Nalbuphine combined with propofol on anesthesia effects, stress response and inflammatory factors in laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.02.008

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To analyze the anesthesia effect of nalbuphine combined with propofol during laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia.

Methods

The clinical data of 120 patients with inguinal hernia diagnosed and treated in the Hainan province hospital of traditional Chinese medicine from January 2018 to December 2019 were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the random number table: the control group was anesthetized with propofol and fentanyl, and the study group was given a combination of propofol and nalbuphine. The anesthesia effects, stress response and inflammatory factor indicators in the two groups were compared.

Results

After the intervention, the pain score in the study group was (3.03±0.85) points, lower than that in the control group, which was (4.36±0.91) points (P<0.05). The changes of stress responses such as HR, DBP and SBP after induction, at 5 minutes after pneumoperitoneum, and after extubation in the study group were lower than those in the control group(P<0.05). At 1 day after surgery, the inflammation index in the study group was higher than that before surgery, the levels of IL-6, hs-CRP and TNF-a in the study group were lower than the control group (P<0.05).

Conclusion

For laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia, anesthetization with nalbuphine combined with propofol can improve the pain of the patients, and produce less impact on their body's stress response indicators and inflammatory response indicators; therefore, it is with significant value to be popularized in clinical applications.

Key words: Hernia, inguinal, Laparoscopes, Herniorrhaphy, Propofol, Nalbuphine, Stress response, Inflammatory factors

Peng Xiao, Lei Cao, Liqun Yao. Nalbuphine combined with propofol on anesthesia effects, stress response and inflammatory factors in laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia[J]. Chinese Journal of Hernia and Abdominal Wall Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(02): 150-153.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2021.02.008

https://zhshfbwkzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2021/V15/I02/150

Figures/Tables 3

References 21

[1]	周琼，毕艳. 不同麻醉方式在腹股沟疝无张力修补术中的疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(01): 39-42.
[2]	戴伟钢，魏丹，袁玉杰, 等. 腹腔镜切口疝修补术联合生物补片治疗巨大切口疝的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 11(4): 241-244.
[3]	Tabiri S, Owusu F, Atindaana Abantanga F, et al. Mesh versus suture repair of primary inguinal hernia in Ghana[J]. BJS Open, 2019, 3(5): 629-633.
[4]	刘炜圳，张鹏，王智勇, 等. 局部神经阻滞下腹膜前修补治疗有并发症的老年腹股沟疝40例[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2016, 10(1): 50-51.
[5]	谢磊，黄晓旭. 腹腔镜经腹腹膜前修补术治疗腹股沟疝的临床价值研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 206-208.
[6]	Matsuda A, Miyashita M, Matsumoto S, et al. Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair for strangulated inguinal hernia[J]. Asian J Endosc Surg, 2018, 11(2): 155-159.
[7]	李智，汪刘华，汤东, 等. 腹腔镜胃切除Roux-en-Y消化道重建术后内疝27例诊治分析[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(1): 62-64.
[8]	邹劲林，彭培建，毛盛名, 等. 腹腔镜、小切口与传统手术治疗儿腹股沟疝的临床比较[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2018, 12(1): 47-50.
[9]	储诚兵，陈杰，申英末, 等. 腹股沟疝无张力修补术后感染影响因素分析[J]. 中华医院感染学杂志, 2019, 29(2): 257-260.
[10]	Inage K, Mizusawa H, Mimura Y, et al. Patient with inguinal hernia containing the urinary bladder complicated by bladder stones[J]. IJU Case Rep, 2019, 2(5): 276-278.
[11]	马翔，骆霞岗，鲁明, 等. 腹腔镜"杂交手术"修补腹壁巨大切口疝合并隐匿性疝临床体会[J/OL]. 中华腔镜外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 12(2): 115-117.
[12]	吴新华，赵晓亮，徐桂萍. 内侧腹横肌平面阻滞在腹股沟疝修补术中的镇痛研究[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 122-125.
[13]	Miller J, Tregarthen A, Saouaf R, et al. Radiologic reporting and interpretation of occult inguinal hernia[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2018, 227(5): 489-495.
[14]	许冰，王迪，高玮, 等. 右美托咪定2种给药方式对小儿苏醒期的影响[J]. 中华全科医学, 2019, 17(8): 1282-1284+1316.
[15]	闫小伟，侯海生，王洁莉, 等. 3DMAX补片与普通平片应用于腹股沟疝修补术的效果研究[J]. 中华保健医学杂志, 2018, 20(06): 529-530+539.
[16]	周仕海，郭志刚，陈宏, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术460例分析[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2017, 11(5): 332-335.
[17]	王效德，潘阳阳，乔南南, 等. 腹横平面联合髂腹下-髂腹股沟神经阻滞麻醉在老年高危患者腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2018, 5(2): 32-36.
[18]	彭泉，王雷，于华杰, 等. 局部浸润麻醉在老年患者腹股沟疝修补术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(3): 223-225.
[19]	张欢欢，田航，宋兴荣, 等. 盐酸纳布啡对小儿胃镜检查中丙泊酚注射痛的影响[J]. 中华实用诊断与治疗杂志, 2018, 32(4): 388-390.
[20]	洪晓城，林汉昇，陈家阳, 等. 腹腔镜完全腹膜外腹股沟疝修补术治疗原发性单侧腹股沟斜疝的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2018, 12(4): 296-298.
[21]	韦斌，黄俏莹. 纳布啡复合丙泊酚对腹腔镜腹股沟疝修补术的麻醉效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(6): 553-556.

