瑞芬太尼和芬太尼在整形美容全麻手术中应用效果的对比性研究

目的：观察瑞芬太尼和芬太尼在整形美容全麻手术中的应用效果。方法：整形美容手术40例,随机分为两组。PF组为丙泊酚-芬太尼全麻组（n=20）,PR组为丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼全麻组（n=20）。记录麻醉前（T0）、插入气管插管前（T1）、插入气管插管即刻（T2）、插入气管插管后（T3）、切皮即刻（T4）、拔出气管插管时（T5）BP、HR、SPO2和PETCO2。记录术毕停药后自主呼吸恢复时间,呼之睁眼时间,拔出气管插管时间;术中出现体动反应、屏气呛咳、恶心呕吐等不良反应发生率等。结果：PF组HR明显快于PR组,SBP明显高于PR组（P〈0.05）。PR组患者术毕自主呼吸恢复时间、呼出睁眼时间、拔管时间均短于PF组（P〈0.01）。PR组患者不良反应明显少于PF组（P〈0.05）。结论：瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚麻醉用于美容手术能有效维持血流动力学稳定,可控性好,麻醉深度易于调节,术后恢复快,明显优于芬太尼复合丙泊酚麻醉。     

丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼与静吸复合麻醉用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床观察

目的:比较微量泵输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼与静吸复合两种麻醉方法用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术(laparoscop ic chol-ecystectomy,LC)的效果。方法:选择胆囊炎或合并胆囊结石的患者30例,观察麻醉诱导及气管插管时的血压、心率变化,术毕停药后患者自主呼吸恢复时间、呼之睁眼时间、拔管时间等。结果:微量泵输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉术后患者苏醒快、拔管早,定向恢复快,血流动力学无明显改变,更具有效性、安全性、可行性。结论:与常规静吸复合麻醉下行LC比较,微量泵输注丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼麻醉诱导更加平稳,苏醒迅速,更加有效安全。     

瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注在老年腹腔镜胆囊切除术中的应用

目的探讨瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注在老年腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)中的应用效果。方法随机将接受LC的70例老年患者分为2组,每组35例。观察组采用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注麻醉,对照组采用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚持续静脉输注麻醉。通过警觉/镇静评分系统(OAA/S)对麻醉效果进行评定,并比较2组患者的呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间。结果 2组患者术中、术后各个时间段OAA/S评分差异无统计学意义(P0.05);观察组患者的呼吸恢复时间、睁眼时间、拔管时间均优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论老年患者LC时应用瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚靶控输注麻醉效果优秀,安全性高。麻醉撤药后患者苏醒快,利于老年人术后恢复。     

瑞芬太尼及丙泊酚静脉用药对高龄患者术后认知功能恢复的影响

目的探讨瑞芬太尼及丙泊酚对高龄患者静脉麻醉后认知功能恢复的影响。方法2009年1月-2013年1月我院行食管癌根治术患者32例,年龄70-80岁,ASAⅠ-Ⅱ级,随机分为两组,分别采用瑞芬太尼＋丙泊酚＋卡肌宁（瑞芬太尼组,n=16）及芬太尼＋丙泊酚＋卡肌宁（芬太尼组,n=16）行麻醉诱导维持。术后记录自主呼吸恢复时间、呼之睁眼时间、拔管时间及自我陈述时间,分别于术前24h、术后2h、24h应用简易精神状态量表评估患者认知功能。结果两组自主呼吸恢复时间未见显著差异（P〉0．05）,瑞芬太尼组呼之睁眼时间、拔管时间及陈述自己姓名时间均明显早于芬太尼组（P〈0．05）。术后2h两组简易精神状态量表评分均较术前明显降低（P〈0．05）,术后24h评分两组较术前均无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。结论瑞芬太尼与丙泊酚合用对高龄患者术后认知功能影响小,值得临床推广应用。     

丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术患者术中血流动力学及术后苏醒质量的影响

目的探讨丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除患者术中血流动力学及术后苏醒质量的影响。方法选取2016-05-2019-04间接受腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术的200例子宫肌瘤患者,按随机数字表法分为2组,各100例。对照组予以丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼持续静脉输注麻醉,观察组予以丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉。比较2组拔管时间,苏醒时间,拔管后5、10、30 min镇静评分(OAAS评分),以及入手术室即刻(T0)、插管即刻(T1)、手术开始后5min(T2)、术毕即刻(T3)时间点的平均动脉压(MAP)和心率(HR)。结果拔管后5、10 min观察组OAAS评分高于对照组,T1、T2时MAP、HR较对照组低,观察组波动较小,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对腹腔镜子宫肌瘤剔除术患者采取丙泊酚复合瑞芬太尼靶控输注麻醉,能有效稳定术中血流动力学,提高苏醒质量。     

七氟烷吸入复合丙泊酚或瑞芬太尼应用于经皮肾镜取石术的研究

目的探讨行经皮肾镜取石术患者应用七氟烷吸入复合丙泊酚或瑞芬太尼麻醉的临床疗效。方法40例ASA1—2级择期行经皮肾镜取石术的患者,经相同方法诱导后,按照麻醉维持方法不同,随机分为七氟烷一丙泊酚组（P组）和七氟烷一瑞芬太尼组（R组）,每组20例。在持续吸入0．65MAC七氟烷的基础上,P组复合静脉输注2-6mg·kg-1·h-1丙泊酚,R组复合静脉输注2-6μg·kg-1·h-1瑞芬太尼。手术结束前15min停吸入,手术结束即刻停静脉麻醉药。记录术中不同时点的血压（MAP）、心率（HR）、脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2）和呼气末二氧化碳分压（PETCO2）;观察患者呼吸恢复时间、拔管时间、睁眼时间、术毕至出室时间及拔管时OAA／S评分和从术毕至OAA／S评分达5分时间。记录术中术后不良事件的发生率。结果两组于诱导后MAP和HR均有下降,但与诱导前比较差异无统计学意义。转俯卧位后,两组患者MAP下降均较术前显著（P〈0．05）。各时点两组间SpO2和PETCO2无明显差异。拔管时的MAP和HR两组间无明显差别。两组间患者的呼吸恢复时间和拔管时间差异无统计学意义。R组患者睁眼时间、术毕至出室时间均小于P组（P〈0．05或P〈0．01）。R组患者拔管时OAA／S评分高于P组（P〈0．05）。R组从术毕至OAA／S评分达5分时间短于P组（P〈0．05）。结论七氟烷吸入复合丙泊酚或瑞芬太尼均可取得满意的麻醉效果,但复合瑞芬太尼麻醉苏醒质量较好。     

瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚麻醉应用于腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术的麻醉效果

目的观察瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚应用与腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术麻醉的优越性和安全性。方法将2015-04—2015-10接受芬太尼和瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉实施腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术的患者作为观察对象。根据不同麻醉用药分为2组,各34例。对照组依次给予咪唑安定0.04 mg/kg,芬太尼1.5~2μg/kg,罗库溴铵0.6 mg/kg,丙泊酚1.5~2 mg/kg诱导。术中间断静注芬太尼和泵注丙泊酚维持麻醉。观察组给予咪唑安定0.04 mg/kg,瑞芬太尼1.0~1.5μg/kg,罗库溴铵0.6 mg/kg,丙泊酚1.5~2 mg/kg诱导。插管成功后以0.2μg/(kg·min)持续泵注瑞芬太尼,4.2 mg/(kg·min)泵注丙泊酚维持麻醉。比较2组患者在诱导前、诱导后、切皮时、气腹后5 min和拔管后各时间点的血压、心率变化及术毕麻醉恢复过程中的呼叫睁眼、呼吸恢复、吞咽反射等指标变化。结果观察组患者各时间点的血压、心率变化明显小于对照组,且患者苏醒时间和拔管时间明显短于对照组。2组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论瑞芬太尼复合丙泊酚麻醉在腹腔镜下腹股沟疝修补术中循环更稳定,具有起效快、操作简单、苏醒时间短等优越性和安全性。     

