4.3 Article

Which one is more effective for analgesia in infratentorial craniotomy? The scalp block or local anesthetic infiltration

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 98-103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.01.018

关键词

Scalp block; Local anesthetic infiltration; Infratentorial craniotomy; Postcraniotomy pain; Bupivacaine; Opioid related side effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The most painful stages of craniotomy are the placement of the pin head holder and the skin incision. The primary aim of the present study is to compare the effects of the scalp block and the local anesthetic infiltration with bupivacaine 0.5% on the hemodynamic response during the pin head holder application and the skin incision in infratentorial craniotomies. The secondary aims are the effects on pain scores and morphine consumption during the postoperative 24 h. Methods: This prospective, randomized and placebo controlled study included forty seven patients (ASA I, II and III). The scalp block was performed in the Group S, the local anesthetic infiltration was performed in the Group I and the control group (Group C) only received remifentanil as an analgesic during the intraoperative period. The hemodynamic response to the pin head holder application and the skin incision, as well as postoperative pain intensity, cumulative morphine consumption and opioid related side effects were compared. Results: The scalp block reduced the hemodynamic response to the pin head holder application and the skin incision in infratentorial craniotomies. The local anesthetic infiltration reduced the hemodynamic response to the skin incision. As well as both scalp block and local anesthetic infiltration reduced the cumulative morphine consumption in postoperative 24 h. Moreover, the pain intensity was lower after scalp block in the early postoperative period. Conclusion: The scalp block may provide better analgesia in infratentorial craniotomies than local anesthetic infiltration. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.3
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