组别	例数	麻醉起效(min)	呼叫睁眼(min)	吞咽反射(min)	VAS评分(分)
研究组	60	9.14±2.03	5.51±0.60	5.23±0.53	3.03±0.85
对照组	60	8.92±1.86	5.32±0.64	5.05±0.62	4.36±0.91
t值		0.6189	1.6776	1.7094	8.1768
P值		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

组别	例数	麻醉起效(min)	呼叫睁眼(min)	吞咽反射(min)	VAS评分(分)
研究组	60	9.14±2.03	5.51±0.60	5.23±0.53	3.03±0.85
对照组	60	8.92±1.86	5.32±0.64	5.05±0.62	4.36±0.91
t值		0.6189	1.6776	1.7094	8.1768
P值		>0.05	>0.05	>0.05	<0.05

组别	阶段	HR (次/min)	DBP(mmHg)	SBP(mmHg)
研究组(60例)	诱导前^a	82.58±5.26	82.53±5.16	122.85±8.52
	诱导后^b	79.26±3.23	79.32±3.65	116.25±6.58
	气腹5 min^b	78.60±3.61	82.31±3.82	125.64±6.94
	拔管后^b	82.15±5.20	83.12±5.23	121.97±5.55
对照组(60例)	诱导前	82.72±5.36	82.73±5.26	122.76±7.59
	诱导后	91.25±4.32	89.21±3.58	131.52±6.47
	气腹5 min	94.62±3.23	93.82±3.24	142.65±5.98
	拔管后	87.36±3.85	86.87±3.69	130.82±5.36

组别	阶段	HR (次/min)	DBP(mmHg)	SBP(mmHg)
研究组(60例)	诱导前^a	82.58±5.26	82.53±5.16	122.85±8.52
	诱导后^b	79.26±3.23	79.32±3.65	116.25±6.58
	气腹5 min^b	78.60±3.61	82.31±3.82	125.64±6.94
	拔管后^b	82.15±5.20	83.12±5.23	121.97±5.55
对照组(60例)	诱导前	82.72±5.36	82.73±5.26	122.76±7.59
	诱导后	91.25±4.32	89.21±3.58	131.52±6.47
	气腹5 min	94.62±3.23	93.82±3.24	142.65±5.98
	拔管后	87.36±3.85	86.87±3.69	130.82±5.36

组别	阶段	IL-6(pg/ml)	hs-CRP(mg/L)	TNF-α(ng/ml)
研究组(60例)	术前1 d^a	6.65±1.15	2.86±0.86	12.23±2.52
研究组(60例)	术后1 d^bc	23.52±5.39	13.58±2.62	46.85±5.90
对照组(60例)	术前1 d	6.72±1.23	2.93±0.79	12.08±2.39
对照组(60例)	术后1 d	35.16±6.85	17.25±2.59	55.23±6.18

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export