Comparison of analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided adductor canal block and traditional intravenous administration on fracture of tibia after open reduction and internal fixation#br#
WANG Mingzhu LIU Zhenqing XU Yan
Department of Anesthesiology, Wuxi Ninth People’s Hospital, Jiangsu Province, Wuxi 214000, China
Abstract：Objective To investigate the curative effect of ultrasound-guided adductor canal block and traditional intravenous administration for fracture of tibia. Methods A total of 80 patients with fracture of tibial admitted to Wuxi Ninth People’s Hospital, Jiangsu Province from December 2018 to December 2019 were selected, they were divided into two groups by random number table method, with 40 patients in each group. The control group was given traditional intravenous administration analgesia, and the observation group was given ultrasound-guided adductor canal block analgesia. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the pain degree at postoperative knee bend and rest, and the sedation state score (Ramsay score) was used to evaluate the postoperative rest state of the two groups, the treatment satisfaction of two groups were compared, the amount of Fentanyl in the postoperative analgesic pump, the effective pressing times of the analgesic pump and the amount of Flurbiprofen Axetil were monitored, and the length of hospital stay and the occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded. Results VAS scores at knee bend and rest of two groups were pairwise compared at different time points, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); VAS score at knee bend and rest of observation group were lower than those of control group at 8, 24 h, and 48 h postoperatively, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). At 24 h postoperatively, Ramsay scores of both groups were lower than those at 4 h postoperatively, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05); at 4 h and 24 h postoperatively, the Ramsay scores of the observation group were lower than those of the control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P ＜ 0.05). The amount of Fentanyl, the effective pressing times of the analgesic pump and the total dosage and usage rate of Flurbiprofen Axetil of observation group were lower than those of control group, and the length of hospital stay were shorter than that of control group, and patient satisfaction was higher than that of control group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The total incidence of adverse reactions in observation group was lower than that in control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block has better efficacy and safety than traditional intravenous administration.
王明珠 刘祯庆 徐艳. 超声引导下收肌管阻滞与传统静脉给药对胫骨骨折切开复位内固定术后的镇痛效果比较[J]. 中国医药导报, 2022, 19(4): 111-114.
WANG Mingzhu LIU Zhenqing XU Yan. Comparison of analgesic effect of ultrasound-guided adductor canal block and traditional intravenous administration on fracture of tibia after open reduction and internal fixation#br#. 中国医药导报, 2022, 19(4): 111-114.
[1] 孙可，金梅，袁亮婧，等.超声引导收肌管阻滞用于患儿膝关节术后镇痛的效果[J].中华麻醉学杂志，2016，36（6）：685-688.
[2] 王福朝，孙学飞，张同军，等.老年膝关节置换术后超声引导下的两种神经阻滞镇痛效果比较[J].中国现代医学杂志，2018，28（18）：109-113.
[3] 中国医师协会骨科医师分会显微修复工作委员会，中国康复医学会修复重建外科专业委员会骨缺损及骨坏死学组.胫骨骨缺损循证临床诊疗指南（2016年版）[J].中华显微外科杂志，2016，39（6）：521-523.
[4] 辛曾峰，李杭.胫骨平台骨折术后不同期感染的治疗[J].中华创伤杂志，2019，35（2）：136-142.
[5] 严广斌.视觉模拟评分法[J].中华关节外科杂志：电子版，2014，7（2）：34.
[6] 陈律，李桂云，蔡卫新，等.Ramsay评分在神经外科术后患者中应用的信度和效度[J].中国医药导刊，2011，13（12）：2105-2106.
[7] 余桂芳，蒋超.多模式镇痛下持续髂筋膜间隙阻滞与收肌管阻滞对老年人全膝关节置换术后镇痛及早期康复的影响[J].医用生物力学，2019，34（1）：101-105.
[8] 杨光辉，杨太明，朱裕成，等.胫骨平台后髁骨折的手术治疗[J].中国矫形外科杂志，2015，23（14）：1272-1275.
[9] 赵旻暐，田华，王宁，等.膝关节置换术后超声引导收肌管阻滞的镇痛疗效观察[J].中华医学杂志，2016，96（35）：2813-2817.
[10] 丁煌，周妙苗，崔珊珊，等.收肌管阻滞联合浸润麻醉用于全膝关节置换患者术后镇痛的效果[J].中华麻醉学杂志，2016，36（9）：1102-1105.
[11] Sang X，Wang Z，Cheng L，et al. Analysis of the mechanism by which nerve growth factor promotes callus formation in mice with tibial fracture [J]. Exp Ther Med，2017，13（4）：1376-1380.
[12] 孔宪刚，李海鸥，宋成军，等.超声引导下收肌管阻滞在全膝关节置换术后多模式联合镇痛中的作用[J].山东医药，2017，57（21）：58-61.
[13] Elsoe R，Kold S，Larsen P，et al. A prospective observational study of 56 patients treated with ring fixator after a complex tibial fracture [J]. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr，2017，12（1）：35-44.
[14] 高玉华，王哲，陈易，等.超声引导下收肌管阻滞用于胫骨骨折术后镇痛的效果[J].中华麻醉学杂志，2019，39（2）：196-198.
[15] 陆凤娇，孙红莉，张双银，等.间断给药收肌管阻滞用于全膝关节置换术后的镇痛效果[J].临床麻醉学杂志，2018， 34（5）：441-444.
[16] 王丽，赵石磊，西志梦，等.超声引导下不同入路连续隐神经阻滞在膝关节镜术后镇痛效果中的比较[J].临床麻醉学杂志，2019，35（3）：69-72.
[17] 胡玲，康路，王瑞婷，等.超声引导下收肌管联合IPACK阻滞在老年患者全膝关节置换术中的应用[J].实用医学杂志，2020，36（7）：950-953.
[18] 黎阳，刘金凤.超声引导下神经阻滞在全膝关节置换术后镇痛中的研究进展[J].医学综述，2019，25（7）：189-195.
[19] Wu K，Huang J，Lin J，et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Anterior Tibial Plateau Fracture-Dislocation：A Case Series and Literature Review [J]. J Knee Surg，2017，30（2）：114-120.
[20] 张宏鑫，石小龙，杜宝媛.超声引导下前锯肌阻滞在肩关节中的应用效果及对瑞芬太尼剂量和术后镇痛的影响[J].临床和实验医学杂志，2020，19（21）：2325-2328.
[21] 刘明.超声引导下收肌管阻滞与股神经阻滞用于膝关节镜半月板损伤术后镇痛效果的比较[J].中国现代医生，2020，58（1）：131-133.
[22] 李鹏.胫骨高位截骨术后超声引导下收肌管阻滞镇痛[J].中国矫形外科杂志，2019，29（23）：2510-2513.
[23] 高玉洁，陈利海，蒋卫清，等.不同浓度罗哌卡因收肌管阻滞对全膝关节置换术后镇痛效果及股四头肌肌力的影响[J].临床麻醉学杂志，2020，36（11）：17-20.
[24] 张力，李继勇，陈治军.超声引导下连续收肌管阻滞用于老年患者全膝置换术对术后认知功能的影响[J].中国老年学杂志，2020，40（12）：107-109.
[25] Cho JW，Kim J，Cho WT，et al. Approaches and fixation of the posterolateral fracture fragment in tibial plateau fractures：a review with an emphasis on rim plating via modified anterolateral approach [J]. Int Orthop，2017，41（9）：1254-1258.
京公网安备 11010502046598号