异丙酚联合瑞芬太尼或芬太尼全静脉麻醉在宫颈癌根治术中的临床观察

目的 比较异丙酚-瑞芬太尼和异丙酚-芬太尼全静脉麻醉用于宫颈癌根治术对血流动力学和苏醒的影响。方法 60例ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ级行宫颈癌根治术的患者随机分为两组，PR组采用异丙酚和瑞芬太尼全静脉麻醉，PF组采用异丙酚和芬太尼全静脉麻醉。两组均记录术前、麻醉诱导后、气管插管时、气管插管后5min及围术期的血压、心率值。手术结束后记录睁眼时间、拔管时间、拔管后即刻、30min疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS）和不良反应。结果 PR组插管期心血管不良反应显著低于PF组（P〈0．05），PR组术后睁眼时间和拔管时间明显短于PF组（P〈0．05）。两组患者均未出现术中知晓，术中恶心呕吐发生率差异无统计学意义。结论 与异丙酚-芬太尼全静脉麻醉相比，异丙酚-瑞芬太尼全静脉麻醉苏醒更加迅速，能更好地控制气管插管时的应激反应，而且并不增加不良反应发生率。瑞芬太尼半衰期短，需提前实施术后镇痛。     

瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚复合硬膜外麻醉用于胸腔内手术的麻醉效果观察

目的：观察胸腔内手术采用瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚静脉恒速输注复合硬膜外腔阻滞麻醉的可行性．方法：46例ASAⅠ-Ⅱ腔手术病人，随机分为单纯全麻组（A组，n=20）及瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚静脉翰注复合硬膜外阻滞组（B组，n=20），观察术中MAP、FIR、苏醒及拔管情况．结果：B组血流动力学较稳定，苏醒时间及拔管时间明显短于A组，且无躁动．结论：瑞芬太尼、丙泊酚静脉输注复合硬膜外阻滞麻醉适用于肺及食管手术，麻醉效果优，苏醒期质量优，术后恢复期稳定．     

丙泊酚MCT/LCT或丙泊酚LCT联合瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉对循环功能和苏醒的影响

目的:比较丙泊酚MCT/LCT或丙泊酚LCT联合瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉,对麻醉中循环功能和苏醒的影响.方法:40例择期腹腔镜手术患者随机分为M和L组,两组患者麻醉诱导均依次静注咪达唑仑、芬太尼、阿曲库胺和依托咪酯,气管插管后接麻醉机行机械通气,M组患者以微量泵持续泵注丙泊酚MCT/LCT和瑞芬太尼,L组泵注丙泊酚LCT和瑞芬太尼,术中根据手术刺激强度、心率和血压来调节泵注药物的输注速度,术中间断给予阿曲库胺维持肌肉松弛,术毕停止输注药物.观察各时点的血流动力学参数、苏醒时间、拔管时间和定向力恢复时间,以及术后恶心呕吐的情况.结果:两组病人相应时点血流动力学参数无明显改变,呼之睁眼、定向力恢复和拔管时间均无差异;M组麻醉插管时与麻醉前基础值比SBP升高(P＜0.05),手术结束时恢复至麻醉前水平;L组麻醉插管时与麻醉前基础值比SBP、MAP、DBP均升高(P＜0.05);患者均只有一例出现恶心,无统计学差异.结论:本实验说明丙泊酚MCT/LCT与传统的丙泊酚LCT比较在麻醉过程中是较安全的,麻醉苏醒是等效的,也有较强的抗术后恶心呕吐的作用.     

