剖宫产术中的效果,为剖宫产术选取最适合的麻醉方式。方法将实施剖宫产术的140例孕妇随机分为观察组(行CSEA)和对照组(行CEA),各70例。观察并记录2组麻醉起效时间、手术时间、不良反应、新生儿Apgar评分。结果与对照组相比,实验组麻醉起效时间快、手术时间短、不良反应少,2组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 CSEA在剖宫产手术麻醉起效时间快、手术时间短、不良反应少,值得临床应用。     

腰硬联合阻滞和连续硬膜外阻滞用于老年髋关节置换麻醉效果比较

目的：观察探讨腰硬联合阻滞和连续硬膜外阻滞用于老年髋关节置换术的麻醉效果。方法选择本院行髋关节置换术患者64例,随机分为腰硬联合阻滞组（CSEA组）和连续硬膜外阻滞组（CEA组）各32例,比较两组麻醉前和麻醉药注射后5、10、20、30分钟时SBP/DBP、HR、RR、SpO2;记录麻醉起效时间、麻醉效果和不良反应情况。结果 CSEA组麻醉起效时间显著快于CEA组,麻醉效果显著优于CEA组（P＜0.05）;两组麻醉后各时间节点SBP、DBP水平显著低于麻醉前（P＜0.05）,CSEA组麻醉后5分钟和10分钟 SBP、DBP水平显著低于CEA组（P＜0.05）;两组HR、RR和SpO2水平麻醉前后及组间比较,差异不显著（P＞0.05）。结论腰－硬联合麻醉起效迅速、镇痛效果较好。     

腰硬联合麻醉用于高龄患者髋部骨科手术的观察

目的研究腰硬联合麻醉用于高龄患者髋部骨科手术的效果和安全性。方法选择70岁以上ASAⅡ～Ⅲ级的高龄髋部骨科手术患者64例,随机分为两组：试验组腰硬联合麻醉组（CSEA）和对照组硬膜外麻醉组（CEA）。观察术中血流动力学改变情况、麻醉阻滞效果、药物不良反应、术后并发症和患者安全程度等。结果 CSEA组血压、心率、氧饱和度、心电图和呼吸变化小,感觉阻滞起效时间、运动阻滞起效时间和最高感觉平面出现时间明显快于CEA组（P〈0.05）,CSEA组麻醉满意率100%,明显高于CEA组75%（P〈0.05）。结论 CSEA可安全有效地应用于高龄髋部骨科手术。     

腰硬联合麻醉与单纯硬膜外麻醉在剖宫产中应用效果的比较

目的 对比单纯硬膜外麻醉与腰硬联合麻醉在剖宫产手术中的麻醉效果,以及对产妇和胎儿的影响。方法 随机选择本院采用单纯硬膜外麻醉和腰硬联合麻醉行剖宫产手术的产妇67例,分为硬膜外麻醉组(EA组)31例和腰硬联合麻醉组(CSEA组)36例。对比两组的麻醉效果及相关麻醉指标,产妇入室时(T0)、手术开始时(T1)、胎儿剖出时(T2)、手术结束时(T3)的心率(HR)、平均动脉压(MAP)及脑电双频谱指数(BIS),以及新生儿娩出后1、5分钟的Apgar评分。结果 CSEA组的麻醉优良率为100%,明显高于EA组(P<0.05);CSEA组的麻醉起效时间、麻醉至手术开始时间及麻醉平面达T6时间明显短于EA组(P<0.05),痛觉恢复时间明显长于EA组(P<0.05);两组产妇入室时、手术开始时、胎儿剖出时及手术结束时的HR、MAP及BIS值及两组新生儿娩出后1分钟、5分钟的Apgar评分比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 腰硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产的麻醉效果优于单纯硬膜外麻醉,且能维持产妇生命体征平稳,对胎儿呼吸无抑制作用,是较为理想的剖宫产麻醉方式。     

腰硬联合麻醉在80岁以上老年人下肢手术中的应用

目的探讨腰硬联合麻醉在80岁以上高龄老人下肢手术中应用的可行性和安全性。方法42例80岁以上择期行下肢手术患者,ASAⅡ～Ⅲ级,随机分为连续硬膜外麻醉(contineous epi-dural anesthesia,CEA)组和腰硬联合麻醉(combined spinal and epidural anesthesia,CSEA)组,观察麻醉效果、对血流动力学的影响及其不良反应。结果CSEA麻醉起效快,镇痛效果满意,阻滞平面较低,肌肉松弛,不良反应少,应用升压药及辅助药物的例数少,与CEA组比较有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论CSEA可安全有效地应用于80岁以上高龄老人下肢手术。     

O.75%罗比卡因与O.75%布比卡因腰麻-硬膜外联合麻醉应用于剖宫产手术的评价

目的比较0.75%罗哌卡因与0.75%布比卡因腰麻硬膜外联合麻醉用于剖宫产手术的可行性.方法ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级初产妇40例于腰硬联合麻醉下行剖宫产手术,随机、双盲分两组:R组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%罗哌卡因1.2～1.4ml(9～10.5mg);B组(n=20)腰麻用药为0.75%布比卡因,剂量同R组.术中两组麻醉效应不足时经硬膜外导管补充1.6%利多卡因.术中连续监测呼吸和循环状况,评估麻醉效应,并观察围术期不良反应的发生及新生儿情况.结果两组最高阻滞平面及达到时间相似(P＞0.05),但R组感觉和运动神经阻滞起效慢,维持时间短(P＜0.05);下肢运动阻滞程度R组显著低于B组(P＜0.01);术中R组有4例(20%)发生心动过缓,B组5例(25%)出现主观气促感;新生儿Apgar评分及脐动脉血气值在正常范围内,两组比较无差异(P＞0.05).结论0.75%罗哌卡因用于硬腰联合麻醉剖腹产手术安全有效,与0.75%布比卡因相比,下肢运动阻滞弱且恢复迅速.     

