于冰冰 付紅光 李文波 李彬 董鐵立 楊現(xiàn)會(huì)
鄭州大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院麻醉科 鄭州 450014
超聲引導(dǎo)下腹橫肌平面阻滯技術(shù)對(duì)腹部手術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的效果
于冰冰 付紅光 李文波 李彬 董鐵立 楊現(xiàn)會(huì)△
鄭州大學(xué)第二附屬醫(yī)院麻醉科 鄭州 450014
目的觀察超聲引導(dǎo)下腹橫肌平面阻滯技術(shù)對(duì)腹部手術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的效果。方法選擇64例開(kāi)腹手術(shù)患者,按照隨機(jī)數(shù)字表法分為觀察組和對(duì)照組,各32例。觀察組采用腹橫肌平面阻滯(TAPB)+自控靜脈鎮(zhèn)痛(PCIA)鎮(zhèn)痛,對(duì)照組行單純PCIA鎮(zhèn)痛。記錄2組患者術(shù)后清醒拔管即刻(T0)、2 h(T1)、6 h(T2)、12 h(T3)、24 h(T4)各時(shí)間點(diǎn)的Prince-Henry評(píng)分及Ramsay鎮(zhèn)靜評(píng)分。記錄穿刺相關(guān)并發(fā)癥及術(shù)后各時(shí)段鎮(zhèn)痛裝置按壓次數(shù)。記錄患者滿意度及不良反應(yīng)。結(jié)果觀察組T0、T1、T2時(shí)點(diǎn)Prince-Henry評(píng)分明顯小于對(duì)照組(P<0.05)。2組患者不同時(shí)間點(diǎn)的Ramsay鎮(zhèn)靜評(píng)分差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。觀察組未發(fā)生穿刺相關(guān)并發(fā)癥,術(shù)后6 h內(nèi)鎮(zhèn)痛泵按壓次數(shù)明顯少于對(duì)照組(P<0.05),嘔吐發(fā)生率明顯低于對(duì)照組(P<0.05),鎮(zhèn)痛滿意度高于對(duì)照組(P<0.05),差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。結(jié)論超聲引導(dǎo)下腹橫肌平面阻滯技術(shù)可降低腹部手術(shù)后6 h內(nèi)Prince-Henry評(píng)分,減少術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛藥物的用量及并發(fā)癥,術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛滿意度高。
術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛;腹橫肌平面阻滯技術(shù);腹部手術(shù);超聲可視
腹部手術(shù)的術(shù)后疼痛主要來(lái)自前腹壁。阿片類藥物常應(yīng)用于患者的自控靜脈鎮(zhèn)痛(patient-controlled intravenous analgesia,PCIA)中,但因諸多副作用(如惡心嘔吐、過(guò)度鎮(zhèn)靜、抑制呼吸和胃腸道功能)而受到限制。因此,減少阿片類鎮(zhèn)痛藥的應(yīng)用及用量成為術(shù)后快速康復(fù)的重要措施之一[1]。區(qū)域神經(jīng)阻滯(外周神經(jīng)阻滯、椎管內(nèi)阻滯)常常替代或輔助術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛,然而長(zhǎng)時(shí)間硬膜外鎮(zhèn)痛可引起一系列不良反應(yīng),如血管擴(kuò)張、內(nèi)臟灌注不足、低血壓、運(yùn)動(dòng)神經(jīng)阻滯致活動(dòng)受限。近年來(lái),腹橫肌平面阻滯(transversus abdominis plane block,TAPB)在腹部手術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的應(yīng)用受到關(guān)注。本研究觀察超聲引導(dǎo)下TAPB應(yīng)用于該類手術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的臨床效果?,F(xiàn)報(bào)告如下。
1.1一般資料選擇我院2015-11—2016-12間收治的64例開(kāi)腹手術(shù)患者。納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):(1)診斷明確。(2)有手術(shù)指征。(3)醫(yī)院倫理委員會(huì)同意后,患者及其家屬簽署知情同意書(shū)。(4)ASAⅠ~Ⅱ級(jí)。(5)患者無(wú)阿片類藥物過(guò)敏及依賴史。(6)無(wú)外周神經(jīng)病變者。排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):(1)局麻藥物過(guò)敏者。(2)精神及智力障礙者。(3)嚴(yán)重心、腦、肺等臟器疾病者。(4)凝血異常者。隨機(jī)分為2組,每組32例。觀察組:男14例,女18例;年齡19~65歲,平均28.3歲。體質(zhì)量48~87 kg,平均64.3 kg。全子宮切除8例,卵巢癌根治術(shù)7例,結(jié)腸癌根治術(shù)9 例,前列腺切除手術(shù)8例。對(duì)照組:男12例,女20例;年齡19~62歲,平均29.5歲。體質(zhì)量45~86 kg,平均62.7 kg。全子宮切除9例,卵巢癌根治術(shù)8例,結(jié)腸癌根治術(shù)8例,前列腺切除手術(shù)7例。2組患者的一般資料比較,差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05),有可比性。
1.2方法
1.2.1 麻醉方法 術(shù)前30 min肌注阿托品0.5 mg,依次應(yīng)用咪達(dá)唑侖、舒芬太尼、順苯磺酸阿曲庫(kù)銨和丙泊酚靜脈注射麻醉誘導(dǎo)。氣管插管,接麻醉機(jī),維持PETCO2于35~40 mmHg。間斷靜脈推注順苯磺酸阿曲庫(kù)銨,靜脈泵注丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼麻醉維持。腦電雙頻指數(shù)(BIS)維持在40~60。