The effect of propofol vs desflurane on recovery from anesthesia with remifentanil in outpatient surgery]

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect on parameters of postanesthetic recovery of propofol and desflurane administered with high doses of remifentanil for major outpatient surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (target concentration 1.5-2 microg/ml) or desflurane in perfusion (end expiratory concentration 0.5 MAC) during maintenance of anesthesia with remifentanil (0.25-1 microg/kg/min). The anesthetic agents were withdrawn after surgery. We recorded the times until eye opening, respiration, tracheal extubation, ability to cough, response to verbal orders and orientation. We also recorded the time until a score of 10 on the Aldrete recovery scale was attained, pain on a visual analog scale, sedation on the Ramsay scale, and instances of nausea or vomiting during the first 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, type of surgery or anesthesia were found. Times until early signs of postanesthetic recovery (eye opening, spontaneous breathing, tracheal extubation) were significantly less (p < 0.05) in the desflurane group. The groups were similar for all other parameters compared (times until ability to cough, respond to verbal orders, orientation and a score of 10 on the Aldrete scale). Duration of stay in the postanesthetic recovery unit, time in the day surgery ward and intensity of postoperative pain were also similar. The rate of postoperative nausea or vomiting was significantly lower in the propofol group. CONCLUSION: During anesthesia with remifentanil, the administration of desflurane is associated with better psychomotor recovery parameters than is propofol, but the rate of nausea and vomiting is higher with desflurane.     

瑞芬太尼复合芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床研究

目的对比研究瑞芬太尼复合芬太尼全凭静脉麻醉与单纯使用瑞芬太尼或芬太尼静脉复合麻醉用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术（LC）的效果。方法60例择期LC患者，随机分为三组：单纯瑞芬太尼组（R）、瑞芬太尼＋芬太尼组（RF）和单纯芬太尼组（F）（n=20）。观察记录全麻诱导、维持及苏醒期平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）、SpO2，停药至患者自主呼吸恢复时间、意识恢复时间、拔除气管导管时间，病人拔管后即刻、1、3、7、12h的疼痛程度评分（VRS）、意识状态评分（OAAS）及苏醒期并发症。结果与RF、F组及组内诱导前比，R组诱导插管时MAP较低，HR较快，术毕MAP较高，HR增快，术中维持过程无明显差异。RF、F两组间及组内在诱导与维持过程MAP及HR无明显差异，拔管及离开手术室时RF组MAP升高、HR增快。R、RF两组术后各观察指标时间差异无显著性，F组明显延长。三组术后并发症无统计学差异。R组术后VRS明显高于RF、F组（P〈0．01）；组内与拔管后即刻相比，R组术后VRS评分均明显升高，RF、F组无明显变化。F组在拔管后即刻，术后1、3h的OAAS均明显低于R、RF组（P〈0．01）。结论与单纯使用瑞芬太尼或芬太尼麻醉相比较，在麻醉诱导期复合使用瑞芬太尼和芬太尼，后期再以瑞芬太尼维持麻醉，其麻醉效应更加平稳，苏醒质量不受明显影响，术后不良反应更轻，并可减少患者术后对于镇痛的要求。     

Post-anesthesia Recovery after Infusion of Propofol with Remifentanil or Alfentanil or Fentanyl in Morbidly Obese Patients

Background: The type of opioid used during general anesthesia in the morbidly obese influences recovery and the postoperative period. In a randomized clinical trial, the postoperative recovery profile and early period after general anesthesia with remifentanil, fentanyl and alfentanil were compared in morbidly obese patients. Material and Method: 60 morbidly obese patients with BMI >35 kg/m² (mean 43.31) undergoing open Roux-en-y gastric bypass were randomly divided into 3 groups: remifentanil (R), fentanyl (F), and alfentanil (A). Dosage of opioids was based on ideal body weight (IBW): fentanyl 5 mcg/kg for intubation followed by infusion of 0.025-0.05 mcg/kg/min; alfentanil 15 mcg/kg initially, then 1.0-1.5 mcg kg/min; and remifentanil 1 mcg/kg followed by infusion of 0.25-1.5 mcg/kg/min. Anesthesia was induced with infusion of propofol and oxygen with N₂O (1:1). After anesthesia, the duration to response to verbal command, spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration, and safe extubation were recorded.The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting were recorded. Using verbal scale for evaluation of postoperative pain, the early postoperative analgesia requirements were assessed. Results: Demographic profiles and duration of procedure did not differ between groups. A total dose of propofol was significantly lower in Group R compared with Groups A and F (P <0.05). Duration to spontaneous respiration, adequate respiration and safe extubation were significantly shorter in Group R compared with Group F (P <0.05). Shortly after anesthesia, significantly more patients in Group R required additional dose of analgesic than in Group F (P <0.05). Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurred significantly more often in Group R compared with Group F (P <0.05). Recovery profile of Group A was more similar to Group R, and postoperative pain and PONV evaluation more similar to Group F. Conclusion: In morbidly obese individuals, alfentanil or fentanyl and remifentanil can be safely used, but there is a higher rate of PONV and postoperative pain in the remifentanil group.     

