切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版) ›› 2023, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (06) : 740 -744. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2023.06.017

论著

超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果
田静(), 方秀春   
  1. 236300 安徽阜阳,阜南县人民医院麻醉科
  • 收稿日期:2023-03-28 出版日期:2023-12-18
  • 通信作者: 田静

The application effect of ultrasound-guided transverse fascial plane block in pediatric inguinal hernia surgery

Jing Tian(), Xiuchun Fang   

  1. Department of Anesthesia, Funan County People's Hospital, Fuyang, Anhui 236300, China
  • Received:2023-03-28 Published:2023-12-18
  • Corresponding author: Jing Tian
引用本文:

田静, 方秀春. 超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.

Jing Tian, Xiuchun Fang. The application effect of ultrasound-guided transverse fascial plane block in pediatric inguinal hernia surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(06): 740-744.

目的

分析超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞在儿童腹股沟疝手术的应用效果。

方法

选取2019年1月至2022年9月,阜南县人民医院拟接受腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术治疗的100例腹股沟疝患儿,经随机数字表法分为对照组(n=50)、观察组(n=50)。对照组接受全身麻醉,观察组接受超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞联合全身麻醉。检测并对比2组入室时(T1)、首次麻醉完成后5 min(T2)、切皮时(T3)及手术结束时(T4)各时点的心率、平均动脉压(MAP)等血流动力学指标;使用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评估2组麻醉苏醒后6 h(T5)、12 h(T6)、24 h(T7)、48 h(T8)的镇痛情况;记录2组手术时间、术后恢复活动时间和住院时间;2组住院期间的不良反应发生情况。

结果

T2~T4时,2组的心率、MAP均较T1时降低,但在T4时回升,且观察组T2~T4时心率、MAP均高于对照组,各指标组别、时点、组别时点交互比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。经广义估计方程分析显示,VAS评分通过对截距项(P<0.001)、组别(P<0.001)、时点(P<0.001)及组别时点交互比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。固定效应的显著性检验显示,在T7、T8时点的VAS评分,观察组低于对照组,差异有统计学意义。2组的手术时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组术后恢复活动时间(6.63±0.31)h和住院时间(3.09±0.31)d均短于对照组(7.97±0.49)h、(5.47±0.47)d,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组头痛、瘙痒发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);观察组恶心、呕吐发生率(2.00%)低于对照组(16.00%),差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

超声引导下横筋膜平面阻滞联合全身麻醉在腹股沟疝手术儿童中的应用价值高,术后镇痛效果好,且更利于患儿术后恢复,降低不良反应发生风险,安全性好。

Objective

To analyze the application effect of ultrasound-guided transverse fascial plane block in pediatric inguinal hernia surgery.

Methods

From January 2019 to September 2022, 100 children with inguinal hernia undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair were selected and randomly divided into a control group (n=50) and an observation group (n=50). The control group received general anesthesia, while the observation group received an ultrasound-guided transverse fascia plane block combined with general anesthesia. The hemodynamic indexes such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at the time of admission (T1), 5 minutes after the first anesthesia (T2), skin incision (T3) and the end of surgery (T4) were detected and compared between the two groups. A visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the analgesic effect of the two groups at 6 h (T5), 12 h (T6), 24 h (T7) and 48 h (T8) after anesthesia. The operation time, postoperative recovery time and hospitalization time were recorded. The occurrence of adverse reactions in the two groups during hospitalization was recorded.

Results

At T2~T4, the HR and MAP of the two groups were lower than those at T1, but increased at T4, and the HR and MAP of the observation group were higher than those of the control group at T2-T4, and the indexes were compared among groups, time points, groups and time points (P<0.05). According to the analysis of the generalized estimation equation, VAS scores showed that there were significant differences between the two groups at T7 and T8 through the significance test of fixed effects of the intercept term (P<0.001), group (P<0.001), time point (P<0.001) and group time point interaction (P<0.001). Comparison of operation time between the two groups (P>0.05); The recovery time [(6.63±0.31) h] and hospitalization time [(3.09±0.31) d] of the observation group were shorter than those of the control group [(7.97±0.49) h, (5.47±0.47) d] (P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions such as headache and pruritus between the two groups was compared (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting in the observation group (2.00%) was lower than that in the control group (16.00%) (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided transverse fascial plane block combined general anesthesia has high application value in children undergoing inguinal hernia operation, a good postoperative analgesia effect, better recovery, a lower risk of adverse reactions, and good safety.