舒芬太尼腰硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产手术的麻醉效果观察

目的观察舒芬太尼腰硬联合麻醉用于剖宫产术的效果。方法随机将接受腰硬联合麻醉下剖宫产术的118例产妇分为2组,各59例。对照组使用芬太尼,观察组使用舒芬太尼。比较2组的麻醉效果。结果观察组麻醉效果优良率(94.92%)高于对照组(72.89%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05);观察组麻醉起效、运动阻滞恢复及感觉阻滞恢复时间均较对照组短,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);2组恶心呕吐、牵拉反射、低血压、皮肤瘙痒、心动过缓等不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论与芬太尼比较,舒芬太尼用于腰硬联合麻醉剖宫产术,可提升麻醉效果,且未增加不良反应。     

25G腰穿针微创穿刺腰麻在剖宫产术中的麻醉效果

目的分析25G腰穿针微创穿刺腰麻(SA)在剖宫产术中的效果。方法随机将200例拟行剖宫产术的产妇分为2组,各100例。SA组行微创SA,CSEA组行腰硬联合麻醉(CSEA)。比较2组穿刺成功率、麻醉操作时间、麻醉效果及不良反应发生率。结果 2组麻醉效果和穿刺成功率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。SA组麻醉操作时间明显短于CSEA组,不良反应发生率明显低于CSEA组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 25G腰穿针微创SA应用于剖宫产,操作简便、用时较短、起效快、麻醉效果较好,尤其适用于初产单胎孕妇。     

腰-硬联合麻醉与全身麻醉用于髋关节置换手术的效果比较

目的探讨腰-硬联合麻醉与全身麻醉用于髋关节置换手术的临床效果。方法将100例进行髋关节置换手术患者随机分为观察组和对照组,各50例。观察组给予腰-硬联合麻醉,对照组给予全身麻醉,比较两组麻醉效果。结果两组麻醉镇痛效果比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05),观察组患者的麻醉见效时间和阻滞完全时间明显低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论对于髋关节置换手术患者,腰-硬联合麻醉起效时间快、阻滞完全时间短,麻醉效果相对较好,但需因人而宜。     

General anesthesia versus regional anesthesia

No distinct advantage is apparent between regional and general anesthesia when considering perioperative cardiac morbidity and mortality in peripheral vascular surgery. However, there is some evidence to support regional anesthesia over general anesthesia in an effort to optimize graft patency if the regional technique is extended into the postoperative period to provide neuraxial analgesia. An inadequate number of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted to determine whether regional or general anesthesia should be performed for carotid endarterectomy. The nonrandomized trials do support regional anesthesia by virtue of reductions in stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. A randomized, prospective trial is needed to verify these outcomes. The choice of technique does not appear to affect mortality in patients requiring hip fracture surgery, although Urwin et al. (29) reported less 1-month mortality in patients receiving regional anesthesia. General anesthesia has been associated with increased blood loss and thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing hip fracture repair. Epidural anesthesia has been shown to promote quicker return of bowel function postoperatively when the catheter has been sited at T12 or higher. Anastomotic breakdown in patients with epidural anesthesia/analgesia has rarely been reported. Most studies tend to show quicker return of bowel function when local anesthetics alone are administered epidurally.     

Brainstem anesthesia after peribulbar anesthesia

We report a case of pupilloplasty under peribulbar anaesthesia complicated by a brainstem anaesthesia requiring tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation. Immediate outcome was good. We discuss the different mechanisms of this complication. The subarachnoidal (intrathecal) injection of local anaesthesic seems to be the most probable cause. The use of short needles should theoretically decrease the risk. Despite all these precautions, peribulbar anaesthesia should not be considered as an ordinary procedure.     

Chemonucleolysis. Peridural anesthesia versus general anesthesia

A prospective comparative study was carried out between two anesthetic techniques for chemonucleolysis. Patients were divided into 2 groups of 50 patients each. Group A were submitted to general anesthesia and group B to epidural anesthesia with 0.5% bupivacaine, 2% mepivacaine and buprenorphine. Group B was divided into 2 subgroups: in B1, buprenorphine was administered with the local anesthetics, while in B2 buprenorphine was administered postoperatively when pain appeared. Postoperative pain and side effects like anaphylaxis were evaluated. No anaphylactic reactions occurred. Severe lumbar pain appeared in 22% of patients in group A in spite of systematic analgesics, while group B lumbalgia was not severe in any case. Patients in subgroup B1 did not have pain during the 24 first hours and 47.8% of patients in subgroup B2 needed in most of the cases only a dose of buprenorphine. We conclude that epidural anesthesia is a good technique in chemonucleolysis and that the association bupivacaine, mepivacaine and buprenorphine provides a good postoperative pain relief.