A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl for fast track paediatric cardiac anaesthesia

BACKGROUND: Fast track anaesthetic protocols for cardiac surgical patients have been developed to facilitate early tracheal extubation. We compared anaesthetics based on either remifentanil or fentanyl for fast track paediatric cardiac anaesthesia. METHODS: Fifty patients with atrial septal defect or simple ventricular septal defect who were deemed suitable for fast track anaesthetic management were randomly assigned to group R (remifentanil) or group F (fentanyl). After sevoflurane induction, patients received either R infusion or F bolus. Following intubation, isoflurane 0.5 MAC was administered to all patients. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded at baseline and pre- and postinduction, intubation, skin incision and sternotomy. Other parameters measured included time to extubation, reintubation rate and requirements for postoperative analgesia, ondansetron, and nitroprusside in the paediatric intensive care unit. RESULTS: BP decreased similarly from baseline in both groups. Decreases in HR over time were significantly greater in group R. Haemodynamic response to incision/sternotomy was low and similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in extubation time, reintubation incidence, postoperative narcotic requirements, postoperative hypertension or postoperative nausea/vomiting. CONCLUSIONS: The remifentanil based anaesthetic was associated with a significantly slower HR than the fentanyl based anaesthetic. The clinical implications of the slower HR during remifentanil anaesthesia could be important and should be investigated.     

Remifentanil-based anesthesia versus a propofol technique for otologic surgical procedures.

Otologic procedures require a still surgical field and are associated with a 50% incidence of emetic symptoms. Propofol reduces nausea and vomiting but not intraoperative movement. This study compares a remifentanil/propofol anesthetic to a propofol/fentanyl combination to determine which provides the best perioperative conditions for otologic microsurgery. Eighty healthy patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the anesthetic combinations. Demographic data, hemodynamic variables, movement, and bispectral index monitoring values in addition to anesthetic emergence, nausea, vomiting, pain, and other recovery variables were compared between groups with appropriate statistical methods. Both groups were similar. Times to eye opening (7.7 +/- 0.7 vs 12.4 +/- 1.2 minutes) and extubation (9.8 +/- 0.9 vs 12.4 +/- 1.0 minutes) were shorter with remifentanil. This group also had lower hemodynamic variables and movement (23% vs 65%) under anesthesia. Postoperative pain was mild in both groups, but remifentanil patients had more than the propofol group. All other postoperative parameters were similar. Remifentanil-based anesthesia produces better hemodynamic stability, less movement, and faster emergence after otologic surgery, with propofol's antiemetic effect, for the same cost.     