表1 2组患儿一般资料比较
表2 2组患儿血流动力学比较(±s
图1 2组术后不同时点视觉模拟评分总体变化趋势图注:VAS为视觉模拟评分法
表3 2组间视觉模拟评分的广义估计方程分析
表4 2组患儿手术相关指标比较(±s
表5 2组患儿麻醉不良反应发生情况比较[例(%)]
[1]
Sürek A, Bozkurt MA, Ferahman S, et al. Laparoscopic Total Extraperitoneal Inguinal Hernia Repair Under Epidural Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2020, 30(5): 471-475.
[2]
Ferahman S, Donmez T, Surek A, et al. Comparison of General, Epidural, and Spinal Anesthesia in Laparoscopic TEP(Total Extraperitoneal Repair) for Inguinal Hernia[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2021, 31(5): 571-577.
[3]
唐彪, 顾萍, 李敏, 等. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞在小儿腹腔镜下腹股沟疝手术中的应用观察[J]. 中国全科医学, 2021, 24(S01): 84-86.
[4]
何朝升, 苏毅, 刘明学, 等. 单孔腹腔镜经皮腹膜外内环结扎术治疗小儿腹股沟斜疝术后复发原因分析[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2021, 36(12): 947-948.
[5]
李健文, 乐飞, 薛佩. 浅谈腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的进展及现状[J]. 上海医学, 2022, 45(4): 221-225.
[6]
中华医学会外科学分会疝与腹壁外科学组, 中国医师协会外科医师分会疝和腹壁外科医师委员会. 成人腹股沟疝诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 244-246.
[7]
孙兵, 车晓明(整理). 视觉模拟评分法(VAS)[J]. 中华神经外科杂志, 2012, 28(6): 645.
[8]
Lee K, Jin HL, Nam S, et al. Outcomes of open versus single-incision laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair using propensity score matching: A single institution experience[J]. PLoS ONE, 2021, 16(1): e0246189.
[9]
Harvitkar RU, Joshi A. Iatrogenic bladder perforation post laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: Troubleshooting with laparoscopic approach[J]. J Minim Access Surg, 2021, 17(4): 584-585.
[10]
刘吉平, 张国胜, 高志伟. 腹腔镜经腹腔腹膜前腹股沟疝修补联合腹股沟小切口治疗特殊类型腹股沟疝[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2022, 22(7): 599-602.
[11]
徐晓钢,朱德力,刘斐,等. 儿童复发性腹股沟斜疝的腹腔镜内环结扎术治疗[J/OL].中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2019, 15(1): 92-97.
[12]
王瑞玉, 吴小乐, 陈超, 等. 阶梯式停用丙泊酚对全麻腹腔镜手术患儿苏醒质量的改善作用观察[J]. 山东医药, 2020, 60(18): 83-85.
[13]
张伯康, 陈兰仁. 羟考酮联合罗哌卡因腹横筋膜平面阻滞对腹部手术术后快速康复的效果观察[J]. 蚌埠医学院学报, 2020, 45(8): 997-1000.
[14]
冯麟. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞对小儿腹股沟疝修补术后早期镇痛及应激反应的影响[J]. 成都医学院学报, 2019, 14(2): 198-201.
[15]
方胜利, 潘炳权, 郁林海, 等, 经脐入路和传统腹腔镜经腹腹膜前腹股沟疝修补术的比较[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2023, 23(4): 262-266.
[16]
唐彪, 顾萍, 李敏, 等. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞在小儿腹腔镜下腹股沟疝手术中的应用观察[J]. 中国全科医学, 2021, 24(S01): 84-86.
[17]
Aljazaeri A, AlKhashan R, AlRabah RN, et al. Selective anterior annuloplasty during inguinal herniotomy in boys: an approach to further reduce hernia recurrence[J]. Ann Saudi Med, 2023, 43(5): 277-282.
[18]
保梅, 英庆龙, 姜帅, 等. 小儿同侧腹股沟斜疝合并隐匿性直疝1例[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2022, 22(4): 366-368.
[19]
葛燕燕, 施超, 陶静, 等. 超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞对经腹宫颈癌根治术老年患者术后镇痛及早期注意网络的影响[J]. 中华全科医学, 2021, 19(5): 740-744.
[20]
王江, 阎大益, 彭微 等. 腹股沟疝患儿腹腔镜经皮腹膜外闭合术后疝复发及对侧腹股沟疝发生的危险因素分析[J]. 中国现代医学杂志, 2021, 31(11): 75-80.
[21]
陈霞, 周晓林, 史传岗, 等. 地塞米松联合罗哌卡因用于超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞在腹股沟疝术后镇痛中的应用[J]. 中国医学装备, 2021, 18(12): 53-56.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 李子禹, 卢信星, 李双喜, 陕飞. 食管胃结合部腺癌腹腔镜手术重建方式的选择[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 5-8.
[3] 李乐平, 张荣华, 商亮. 腹腔镜食管胃结合部腺癌根治淋巴结清扫策略[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 9-12.
[4] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[5] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[8] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[9] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[10] 李博, 贾蓬勃, 李栋, 李小庆. ERCP与LCBDE治疗胆总管结石继发急性重症胆管炎的效果[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 60-63.
[11] 韩戟, 杨力, 陈玉. 腹部形态CT参数与完全腹腔镜全胃切除术术中失血量的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 88-91.
[12] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[13] 王庆亮, 党兮, 师凯, 刘波. 腹腔镜联合胆道子镜经胆囊管胆总管探查取石术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 313-313.
[14] 杨建辉, 段文斌, 马忠志, 卿宇豪. 腹腔镜下脾部分切除术[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 314-314.
[15] 叶劲松, 刘驳强, 柳胜君, 吴浩然. 腹腔镜肝Ⅶ+Ⅷ段背侧段切除[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(02): 315-315.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?