切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华胃食管反流病电子杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 05 ›› Issue (04) : 172 -175. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8765.2018.04.008

所属专题: 文献

论著

腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补术中吸入与静脉麻醉维持方式的比较
王效德1, 潘阳阳2, 刘晓勇2, 乔南南2, 徐桂萍1,()   
  1. 1. 830000 乌鲁木齐,新疆维吾尔自治区人民医院麻醉科
    2. 830000 乌鲁木齐,新疆医科大学研究生学院
  • 收稿日期:2018-08-01 出版日期:2018-11-15
  • 通信作者: 徐桂萍

Comparison of the maintenance methods of inhalation and intravenous anesthesia during laparoscopic hiatus hernia repair

Xiaode Wang1, Yangyang Pan2, Xiaoyong Liu2, Nannan Qiao2, Guiping Xu1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi 830000, China
    2. Xinjiang Medical University, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Urumqi, 830001, China
  • Received:2018-08-01 Published:2018-11-15
  • Corresponding author: Guiping Xu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Xu Guiping, Email:
引用本文:

王效德, 潘阳阳, 刘晓勇, 乔南南, 徐桂萍. 腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补术中吸入与静脉麻醉维持方式的比较[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2018, 05(04): 172-175.

Xiaode Wang, Yangyang Pan, Xiaoyong Liu, Nannan Qiao, Guiping Xu. Comparison of the maintenance methods of inhalation and intravenous anesthesia during laparoscopic hiatus hernia repair[J]. Chinese Journal of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease(Electronic Edition), 2018, 05(04): 172-175.

目的

探讨全凭静脉与全凭吸入2种麻醉维持方式那种更适合在腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补手术中应用。

方法

回顾性分析2015年2月至2018年2月,新疆自治区人民医院133例患者的病历资料,根据麻醉的维持方法分为2组:七氟醚组(Sev组)(51例)和全凭静脉麻醉组(TIVA组)(82例)。比较2组术中6个时间点(T1:麻醉诱导前;T2:麻醉诱导后;T3:手术开始后30 min;T4:手术开始后60 min;T5:手术开始后90 min;T6:送入PACU时)的心率(HR)和平均动脉血压(MAP),术中及术后不良反应,术后清醒时间、PACU停留时间、排气时间,术后在麻醉复苏室(PACU)中地佐辛用量,术后5个时间点(苏醒时、在PACU、术后8、12、24 h)的VAS评分。

结果

TIVA组在术中及术后记录的每个时间点上MAP及HR均明显低于Sev组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组清醒时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Sev组术中不良事件发生率及术后恶心呕吐(PONV)的发生率均显著高于TIVA组,且PACU停留时间及排气时间更长,术后5个时间点VAS评分更高,地佐辛用量更多,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。

结论

在腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补术中静脉麻醉维持较吸入麻醉维持是一种较好的麻醉维持方法。

Objective

To investigate the use of two kinds of anaesthesia maintenance methods, namely total venous and total inhalation, which are more suitable for laparoscopic repair of esophageal hiatal hernia.

Methods

The medical records of 133 patients were retrospectively analyzed and divided into two groups according to the maintenance of anesthesia: sevoflurane group (Sev group) (n=51) and total intravenous anesthesia group (TIVA group) (n=82). Comparing the 6 intraoperative time points (T1: before induction of anesthesia, T2: after induction of anesthesia, T3: 30 minutes after surgery, T4: 60 minutes after surgery, T5: 90 minutes after surgery, T6: when PACU is delivered) heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), intraoperative and postoperative adverse reactions, postoperative awake time, PACU retention time, venting time, postoperative dose of dizocine in the anesthesia Postanesthesia care unit (PACU), The VAS scores at the last 5 time points (wake-up, at the PACU, 8 hours postoperatively, 12 hours postoperatively, 24 hours postoperatively).

Results

The MAP and HR were significantly lower in the TIVA group than in the Sev group at each time point during and after surgery (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in awake time between the two groups (P>0.05), but the incidence of adverse events and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were significantly higher in the Sev group than in the TIVA group, and the PACU stay and exhaust time were longer. The VAS score was higher at 5 postoperative days, and the dose of dizocine was more (P<0.05).

Conclusion

It is better to maintain the intravenous anesthesia during laparoscopic repair of esophageal hiatus than to maintain anesthesia.