布托啡诺用于瑞芬太尼麻醉妇科腹腔镜手术后镇痛的观察

目的观察布托啡诺在防治瑞芬太尼麻醉妇科腹腔镜手术后疼痛的有效性。方法 60例择期妇科腹腔镜手术,按手术先后顺序分为B1、B2、S 3组。气管插管以微量泵持续输注丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼行全凭静脉麻醉。术毕前30 min B1、B2组分别静滴布托啡诺0.01 mg/kg、0.02 mg/kg,S组静滴舒芬太尼0.2μg/kg。记录拔管时、拔管后30 min、1 h、2 h Ramsay镇静评分(Ramsay sedation score,RSS)和疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)。记录拔管时间及术前、拔管时、拔管后30 min、1 h、2 h MAP、HR、RR,观察术后不良反应发生情况。结果 B1组拔管时和拔管后30 min,HR显著高于B2组(q=8.311,P0.05;q=5.263,P0.05)和S组(q=8.957,P0.05;q=6.073,P0.05)。拔管后30 min,B1组MAP显著低于B2、S 2组(q=3.959,P0.05;q=3.393,P0.05)。S组4例发生呼吸抑制,明显多于B1、B2组(χ2=17.549,P=0.000;χ2=21.232,P=0.000)。3组恶心呕吐、寒战的发生率无显著差异(P0.05)。VAS评分B1组拔管时、拔管后30 min显著高于B2(q=4.228,P0.05;q=3.648,P0.05)、S组(q=4.363,P0.05;q=4.115,P0.05),但B2、S组各时点VAS评分无统计学差异(P0.05)。B2组各时点RSS评分显著高于S组(q=5.973,8.030,9.251,9.339,P0.05),但B1组各时点RSS评分与S组无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论布托啡诺0.02 mg/kg能够安全有效地用于瑞芬太尼麻醉妇科腹腔镜术后镇痛。     

地佐辛预防瑞芬太尼复合麻醉患者术后痛觉过敏的效果

目的 评价地佐辛预防瑞芬太尼复合麻醉患者术后痛觉过敏的效果.方法 择期行腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者100例,年龄20～64岁,体重45～65 kg,ASA分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数学表法,将其随机分为4组(n=25):芬太尼组(F组)、低剂量地佐辛组(D1组)、中剂量地佐辛组(D2组)和高剂量地佐辛组(D3组).静脉注射咪达唑仑、异丙酚、瑞芬太尼和顺阿曲库铵麻醉诱导,气管内插管后机械通气.麻醉维持:靶控输注瑞芬太尼,效应室靶浓度4 μg/L,静脉输注异丙酚4～6 mg·kg-1·h-1,间断静脉注射顺阿曲库铵0.03 mg/kg.手术结束前30 min时D1组、D2组和D3组分别肌肉注射地佐辛0.1、0.2、0.3 mg/kg,F组手术结束前15 min静脉注射芬太尼1 μg/kg.记录苏醒时间、拔除气管导管时间,记录苏醒后即刻、1h、2 h(T0 ～ T2)时视觉模拟评分(VAS)、布氏舒适评分(BCS)和镇静和躁动评分(SAS),记录拔除气管导管后呼吸抑制、恶心呕吐及尿潴留的发生情况.结果 与F组比较,D1组、D2组和D3组苏醒时间和拔除气管导管时间缩短,呼吸抑制和恶心呕吐发生率降低;D1组各时点VAS评分升高,BCS评分降低,D2组和D3组T0时VAS评分升高,T1,2时VAS评分降低,T0～2时SAS评分降低(P＜0.05);与D2组比较,D3组T0～2时SAS评分降低,呼吸抑制发生率升高(P＜0.05);4组无一例患者发生尿潴留.结论 手术结束前30 min肌肉注射地佐辛0.2 mg/kg可减轻瑞芬太尼复合麻醉患者麻醉恢复期痛觉过敏,且副作用小.     

瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉抑制气管拔管期副作用最低有效浓度

目的 探讨瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉时,抑制患者气管拔管期循环反应的瑞芬太尼靶控输注(target controlled infusion,TCI)血浆靶浓度的半最大效应浓度(concentration for 50％ of maximal effect,EC50),以指导临床麻醉. 方法 纳入2016年6～8月于我院接受非心脏手术的全身麻醉患者30例,ASA分级Ⅰ、Ⅱ级.所有患者均在BIS监控下行瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉诱导,手术结束缝皮时停用丙泊酚,并将瑞芬太尼调整至试验浓度.根据上下序贯法原则设定瑞芬太尼试验浓度,第1例患者瑞芬太尼血浆靶浓度2 μg/L,间隔浓度为0.2 μg/L.记录患者麻醉诱导前(T1),拔管期瑞芬太尼达到试验浓度时(T2),拔管即刻(T3),拔管后1 min(T4)、2 min(T5)、3 min(T6)、4 min(T7)、5 min(T8)时的MAP和HR. 结果 所有手术均在患者接受单次肌松药下成功完成,手术时间均在2h内,术中未见严重应激反应、心动过缓及低血压等不良事件发生,术后未见皮肤瘙痒、疼痛、恶心呕吐等并发症,拔管时6例患者出现呛咳.根据序贯法,瑞芬太尼抑制拔管期循环反应的EC50为1.637 μg/L,其95％CI=1.481～1.769 μg/L. 结论 瑞芬太尼联合丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉时,抑制50％患者气管拔管期循环反应的瑞芬太尼TCI血浆靶浓度为1.637 μg/L.     

