期刊文献+

甲磺酸罗哌卡因和盐酸罗哌卡因肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞的比较 被引量:9

Comparison of the efficacy of ultrasound guided interscalene brachial plexus block with 0.5% ropivacaine hydrochloride and 0.596% ropivacaine mesylate
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的观察0.596%甲磺酸罗哌卡因和0.5%盐酸罗哌卡因在超声引导下行肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞的效果。方法60例上肢手术行肌间沟臂丛麻醉的患者,随机均分成两组:A组给予0.596%甲磺酸罗哌卡因30 ml;B组给予0.5%盐酸罗哌卡因30 ml。比较两组感觉及运动阻滞起效时间、阻滞程度、运动恢复时间、镇痛持续时间和不良反应。结果A组尺神经感觉阻滞起效时间显著快于B组[(38.30±14.65)min vs.(48.03±22.34)min](P<0.05)。注药60 min A组尺神经感觉完全阻滞29例(96.7%),显著多于B组的20例(66.7%)(P<0.05)。结论0.596%甲磺酸罗哌卡因的尺神经感觉阻滞优于0.5%盐酸罗哌卡因。 Objective To compare the efficacy of ultrasound guided interscalene brachial plexus block(IBPB) with 0.5% ropivacaine hydrochloride and with 0. 596% ropivacaine mesylate. Methods Sixty patients under interscalene brachial plexus anesthesia for upper limb operation, were randomly assigned to group A received 0. 596% ropivacaine mesylate 30 ml and group B received 0. 5% ropivacaine hydrochloride 30 ml with 30 cases each. The efficacy of IBPB was recorded. Results The onset time of ulnar nerve sensory block in group A was significantly shorter than that in group B [(38.30±14. 65) min vs. (48. 03±22.34) min](P〈0.05). The percentage of complete ulner nerve sensory block within 60 min in group A was 96.7%(29/30) ,which was higher than 66.7%(20/30) in group B(P〈0. 05). Conclusion Ultrasound guided IBPB with 0. 596% ropivaeaine mesylate has better ulnar nerve sensory blockade than that with 0.5% ropivacaine hydrochloride.
出处 《临床麻醉学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2009年第11期940-942,共3页 Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology
关键词 超声引导 肌间沟臂丛神经阻滞 甲磺酸罗哌卡因 盐酸罗哌卡因 Ultrasound guided Interscalene brachial plexus block Ropivacaine mesylate Ropivacaine hydrochloride
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献11

  • 1林惠华,张晓光,牛捷平,孙晓雄.不同浓度罗哌卡因用于腋路臂丛神经阻滞的研究[J].中国实用手外科杂志,2001,15(3):153-155. 被引量:17
  • 2Scott DB, Lee A, Fagan D, et al. Acute toxicity of ropivacaine compared to bupivacaine. Anesth Analg, 1989, 69:563-569
  • 3Finucane BT, Sandler AN, McKenna J, et al. A doubleblind comparison of ropivacaine 0.5%, 0.75%, 1.0% and bupivacaine 0.5%, injected epidurally, in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. Can J Anaesth, 1996, 43(5):442-449
  • 4Wood MB, Rubin AP. A comparison of epidural 1% ropivacaine and 0.75% bupivacaine for lower abdominal gynecologic surgery. Anesth Analg, 1993, 76:1274-1278
  • 5Brockway MS, Bannister J, McClure J, et al. Comparison of extradural ropivacaine and bupivacaine. Br J Anaesth, 1991,66:31-37
  • 6Gaiser RR, Venkateswaren P, Cheek TG, et al. Comparison of 0.25% ropivacaine and bupivacaine for epidural analgesia for labor and vaginal delivery. J Clin Anesth, 1997, 9(7):564-568
  • 7Standl T, Burmeister MA, Ohnesorge H, et al. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia reduces analgesic requirements compared to continuous epidural infusion after major abdominal surgery. Can J Anaesth, 2003, 50:258-264
  • 8Senard M, Kaba A, Jacquemin MJ, et al. Epidural levobupivacaine 0.1% or ropivacaine 0.1% combined with morphine provides comparable analgesia after abdominal surgery.Anesth Analg, 2004, 98(2):389-394
  • 9Fanelli G,Gasati A,Garancini P,et al.Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade:failure rate,patient acceotance,and neurologic complications.Study Group on Regional Anesthesia.Anesth Analg,1999,88:847~852.
  • 10Warner MA,Warner DO,Matsumoto JY,et al.Ulnar neuropathy in surgical patients.anesthesiology,1999,90:54~59

共引文献118

同被引文献59

引证文献9

二级引证文献49

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部