表1 2组患者一般资料比较
图2 2组术中个时间点HR比较
表2 术中术后不良反应,地佐辛镇痛消耗量,清醒、出PACU和排气的时间
图3 2组5个时间点的VAS评分比较
1
Matar A, Mroue J, Camporesi E, et al. Large Hiatal Hernia Compressing the Heart [J]. Am J Cardiol, 2016, 117(3): 483-484.
2
Sundman E, Witt H, Sandin R, et al. Pharyngeal function and airway protection during sub hypnotic concentrations of propofol, isoflurane, and sevoflurane: volunteers examined by pharyngeal videoradiography and simultaneous manometry [J]. Anesthesiology Nov, 2001, 95(5): 1125-1132.
3
Weingarten TN, Hawkins NM, Beam WB, et al. Factors associated with prolonged anesthesia recovery following laparoscopic bariatricsurgery: a retrospective analysis [J]. Obes Surg, 2015, 25(6): 1024-1030.
4
Apfel CC, Philip BK, Cakmakkaya OS, et al. Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery? [J]. J Am Soc Anesthesiol, 2012, 117(3): 475-486.
5
Apfel C, Heidrich F, Jukar-Rao S, et al. Evidence-based analysis of risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting [J]. Br J Anaesth, 2012, 109(5): 742-753.
6
Taghinia AH, Shapiro FE, Slavin SA. Dexmedetomidine in aesthetic facial surgery: improving anesthetic safety and ef fi cacy [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg Jan, 2008, 121(1): 269-276.
7
Turgut N, Turkmen A, Gökkaya S, et al. Dexmedetomidine-based versus fentanyl-based total intravenous anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy [J]. Minerva Anestesiol, 2008, 74: 469-474.
8
Grundmann U, Silomon M, Bach F, et al. Recovery pro fi le and side effects of remifentanil based anaesthesia with des flurane or propofol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy [J]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Mar, 2001, 45(3): 320-326.
9
Kumar G, Stendall C, Mistry R, et al. A comparison of total intrave-nous anaesthesia using propofol with sevo fl urane or des fl urane in ambulatory surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Anaesthesia, 2014, 69: 1138-1150.
10
KimE G, Park HJ, Kang H, et al. Antiemetic effect of propofol administered atthe end of surgery in laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy [J]. Korean JAnesthesiol Mar, 2014, 66(3): 210-215.
11
Akkurt BC, Temiz M, Inanoglu K, et al. Comparison of recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and gastrointestinal motility with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with desflurane for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study [J]. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp, 2009, 70(2): 94-103.
12
Walldén J, Thörn SE, Lövqvist A, et al. The effect of anesthetic technique on early postoperative gastric emptying: comparison of propofol-remifentanil and opioid-free sevo fl urane anesthesia [J]. J Anesth, 2006, 20(4): 261-267.
[1] 李雪, 刘文婷, 窦丽婷, 刘叶红. 联合护理在腹腔镜食管裂孔疝修补中的应用效果分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 750-754.
[2] 常瑜, 李广洲, 于小翠, 徐颖. 快速康复外科-临床护理路径在腹腔镜食管裂孔疝围手术期应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(06): 725-728.
[3] 王志华, 常亚男, 罗冰清, 刘文鹏, 席江伟, 王新波. 腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补联合胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝及长期疗效的评估[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(03): 290-293.
[4] 李娜, 侯颖, 董长城. 腹腔镜疝修补术结合Nissen胃底折叠术治疗胃食管反流合并食管裂孔疝的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 36-39.
[5] 尹杰, 杨慧琪, 逯景辉. 食管裂孔疝修补材料的选择及固定的专家微共识[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(01): 1-7.
[6] 何恒正, 程发辉, 梁红燕, 张宇, 曾辉, 谭礼鹏, 周艳. 生物补片在食管裂孔疝修补术中应用的疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 489-492.
[7] 王智勇, 姚国栋, 黄伯儒, 赵德芳, 王万祥. 腹腔镜下食管裂孔疝修补术复发的危险因素分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(05): 479-484.
[8] 杜亚君, 尚占民, 秦昌富. 高分辨率食管测压技术在腹腔镜治疗食管裂孔疝中的应用[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(06): 522-524.
[9] 张严, 李金东, 张广鑫, 王瑞民, 李子豪, 金成彦, 佟倜. 腹腔镜Toupet胃底折叠术治疗食管裂孔疝合并胃食管反流病的临床疗效[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(04): 309-311.
[10] 俞鸿盼, 路夷平. 食管裂孔疝的外科治疗新进展[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2022, 09(04): 199-203.
[11] 王志, 麦麦提艾力, 李慧灵, 艾克拜尔, 李义亮, 邓秀丽, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 腹腔镜联合胃镜治疗食管裂孔疝合并膈上食管憩室的临床疗效[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2022, 09(04): 196-198.
[12] 李赞林, 王志, 李义亮, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 腹腔镜下自体组织修补食管裂孔疝的临床应用[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2022, 09(04): 187-191.
[13] 马宁, 汤福鑫, 于洪燕, 周太成, 陈双. 新型冠状病毒疫情下食管裂孔疝患者的临床管理策略[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2020, 07(02): 105-109.
[14] 周太成, 于洪燕, 马宁, 宗振, 陈嘉林, 余卓敏, 江志鹏, 李英儒, 候泽辉, 甘文昌, 汤福鑫, 陈双. 食管裂孔疝患者胃底折叠术后吞咽困难的处理[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2019, 06(02): 61-65.
[15] 陈双, 周太成, 马宁. 食管裂孔疝的病理生理[J]. 中华胃食管反流病电子杂志, 2019, 06(02): 49-54.
阅读次数
全文


摘要