4.6 Article

Patient-Controlled Paravertebral Block for Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery: A Randomized Trial

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 888-894

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.04.036

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272594]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation [LY16H010004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Paravertebral block (PVB) has been proven to be an efficient way to control postoperative pain in patients who have undergone a thoracotomy. This study explored whether the use of a patient-controlled PVB can provide benefits over intravenous patientcontrolled analgesia (PCA) for 3-port single-intercostal video-assisted thoracic surgery. Methods. From May 2015 to December 2016, patients who had solitary pulmonary nodules or spontaneous pneumothorax and underwent single-intercostal videoassisted thoracic surgery were randomly allocated to receive patient-controlled PVB or intravenous PCA. Intramuscular dezocine (10 mg) was used as a rescue medication. None of the surgeons, patients, or investigators assessing outcomes or analyzing the data were blinded to the group assignments. Pain level was measured by the visual analog score. Results. There were 86 patients assigned to the PVB group and 85 patients assigned to the PCA group. The difference in the mean visual analog score between these two groups was not significant (p = 0.115). For patients who needed rescue medication, the cumulative dezocine dose in the PVB group was significantly lower than that in the PCA group (21.7 mg vs 30.9 mg, p = 0.001) throughout the 4 postoperative days. The frequencies of severe vomiting (p = 0.003) and hypotension (p = 0.005) were significantly lower in the PVB group. Conclusions. PVB, which resulted in lower cumulative dezocine doses and produced fewer side effects than PCA, can provide effective pain relief for patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery. (C) 2018 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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

4.6
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