不同镇痛方式对下肢骨折手术患者应激反应及焦虑状况的影响

目的 观察术后硬膜外自控镇痛(patient-controlled epidural analgesia,PCEA)与静脉自控镇痛(patient controlled intravenous analgesia,PCIA)对下肢骨折手术患者应激反应及焦虑状况的影响.方法 选择行下肢骨折手术患者120例[美国麻醉师协会(ASA)分级Ⅱ～Ⅲ级],用随机数字表法分为PCEA组、PCIA组和对照组(C组),每组40例.所有患者均施行蛛网膜下腔阻滞和硬膜外联合麻醉.分别于麻醉前(T0)、术毕(T1)、术后24 h(T2)、术后48 h(T3)各时相点测定血流动力学指标和血浆皮质醇(COR)、血糖(BS).在T1、T2、T3对两组患者进行视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS).在术前、术后1 d、术后7 d行焦虑评分.结果 PCEA组和PCIA组心率、平均动脉压(MAP)在术后各时相点均无明显变化,与T0比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);C组术后T1、T2时相点心率(HR)、MAP均升高,与T0比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05),与同时相点PCEA组和PCIA组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).T2、T3 PCEA组VAS低于PCIA组(P＜0.05),两组又低于C组(P＜0.05).PCEA组和PCIA组在T1和T3 COR及BS与T0比较明显降低并低于C组(P＜0.05或0.01),PCEA组又低于PCIA组(P均＜0.05).术后焦虑评分PCEA组和PCIA组均低于C组(P＜0.05).结论 PCEA和PCIA均能提供安全有效的术后镇痛,减轻手术后应激反应和焦虑状况,但PCEA优于PCIA.

Effects of different analgesic methods on stress response and anxiety of surgical patients with lower limb fracture

Objective To observe the effect of different analgesic methods including patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) on stress response and anxiety in surgical patients with lower limb fracture. Methods A total of 120 surgical patients with lower limb fractures were employed and divided randomly into Groups PCEA, PCIA and C (40per group). All patients were anaesthetized by using combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. After operation, PCEA and PCIA were applied in the patients of Groups PCEA and PCIA, respectively. No analgesic method was employed in the Group C. The dynamic indices including mean blood press (MAP) and heart rate (HR), blood serum cortisol (COR) and blood sugar (BS) were measured at different time points,ie, T0 ( pre-anesthesia), T1 ( the end of the operation), T2 (24 hours after operation) and T3 (48 hours after operation). The visual analogue pain score was conducted at time points of T1, T2 and T3. The measurement of anxiety score was done at pre-operation and at days 1 and 7 after operation. Results There were no significant changes in HR and MAP of Groups PCEA and PCIA (P＞0.05, compared with T0) at every time point after operation. Whereas, HR and MAP of Group C were increased at time points of T1 and T2 (P ＜ 0.05, compared with T0 ), with statistical difference compared with Groups PCEA and PCIA at the same time points (P ＜ 0.05 ). VAS in Group PCEA was lower than that in Group PCIA at time points of T2 and T3 ( P ＜ 0.05). Meanwhile, VAS in Groups PCEA and PCIA was lower than that in Group C (P＜0. 05). COR and BS in Group PCEA were significant lower than those in group PCIA at time points of T2 and T3 (P ＜ 0. 05 ). Meanwhile, COR and BS in Groups PCEA and PCIA was lower than that in Group C (P＜0.05 or ＜0.01 ). Moreover, the changes were more significant in Group PCIA than that in Group PCEA (P ＜ 0. 05 ). The anxiety score in Groups PCEA and PCIA was lower than that in Group C (P ＜ 0.05). Conclusions Two analgesic methods of PCEA and PCIA can provide safe and effective postoperative analgesia and attenuate the stress response and anxiety in surgical patients with lower limb fracture. Meanwhile, PCEA takes more advantages than PCIA.