1.2.2 鎮(zhèn)痛方法 2組均于手術(shù)結(jié)束時(shí)啟用鎮(zhèn)痛泵,配方:舒芬太尼+0.9%氯化鈉注射液稀釋至100 mL,以舒芬太尼0.05 μg/(kg·h)的速度持續(xù)泵注,Bolus 2 mL,鎖定時(shí)間20 min。觀察組轉(zhuǎn)送麻醉復(fù)蘇室后,即在超聲引導(dǎo)下行雙側(cè)TAPB:采用腋中線入路,長(zhǎng)軸平面內(nèi)超聲引導(dǎo)下將穿刺針刺入一側(cè)腹橫肌和腹內(nèi)斜肌之間的腹橫筋膜上,注入0.4%羅哌卡因20 mL,超聲影像示腹橫筋膜平面無(wú)回聲梭形信號(hào)為阻滯成功。同樣方法進(jìn)行對(duì)側(cè)TABP阻滯。所有TAPB超聲影像分析和操作均由同一資深麻醉科醫(yī)生進(jìn)行。
1.3觀察指標(biāo)(1)比較2組患者術(shù)后清醒拔管即刻(T0)、2 h(T1)、6 h(T2)、12 h(T3)、24 h(T4)各時(shí)間點(diǎn)的鎮(zhèn)痛效果和分?jǐn)?shù)。采用Prince-Henry評(píng)分法,分為5個(gè)等級(jí):咳嗽時(shí)無(wú)疼痛為0分;咳嗽時(shí)有疼痛為1分;平靜呼吸無(wú)疼痛,只在深呼吸時(shí)疼痛記為2分;平靜狀態(tài),正常呼吸時(shí)即有輕微疼痛但可忍受為3分;靜息狀態(tài),正常呼吸時(shí)即疼痛劇烈且難以忍受為4分。鎮(zhèn)靜評(píng)分采用Ramsay評(píng)分:煩躁不安為1分;安靜且合作為2分;嗜睡但能喚醒,并聽(tīng)從醫(yī)生指令,配合體檢為3分;持續(xù)睡眠狀態(tài),可喚醒為4分;對(duì)呼喊反應(yīng)遲鈍為5分;深睡狀態(tài)呼之不醒記為6分。(2)觀察記錄2組患者24 h自控鎮(zhèn)痛(PCA)按壓次數(shù)。(3)觀察并記錄2組患者惡心、嘔吐等不良反應(yīng)的發(fā)生率及術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的滿意度。滿意度分為滿意、一般、不滿意。滿意度=(滿意+一般)/總例數(shù)×100%。
1.4統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)方法采用SPSS19.0統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)軟件進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析。計(jì)量資料采用t檢驗(yàn);計(jì)數(shù)資料采用χ2檢驗(yàn),P<0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。
2.1不同時(shí)點(diǎn)的Prince-Henry評(píng)分、Ramsay鎮(zhèn)靜評(píng)分情況觀察組在T0、T1、T2時(shí)點(diǎn)的Prince-Henry評(píng)分明顯低于對(duì)照組,差異有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05),見(jiàn)表1。2組患者不同時(shí)點(diǎn)的Ramsay鎮(zhèn)靜評(píng)分差異均無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05),見(jiàn)表2。
表1 2組患者術(shù)后各時(shí)點(diǎn)Prince-Henry評(píng)分
注:與觀察組比較,*P<0.05
表2 2組患者術(shù)后各時(shí)點(diǎn)Ramsay評(píng)分
2.2術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛泵的按壓次數(shù)及術(shù)后嘔吐的發(fā)生率情況觀察組患者術(shù)后6 h內(nèi)鎮(zhèn)痛泵的按壓次數(shù)明顯少于對(duì)照組,術(shù)后嘔吐發(fā)生率明顯低于對(duì)照組,術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的滿意度高于對(duì)照組,差異均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P<0.05),見(jiàn)表3、表4。
表3 2組患者術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛泵的按壓次數(shù)
注:與觀察組比較,*P<0.05
表4 2組患者術(shù)后不良反應(yīng)及滿意度[n(%)]
注:與觀察組比較,*P<0.05,#P<0.05
腹橫肌平面注射局麻藥能阻滯前腹壁的神經(jīng),產(chǎn)生良好的腹壁鎮(zhèn)痛效果。2008年Hebbard P[3]首次報(bào)道了超聲引導(dǎo)下行TAPB,比“盲探法”提高了穿刺成功率,降低了穿刺風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。超聲引導(dǎo)下TAPB發(fā)展到目前有三種阻滯方法:腋中線法、肋緣下法和后路法。腋中線入路則是TAPB的經(jīng)典入路[4]。本研究中觀察組患者采用腋中線入路進(jìn)行穿刺過(guò)程順利,未發(fā)生出血、腹腔內(nèi)注射及局麻藥中毒等并發(fā)癥。
觀察組行超聲引導(dǎo)下腹橫肌平面阻滯后,6 h內(nèi)鎮(zhèn)痛泵按壓次數(shù)明顯少于對(duì)照組,Prince-Henry評(píng)分也明顯低于對(duì)照組。說(shuō)明TAPB能減少手術(shù)造成的皮膚、肌肉及壁層腹膜的傷害性刺激的傳入沖動(dòng),而PCIA的阿片類藥物對(duì)手術(shù)引起的盆腔內(nèi)組織臟器損傷所造成的鈍痛起到了一定的鎮(zhèn)痛作用。觀察組將2種鎮(zhèn)痛方法聯(lián)合應(yīng)用,使痛覺(jué)中樞神經(jīng)敏化的形成受到阻斷,減少了術(shù)后阿片類鎮(zhèn)痛藥物的用量,嘔吐發(fā)生率降低,患者術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的效果及滿意度較好??紤]到本研究中腹橫肌平面阻滯只注射了0.4%羅哌卡因,而羅哌卡因只有鎮(zhèn)痛作用而無(wú)鎮(zhèn)靜作用,故2組患者于術(shù)后不同時(shí)間點(diǎn)Ramsay評(píng)分無(wú)顯著差異。研究表明單次TAPB在行阻滯4 h后鎮(zhèn)痛效果開(kāi)始減退,24 h后阻滯效果完全消失[5],故2組患者的鎮(zhèn)痛效果隨著時(shí)間的延長(zhǎng)而逐漸相近。但長(zhǎng)時(shí)間輸注局麻藥的安全用量、濃度以及速度還需要進(jìn)一步研究。