Comparison of anesthetic maintenance and recovery with propofol versus sevoflurane combined with remifentanil in craniotomy for supratentorial neoplasm

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of propofol versus sevoflurane associated with remifentanil on the maintenance of anesthesia and on recovery in patients undergoing elective supratentorial craniotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective randomized trial enrolling 90 patients scheduled for excision of a brain neoplasm. All received an infusion of remifentanil at a dose of 0.5 microg x Kg(-1) x min(-1) until tracheal intubation and then 0.25 microg x Kg(-1) x min(-1) during surgery. Induction was achieved with propofol and anesthesia was maintained with either sevoflurane at a maximum alveolar concentration of 0.4 (45 patients) or propofol by target controlled infusion at a concentration of 2.5 microg x mL(-1) (45 patients, group P). Variables assessed were hemodynamic stability during anesthesia and times and quality of recovery from anesthesia (eye opening, initiation of spontaneous ventilation, extubation, cough reflex, and temporal and spacial orientation 3 minutes after extubation. During the first 24 hours after surgery, pain intensity was evaluated on a verbal visual analog scale (VAS) and the incidence of nausea and vomiting was recorded. RESULTS: Times until eye opening upon request and until extubation were significantly shorter in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group: 3.7 (SD, 1.2) minutes vs 5 (3.1) minutes, respectively, for eye opening and 6.6 (1.2) minutes vs 8.1 (3.3) minutes for extubation (P<0.01). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the sevoflurane group (40% vs 13%, respectively, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Combining remifentanil with propofol or with sevoflurane provides satisfactory anesthesia during elective supratentorial craniotomy to remove a brain neoplasm. Hemodynamic stability is appropriate and recovery from anesthesia is rapid.     

超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞对颈椎前路减压融合术患者术后早期康复质量的影响

目的评价超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞对颈椎前路减压融合术患者术后早期康复质量的影响。方法择期行颈前路手术的颈椎病患者60例,男37例,女23例,年龄18~70岁,BMI 18.5~29.5 kg/m^2,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,采用随机数字表法分为两组:颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全麻组(S组)和全麻组(C组),每组30例。S组在全麻诱导前实施超声引导下右侧颈浅丛神经阻滞,注入0.375%罗哌卡因15 ml;C组不行神经阻滞。两组均静脉注射依托咪酯0.3 mg/kg、舒芬太尼0.4μg/kg、罗库溴铵0.6 mg/kg进行麻醉诱导,麻醉维持采用静-吸复合麻醉,术中维持BIS值40~60。分别于术前1 d、术后1 d采用QoR-40量表对患者进行评分。记录术中瑞芬太尼和丙泊酚用量、拔管时间、术后住院时间、术后补救镇痛情况,术后恶心呕吐、咽喉痛、吞咽困难、声音嘶哑等不良反应及神经阻滞相关并发症的发生情况。结果与C组比较,S组术后1 d的QoR-40总评分及身体舒适度、情绪状态、心理支持、疼痛评分明显提高(P<0.05),术中瑞芬太尼用量明显减少(P<0.05),术后补救镇痛率、术后恶心呕吐和吞咽困难发生率明显降低(P<0.05)。两组丙泊酚用量、拔管时间、术后住院时间、术后咽喉痛和声音嘶哑发生率差异无统计学意义。S组未出现神经阻滞相关并发症。结论超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞用于颈椎前路减压融合术,有利于提高患者早期康复质量。