在0.25%罗哌卡因与0.5%罗哌卡因高龄老年患者膝关节置换术中的麻醉效果对比

Comparison of Anesthetic Effects of 0.25% Ropivacaine and 0.5% Ropivacaine in Knee Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients

目的对比分析0.25%罗哌卡因与0.5%罗哌卡因在高龄老年患者膝关节置换术中所获得的临床麻醉效果。方法选取天津市东丽区东丽医院2017年5月-2019年2月期间接受膝关节置换术治疗的70例高龄老年患者,根据患者麻醉药物浓度的不同对其分组,使用0.25%浓度罗哌卡因的患者为低浓度组,使用0.5%浓度罗哌卡因的患者为高浓度组。分别于麻醉前(T0)、麻醉后3分钟(T1)、麻醉后10分钟(T2)、以及麻醉完成后(T3)四个时间点,对两组患者的血流动力学进行检测,对比分析两组患者的临床麻醉效果。结果低浓度组患者的运动阻滞效果以及感觉组织平面消退时间明显优于高浓度组,且低浓度组患者血流动力学受到的影响以及不良反应发生率相较于高浓度组(P<0.05);低浓度组患者与高浓度组患者的感觉阻滞起效时间以及平面固定时间相对比无明显差异,不具有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论高龄老年患者膝关节置换术中,同剂量情况下0.25%浓度罗哌卡因所获得的临床麻醉效果要明显优于0.5%浓度罗哌卡因所获取的临床麻醉效果,价值明显。

Objective to compare and analyze the clinical anesthetic effect of 0.25% ropivacaine and 0.5% ropivacaine inknee arthroplasty in elderly patients. Methods 70 elderly patients undergoing knee arthroplasty from, May 2017 to February,2019 were selected.The patients were divided into groups according to the concentration of anesthetic drugs,Patients who received0.25% concentration of Robupivacaine was ina low-concentration group and with a 0.5% concentration of Robupivacaine in ahigh-concentration group Four time points after anesthesia(T0),3 minutes(T1)after anesthesia,10 minutes after anesthesia(T2), and post-anesthesia(T3),the hemodynamics of the two groups was measured,and the clinical anesthetic effect of thetwo groups was compared and analyzed. Results The effect of motor block and the time of sensory tissue plane regression in thelow concentration group were significantly better than those in the high concentration group,and the hemodynamic effects and theincidence of adverse reactions in the low concentration group were significantly higher than those in the high concentration group(P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the time of onset and the relative ratio of the time of onset and the relativeratio of the fixed time of the patients in the low concentration group and the high concentration group(P>0.05). Conclusion In el-derly patients undergoing knee arthroplasty,the clinical anesthetic effect of 0.25% ropivacaine was significantly better than that of0.5% ropivacaine at the same dose. The value is obvious.