临床外科杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (6): 607-610.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-6483.20240895

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

胸腔镜直视下肋间神经阻滞与切口浸润阻滞对肺部分切除术病人术后恢复质量及镇痛效果的比较

孙西龙 吴志林   

  1. 430000 湖北武汉,华中科技大学同济医学院附属协和医院麻醉科
  • 收稿日期:2024-06-10 出版日期:2025-06-20 发布日期:2025-06-20
  • 通讯作者: 吴志林,Email:840916@qq.com

Comparison of postoperative recovery quality and analgesic effect between intercostal nerve block under thoracoscopy and incision infiltration block for patients undergoing partial pulmonary resection

SUN Xilong,WU Zhilin   

  1. Department of Anesthesia,Union Hospital,Tongji Medical College,Huazhong University of Science and Technology,Wuhan 430000,China
  • Received:2024-06-10 Online:2025-06-20 Published:2025-06-20

摘要: 目的 探讨胸腔镜直视下肋间神经阻滞与切口浸润阻滞对肺部分切除术病人术后恢复质量及镇痛效果的影响。方法 2023年7月~2023年12月择期行胸腔镜下肺部分切除术病人60例,采用随机数字表法分为两组,每组各30例。观察组行胸腔镜直视下肋间神经阻滞,对照组行切口局部浸润阻滞,术后均采用静脉自控镇痛。记录术前1天,术后24小时和48小时15项恢复质量量表(QOR-15)评分,术后2小时、4小时、8小时、24小时和48小时静息时与咳嗽时视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS)、术后24小时内和48小时内舒芬太尼消耗量、补救镇痛和相关不良反应发生情况。结果 观察组病人术后24小时和48小时的QOR-15评分分别为(103.4±14.2)分和(111.2±6.9)分,高于对照组的(91.3±21.4)分和(101.8±14.8)分,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);在静息时,观察组病人术后2小时、4小时、8小时和24小时的VAS评分分别为(2.0±0.9)分、(2.1±0.9)分、(2.5±1.2)分和(2.4±1.2)分,分别较对照组的(3.1±1.2)分、(3.4±1.7)分、(3.5±1.7)分和(3.2±1.3)分低,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);在咳嗽时,观察组术后2小时、4小时和8小时的VAS评分分别为(2.4±0.6)分、(2.5±0.6)分和(3.0±1.2)分,分别较对照组的(3.2±1.2)分、(3.7±1.7)分和(4.0±2.1)分低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组病人术后24小时内和48小时内舒芬太尼消耗量分别为(58.1±7.5)μg和(116.5±14.9)μg,少于对照组(63.2±8.5)μg和(125.0±16.7)μg,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组间不良反应发生率比较无明显差异(P>0.05)。结论 胸腔镜直视下肋间神经阻滞与切口浸润阻滞比较,其术后镇痛效果更优,术后恢复质量更高。

关键词: 肋间神经阻滞; 局部浸润阻滞; 术后恢复质量; 术后镇痛

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effects of thoracoscopic intercostal nerve block and incision infiltration block on postoperative recovery quality and analgesia in patients with partial pulmonary resection.Methods From July 2023 to December 2023, 60 patients scheduled for elective thoracoscopic partial lung resection were divided into two groups by random number table method, with 30 cases in each group.The observation group underwent thoracoscopic vision intercostal nerve block,and the control group underwent incision local infiltration block.Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia was adopted in all cases after the operation.The 15-item Recovery Quality Scale (QOR-15) score was recorded 1 day before surgery,24 hours and 48 hours after surgery.The visual analogue pain scores (VAS) at rest and cough at 2,4,8,24,and 48 hours after surgery,consumption of sufentanil within 24 hours and 48 hours after surgery,remedial analgesia and related adverse reactions were recorded.Results The QOR-15 scores of the observation group at 24 hours and 48 hours after operation were (103.4±14.2) and (111.2±6.9),which were higher than those of the control group (91.3±21.4) and (101.8±14.8),and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).At rest,the VAS scores of the observation group at 2,4,8 and 24 hours after surgery were (2.0±0.9),(2.1±0.9),(2.5±1.2) and (2.4±1.2).Compared with the control group (3.1±1.2),(3.4±1.7),(3.5±1.7) and (3.2±1.3),the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).When coughing,the VAS scores of the observation group at 2,4 and 8 hours after operation were (2.4±0.6),(2.5±0.6) and (3.0±1.2),which were lower than (3.2±1.2),(3.7±1.7) and (4.0±2.1) of the control group.The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).The consumption of sufentanil within 24 hours and 48 hours after surgery in the observation group was (58.1 ± 7.5)μg and (116.5 ± 14.9)μg,respectively,which were lower than those in the control group (63.2 ± 8.5)μg and (125.0 ± 16.7)μg,and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05).Conclusion Compared with incision infiltration block,thoracoscopic intercostal nerve block has better postoperative analgesic effect and higher postoperative recovery quality.

Key words: intercostal nerve block;incision infiltration block;postoperative recovery quality; postoperative analgesia

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 严文波;潘伟华;武志祥;等. 新生儿先天性腹裂外科处理后转归[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(11): 879 .
[2] 石宇;刘学刚 . 冠状动脉旁路移植术后短期内应用强化他汀对患者出血风险的研究[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 750 .
[3] 叶向红;彭南海;李维勤. 早期肠内营养联合早期运动促进外科重症患者康复[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(12): 960 .
[4] 范强金;郑鹏超;李振军. 原发性肺软骨肉瘤病一例[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(4): 320 .
[5] 黄品谚;丁佑铭;汪斌等. 腹腔镜胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并胆总管结石两种术式的疗效比较[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(5): 369 -0 .
[6] 刘伟;潘铁军;杨家荣等. 经尿道前列腺电切术后导尿困难原因分析[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(8): 647 .
[7] 刘晓兵. 下腔静脉血栓形成的历史演变[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(8): 574 .
[8] 李义亮;张成;克力木;等. 完全腹腔镜下远端胃癌根治术的临床体会[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 769 .
[9] 张忠伟;刘扬;路明. 痔上黏膜环切术治疗直肠前突所致出口梗阻型便秘的疗效观察[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 774 .
[10] 胡小平;王志维;邓宏平;等. 改良全主动脉弓置换治疗老年Stanford A型主动脉夹层[J]. 临床外科杂志, 2016, 24(10): 777 .