4.2 Article

A triple-blinded randomized trial comparing spinal morphine with posterior quadratus lumborum block after cesarean section

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2019.06.008

关键词

Cesarean section; Intrathecal morphine; Regional anesthesia; Posterior quadratus lumborum block; Postoperative pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study aimed to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of ultrasound-guided posterior quadratus lumborum block with spinal morphine, after cesarean section, using the visual analogue scale pain score. Methods: One-hundred-and-seventy-six pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean section with spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated into four groups to receive spinal morphine 0.1 mg (group M+); spinal saline (M-); posterior quadratus lumborum block using either 0.3% ropivacaine (0.45 mL/kg each side, maximum 150 mg) group pQ(+)); or saline (pQ(-)). All patients received 11-13 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% and 10 mu g fentanyl. Intravenous droperidol, fentanyl and .acetaminophen were administered during surgery. Bilateral posterior quadratus lumborum block was performed immediately after surgery. Postoperative pain was assessed at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, 18 and 24 h after surgery, and the pain score 6 h after surgery was the primary endpoint. Results: One-hundred-and-forty-six patients were included in the final analysis. Pain scores 6 h after surgery, both at rest and when moving, were significantly different when comparing the M(+)pQ(+) group with the M(-)pQ(+) or M(-)pQ(-) groups, and when comparing the M(+)pQ(-) group with the M(-)pQ(+) or M(-)pQ(-) groups (all P <0.05). There was no significant difference between the M(+)pQ(+) and M(+)pQ(-) groups, or between the M(-)pQ(+) and M(-)pQ(-) groups. Conclusion: Spinal morphine improved postoperative analgesia but the combination of posterior quadratus lumborum block with spinal morphine did not lead to further improvement. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据