超声引导与传统解剖定位在臂丛神经阻滞麻醉中的比较
|
摘要
目的对比分析超声引导与传统解剖定位在臂丛神经阻滞麻醉中的效果。方法将2016年1月—2018年11月该院实施臂丛神经阻滞麻醉的54例患者分为观察组和对照组,每组均27例,观察组患者应用超声引导定位,对照组采用传统解剖定位,对两组麻醉效果进行对比分析。结果观察组麻醉优良率为100.00%,显著高于对照组的81.48%,两组间数据差异有意义(χ~2=5.510,P=0.019),观察组患者的麻醉起效时间、麻醉完成时间、麻醉维持时间分别为(3.44±0.27)min、(3.25±0.17)min、(439.25±52.67)min,明显优于对照组(t=17.676、14.155、8.709,P=0.000);观察组并发症发生率7.41%,明显低于对照组的37.04%(χ~2=9.857,P=0.000)。结论在臂丛神经阻滞麻醉中,采用超声引导定位的效果更优于传统解剖定位,不仅能提高麻醉效果优良率,还可缩短麻醉起效时间和麻醉完成时间,延长麻醉维持时间,并能减少血肿、Honer综合征及气胸等并发症的发生。
Objective To compare the effects of ultrasound guidance and traditional anatomical localization in brachial plexus block anesthesia. Methods 54 patients who underwent brachial plexus block anesthesia from January 2016 to November 2018 were divided into observation group and control group, 27 cases in each group. The observation group was guided by ultrasound and the control group was used traditional anatomical positioning to compare and analyze the anesthetic effects of the two groups. Results The excellent and good anesthesia rate of the observation group was 100.00%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group(81.48%). There was significant difference between the two groups(χ~2=5.510, P=0.019). The anesthesia onset time and anesthesia completion time, anesthesia maintenance time of the observation group was(3.44±0.27) min,(3.25±0.17) min,(439.25±52.67) min,which was significantly better than the control group(t=17.676, 14.155, 8.709, P=0.000); The incidence rate was 7.41%, which was significantly lower than 37.04% of the control group(χ~2=9.857, P=0.000). Conclusion In brachial plexus block anesthesia, the effect of ultrasound guided positioning is better than traditional anatomical positioning, which can not only improve the excellent rate of anes-thesia, but also shorten the time of onset of anesthesia and the completion time of anesthesia, prolong the maintenance time of anesthesia, and it can reduce the occurrence of complications such as hematoma, Honer syndrome and pneumothorax.
Objective To compare the effects of ultrasound guidance and traditional anatomical localization in brachial plexus block anesthesia. Methods 54 patients who underwent brachial plexus block anesthesia from January 2016 to November 2018 were divided into observation group and control group, 27 cases in each group. The observation group was guided by ultrasound and the control group was used traditional anatomical positioning to compare and analyze the anesthetic effects of the two groups. Results The excellent and good anesthesia rate of the observation group was 100.00%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group(81.48%). There was significant difference between the two groups(χ~2=5.510, P=0.019). The anesthesia onset time and anesthesia completion time, anesthesia maintenance time of the observation group was(3.44±0.27) min,(3.25±0.17) min,(439.25±52.67) min,which was significantly better than the control group(t=17.676, 14.155, 8.709, P=0.000); The incidence rate was 7.41%, which was significantly lower than 37.04% of the control group(χ~2=9.857, P=0.000). Conclusion In brachial plexus block anesthesia, the effect of ultrasound guided positioning is better than traditional anatomical positioning, which can not only improve the excellent rate of anes-thesia, but also shorten the time of onset of anesthesia and the completion time of anesthesia, prolong the maintenance time of anesthesia, and it can reduce the occurrence of complications such as hematoma, Honer syndrome and pneumothorax.
引文
[1]赵丽艳,常庚申,康定坤,等.超声引导下小儿肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞的临床效果[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2014,30(5):479-481.
[2]金文静,何迪辉,等.超声引导定位与传统解剖定位行臂丛神经阻滞的麻醉效果对比分析[J].中外医疗,2016,35(1):69-71.
[3]周海滨,陶岩,李露,等.超声引导下不同平面肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞效果的比较[J].中华神经医学杂志,2017,16(3):296-299.
[4]邹鲁,张仁斌,商建飞,等.超声引导锁骨上臂丛神经阻滞麻醉效果观察[J].山东医药,2015,13(5):62-64.
[5]刘发生,黄小玲.超声引导在小儿肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞中的应用研究[J].临床超声医学杂志,2016,16(6):388-391.
[6]王龙婷.超声引导下臂丛神经麻醉在手外伤患者中的临床应用[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(5):84-85.
[7]赵君智,冯硕,姜建利,等.高频超声引导定位在肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞麻醉中的应用价值[J].中国医药导报,2017,14(19):69-72.
[8]孙玥.超声引导下不同浓度罗哌卡因对老年患者臂丛神经的阻滞效果[J].中国老年学杂志,2017,34(4):932-934.
[9]申治国,薛建军,贺隶国,等.超声引导下锁骨上入路臂丛神经阻滞麻醉效果观察[J].海南医学,2016,27(15):2485-2487.
[10]黄典,高晓枫,廖益永,等.高频超声引导下臂丛神经阻滞麻醉在上肢手术中的效果分析[J].青岛医药卫生,2017,49(6):414-416.
[2]金文静,何迪辉,等.超声引导定位与传统解剖定位行臂丛神经阻滞的麻醉效果对比分析[J].中外医疗,2016,35(1):69-71.
[3]周海滨,陶岩,李露,等.超声引导下不同平面肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞效果的比较[J].中华神经医学杂志,2017,16(3):296-299.
[4]邹鲁,张仁斌,商建飞,等.超声引导锁骨上臂丛神经阻滞麻醉效果观察[J].山东医药,2015,13(5):62-64.
[5]刘发生,黄小玲.超声引导在小儿肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞中的应用研究[J].临床超声医学杂志,2016,16(6):388-391.
[6]王龙婷.超声引导下臂丛神经麻醉在手外伤患者中的临床应用[J].中国医疗器械信息,2018,24(5):84-85.
[7]赵君智,冯硕,姜建利,等.高频超声引导定位在肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞麻醉中的应用价值[J].中国医药导报,2017,14(19):69-72.
[8]孙玥.超声引导下不同浓度罗哌卡因对老年患者臂丛神经的阻滞效果[J].中国老年学杂志,2017,34(4):932-934.
[9]申治国,薛建军,贺隶国,等.超声引导下锁骨上入路臂丛神经阻滞麻醉效果观察[J].海南医学,2016,27(15):2485-2487.
[10]黄典,高晓枫,廖益永,等.高频超声引导下臂丛神经阻滞麻醉在上肢手术中的效果分析[J].青岛医药卫生,2017,49(6):414-416.