CAJ | 학술논문

目的探讨超声引导或传统解剖定位下坐骨神经加股神经阻滞麻醉的应用效果.方法择期行踝关节手术患者60例,采用随机数字表法,将患者随机分为2组(n=30):对照组(A组)和观察组(B组),每组30例.对照组采取传统解剖定位穿刺下行坐骨神经加股神经阻滞麻醉,观察组采取超声引导下行坐骨神经加股神经阻滞麻醉.对两组患者麻醉完成时间、感觉阻滞与运动阻滞效果、镇痛持续时间、穿刺或调整针头方向次数、不良反应及并发症的发生进行比较.结果观察组麻醉完成时间与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);观察组T2～ T3时坐骨神经感觉和运动阻滞程度分别为:1.84±0.16、2.45±0.27,1.52 ±0.09、1.30 ±0.12;股神经感觉和运动阻滞程度分别为:1.91 ±0.20、2.46±0.47、1.49 ±0.10、1.03 ±0.19,与对照组比较感觉与运动阻滞效果明显,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);观察组在24 h时VAS评分为(2.64±0.28)分、穿刺或调整针头方向次数为2.69±0.76,不良反应与并发症发生例数均显著低于对照组(P＜0.05).结论超声引导下坐骨神经加股神经阻滞麻醉较传统解剖定位阻滞麻醉效果更确切、安全性高,较传统阻滞方法优越.
목적 탐토초성인도혹전통해부정위하좌골신경가고신경조체마취적응용효과.방법 택기행과관절수술환자60례,채용수궤수자표법,장환자수궤분위2조(n=30):대조조(A조)화관찰조(B조),매조30례.대조조채취전통해부정위천자하행좌골신경가고신경조체마취,관찰조채취초성인도하행좌골신경가고신경조체마취.대량조환자마취완성시간、감각조체여운동조체효과、진통지속시간、천자혹조정침두방향차수、불량반응급병발증적발생진행비교.결과 관찰조마취완성시간여대조조비교차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05);관찰조T2～ T3시좌골신경감각화운동조체정도분별위:1.84±0.16、2.45±0.27,1.52 ±0.09、1.30 ±0.12;고신경감각화운동조체정도분별위:1.91 ±0.20、2.46±0.47、1.49 ±0.10、1.03 ±0.19,여대조조비교감각여운동조체효과명현,량조비교차이유통계학의의(P＜0.05);관찰조재24 h시VAS평분위(2.64±0.28)분、천자혹조정침두방향차수위2.69±0.76,불량반응여병발증발생례수균현저저우대조조(P＜0.05).결론 초성인도하좌골신경가고신경조체마취교전통해부정위조체마취효과경학절、안전성고,교전통조체방법우월.
Objective To compare the effect between ultrasound guided or classic anatomical sciatic-femoral nerve block anesthesia.Methods Sixty patients who would accept ankle operation were divided to two groups randomly according to random number table:control group (group A,n =30) and observation group (group B,n =30).Patients in group A received classic anatomical sciatic-femoral nerve block anesthesia,and those in group B were given ultrasound-guided sciatic-femoral nerve block anesthesia.In this study,time before analgesia,effect of sensory and motor block,duration of analgesia,frequency of puncture or adjusting the direction of the needles,adverse reaction and complications were recorded and compared.Results There was no statistically significant difference in time before analgesia between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).The effects of sensory and motor block of sciatic nerve in the observation group at T2-T3 were 1.84 ± 0.16 and 2.45 ± 0.27,and 1.52 ± 0.09 and 1.30 ± 0.12,and those of femoral nerve were 1.91 ±0.20,2.46 ±0.47,1.49 ±0.10 and 1.03 ±0.19,respectively.There was significant difference between two groups (P ＜ 0.05).In the observation group at 24 h,the VAS scores were 2.64 ±0.28,frequency of puncture or adjusting the direction of the needles was 2.69 ± 0.76,and number of adverse reactions and complications were significantly reduced as compared with those in the control group (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusion Ultrasound-guided sciatic-femoral nerve block anesthesia was more effective and safer than classic anatomical sciatic-femoral nerve block anesthesia.