4.7 Article

The Efficacy of Scalp Nerve Block in Postoperative Pain Management after Microvascular Decompression: A Randomized Clinical Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 13, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12134242

关键词

scalp nerve block; anesthesia; enhanced recovery after surgery; microvascular decompression; hemifacial spasm

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the efficacy of scalp nerve block in patients with hemifacial spasm undergoing microvascular decompression. The results showed that a scalp nerve block may reduce postoperative pain in the early postoperative period. However, further research is needed to confirm the efficacy of scalp block in a larger study.
The scalp nerve block, created by injecting local anesthetics around the scalp nerves, is reported to effectively reduce pain after surgery. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of scalp nerve block in patients with hemifacial spasm (HFS) undergoing microvascular decompression (MVD). Seventy-four patients who underwent MVD for HFS were enrolled. The block group received scalp nerve block with 0.5% ropivacaine before surgery. The primary outcome was cumulative dose of rescue analgesics 24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were included pain scores, postoperative antiemetic consumption, and Quality of Recovery-15 scale. The cumulative dose of rescue analgesics at 24 h postoperatively was not significantly different between the two groups (4.80 & PLUSMN; 3.64 mg vs. 5.92 & PLUSMN; 3.95 mg, p = 0.633). However, the pain score was significantly reduced in the block group at 6, 12, and 24 h postoperatively. Postoperative antiemetic consumption was lower in the block group than the control group at 12 h. There were no significant differences between the two groups for other secondary outcomes. In MVD for HFS, a preoperative scalp nerve block might reduce postoperative pain in the early postoperative period, but a larger study using a multimodal approach is needed to confirm the efficacy of a scalp block.

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

4.7
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