超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉在颈动脉内膜剥脱术中的应用效果

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2022.18.008

国际医药卫生导报 ›› 2022, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (18): 2553-2557.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2022.18.008

超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉在颈动脉内膜剥脱术中的应用效果

关文川桑静宋琼

郑州大学附属郑州中心医院麻醉与围术期科，郑州　450005

收稿日期:2022-06-09 出版日期:2022-09-15 发布日期:2022-10-11
通讯作者: 关文川，Email：xiaoguanaqw@126.com
基金资助:
河南省医学科技攻关计划项目（201701035）

Application effect of ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block combined with general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy

Guan Wenchuan, Sang Jing, Song Qiong

Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Period, Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou 450005, China

Received:2022-06-09 Online:2022-09-15 Published:2022-10-11
Contact: Guan Wenchuan, Email: xiaoguanaqw@126.com
Supported by:
Henan Province Medical Science and Technology Research Project (201701035)

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的　探析在颈动脉内膜剥脱术（CEA）中应用超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉的效果以及对术后简易精神状态检查量表（MMSE）评分、不良反应发生率的影响。方法　回顾性分析选取2020年4月至2022年4月在郑州大学附属郑州中心医院接受CEA治疗的109例患者，男女比66/43，年龄（61.41±6.24）岁。根据麻醉方案的不同将其分为对照组（54例）与观察组（55例）。对照组术前接受全身麻醉，在此基础上观察组加用超声引导下颈浅从神经阻滞。比较两组恢复情况［15项恢复质量评分量表（QoR-15）］、生命体征［心率（HR）、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP）］、认知功能（MMSE评分）及不良反应发生率。所有结果数据均导入SPSS 21.0软件进行处理，采用t检验、χ²检验、Fisher确切概率法。结果　术后1 d，观察组QoR-15评分为（103.66±10.16）分，高于对照组（91.86±10.12）分（t=6.074，P<0.001）。麻醉前，两组生命体征差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05），麻醉后，两组生命体征各项指标均降低（均P<0.05），在切皮时，观察组HR为（66.86±6.63）次/min、SBP水平为（125.55±9.54）mmHg（1 mmHg=0.133 kPa）、DBP水平为（66.91±9.31）mmHg，均低于对照组（均P<0.05）。观察组术后1周MMSE评分为（25.66±1.08）分，与对照组（25.76±1.18）分比较差异无统计学意义（t=0.462，P=0.645）。观察组发生不良反应的概率为21.81%（12/55），较对照组18.51%（10/54）略高，但对比差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论　对接受CEA治疗的患者进行全身麻醉联合超声引导下浅丛神经阻滞效果较高，可降低其术中生命体征的波动幅度，不良反应风险不大，有利于术后恢复，且不会对认知功能造成更大影响，可在临床推广应用。

关键词: 颈动脉内膜剥脱术, 全身麻醉, 超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞, 应用效果

Abstract: Objective To explore the effect of ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block combined with general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and its effect on postoperative Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score and incidence of adverse reactions. Methods A total of 109 patients, with a male to female ratio of 66/43 and an age of (61.41±6.24) years old, who received CEA in Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University from April 2020 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different anesthesia plans, they were divided into a control group (54 cases) and an observation group (55 cases). The control group received preoperative general anesthesia, and the observation group received ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block on the basis. The recovery [15-item Quality of Recovery Scale (QoR-15)], vital signs [heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)], cognitive function (MMSE score), and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. All the data were imported into SPSS 21.0 software for processing, and t test, χ² test, and Fisher exact probability method were used. Results One day after surgery, the QoR-15 score of the observation group was (103.66±10.16), which was higher than that of the control group (91.86±10.12) (t=6.074, P<0.001). Before anesthesia, there were no statistically significant differences in the vital signs between the two groups (all P>0.05); after anesthesia, the vital signs of the two groups were decreased (all P<0.05); during skin cutting, the HR, SBP, and DBP levels in the observation group were (66.86±6.63) times/min, (125.55±9.54) mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), and (66.91±9.31) mmHg, which were lower than those in the control group (all P<0.05). The MMSE score of the observation group was (25.66±1.08) 1 week after surgery, and there was no statistically significant difference compared with that of the control group (25.76±1.18) (t=0.462, P=0.645). The incidence of adverse reactions in the observation group was 21.81% (12/55), which was slightly higher than 18.51% (10/54) in the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion General anesthesia combined with ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block for patients receiving CEA has a higher effect, which can reduce the fluctuation of intraoperative vital signs, has a greater impact on the cognitive function, and can be applied in clinical practice.