[1] Kehlet H, Wilmore D W. Evidence-Based Surgical Care and the Evolution of Fast-Track Surgery[J]. Annals of Surgery, 2008,248(248):189-198.
[2] Moore KL,Dalley AF,Agur a MR. Moore Clinically oriented anatomy[ M].7th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,2014:193-194.
[3] Hebbard P. Subcostal transversus abdominis plane block under ultrasound guidance.[J]. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 2008,106(2):674-675.
[4] 劉敬臣,秦朝生.腹橫肌平面阻滯在腹部手術(shù)術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛中的應(yīng)用研究[J].微創(chuàng)醫(yī)學(xué),2016,11(1):1-5.
[5] Mcdonnell J G, O′Donnell B D, Farrell T, et al. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: A Cadaveric and Radiological Evaluation[J]. Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 2007,32(5):399.
Effectofultrasound-guidedtransversusabdominisplaneblockonefficacyofpostoperativeanalgesiainpatientsundergoingabdominaloperation
YuBingbing,FuHongguang,LiWenbo,LiBin,DongTieli,YangXianhui△.
Departmentofanesthesiology,thesecondaffiliatedhospitalofzhengzhouuniversity,Zhengzhou, 450014,China
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block on efficacy of postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal operation.MethodsTotally 64 patients undergoing abdominal operation were randomly divided into observation group and control group. After sugery, transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) were performed in observation group, control group only
PCIA. The score of Prince-Henry 、Ramsay sedation score were evaluated at awake extubation (T0), 2h (T1), 6h(T2), 12h(T3), 24h(T4)after operation. the complication of transversus abdominis plane puncture, the number of press analgesia device each time were recorded. The patient satisfaction and the adverse reactions were also recorded.ResultsThe Prince-Henry score of T0, T1and T2in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the Ramsay sedation score at different time points. The observation group had no complications related to puncture; observation group 6h postoperative analgesia pressing times were significantly less than that of the control group (P<0.05); the incidence of vomiting was significantly lower than that of the control group (P<0.05); postoperative analgesia satisfaction is higher than that of the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionUltrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block technique can reduce the Prince-Henry score within Postoperative 6h, reduce the amount of pain medication and side effects of postoperative analgesia, and improve the postoperative satisfaction.
Postoperative analgesia;Transversus abdominis plane block; Abdominal operation; Brachial plexus block; Ultrasound visualization
河南省教育廳科技攻關(guān)項(xiàng)目,項(xiàng)目編號(hào):152102310042
△通訊作者:楊現(xiàn)會(huì),Email:1058575639@qq.com
R614.2
B
1077-8991(2017)06-0009-03
(收稿 2017-04-22)