Key words: Carotid endarterectomy, General anesthesia, Ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block, Application effect

关文川桑静宋琼. 超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉在颈动脉内膜剥脱术中的应用效果[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(18): 2553-2557.

Guan Wenchuan, Sang Jing, Song Qiong. Application effect of ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block combined with general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy[J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2022, 28(18): 2553-2557.

参考文献

[1] 齐炳才,靳琦文,胡杰,等.颈动脉粥样硬化斑块内新生血管的研究现状及进展[J].中国动脉硬化杂志,2021,29(4):359-362,368. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-3949.2021.04.016.
[2] 张伟,成树珺彦,万华.颈动脉斑块形成与血浆致动脉硬化指数相关性分析[J].江苏医药,2021,47(11):1116-1118. DOI:10.19460/j.cnki.0253-3685.2021.11.009.
[3] 容嘉彬,欧阳光.症状性颈动脉狭窄病人颈动脉内膜斑块剥脱术手术时机的选择[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2021,26(1):53-55. DOI:10.13798/j.issn.1009- 153X.2021.01.018.
[4] 徐进旺,刘希光,李爱民, 等.荧光造影辅助下颈动脉内膜斑块剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床疗效[J].中国临床神经外科杂志,2021,26(2):121-123. DOI:10.13798/j.issn.1009- 153X.2021.02.019.
[5] 王爽,吕黄伟,韩如泉, 等.合并高血压高龄患者颈动脉内膜剥脱术的麻醉与围术期管理[J].中华麻醉学杂志,2021,41(4):393-396. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn131073.20210402. 00402.
[6] 史惠静,邹最,李永华, 等.超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞复合全麻与单纯全麻在颈动脉内膜斑块切除术中的比较[J].第二军医大学学报,2017,38(5):628-633. DOI:10.16781/j.0258-879x.2017.05.0628.
[7] 禹博文,李付勇,邹建军, 等.颈动脉内膜剥脱术治疗颈动脉狭窄的临床分析[J].中国微侵袭神经外科杂志,2020,25(2):72-75. DOI:10.11850/j.issn.1009-122X.2020.02.006.
[8] 王大宝,王晓刚,金强, 等.颈动脉内膜剥脱术术中血压及区域脑氧饱和度的相关性研究[J].中国微侵袭神经外科杂志,2021,26(7):308-311. DOI:10.11850/j.issn.1009- 122X.2021.07.005.
[9] 金强,王凯利,屈鹏霞, 等.丙泊酚全身麻醉诱导对颈动脉内膜剥脱术老年患者脑氧饱和度影响[J].临床军医杂志,2020,48(1):37-39. DOI:10.16680/j.1671-3826. 2020. 01.10.
[10] 李欣洁,程小兵,张宁.硬膜外麻醉复合全身麻醉与全身麻醉对老年腹部手术患者围术期血流动力学变化与术后认知功能的影响[J].贵州医药,2021,45(10):1561-1562. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-744X.2021.10.026.
[11] 张晴,赵春美,安立新, 等.经皮穴位电刺激复合全身麻醉对颈动脉支架置入术术中用药及术后恢复的影响[J].国际麻醉学与复苏杂志,2019,40(6):525-530. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-4378.2019.06.004.
[12] 王涛,陈秀侠,黄晶晶, 等.超声引导颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉对颈动脉内膜剥脱术患者术后恢复质量及认知功能的影响[J].中华老年多器官疾病杂志,2020,19(9):680-685. DOI:10.11915/j.issn.1671-5403.2020.09.158.
[13] 凡浙录,孙秀俊,王春燕, 等.超声引导颈丛阻滞复合右美托咪定用于颈动脉内膜剥脱术的观察[J].中西医结合心脑血管病杂志,2017,15(9):1145-1147. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-1349.2017.09.045.
[14] 唐文红,邓晓钧,孙连娟, 等.超声引导下颈丛神经阻滞在颈动脉内膜斑块切除术中的应用进展[J].中华神经医学杂志,2020,19(8):859-862. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn115354- 20200408-00256.
[15] 孙世宇,郭建荣,林福清, 等.超声引导下臂丛上干和颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉在肩关节镜手术中的应用[J].上海医学,2018,41(11):681-685.
[16] 肖特,张东,喻乐宝, 等.颈动脉内膜剥脱术后颈部神经损伤的危险因素分析[J].中华解剖与临床杂志,2021,26(2):193-196. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn101202-20200522-00168.
[17] 王廉,吕美萱,徐佳良, 等.颈动脉内膜剥脱术及颈动脉支架置入术对脑缺血患者血流动力学及认知功能的影响[J].黑龙江医学,2021,45(6):572-574. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004- 5775.2021.06.004.
[18] 陈作观,李拥军.颈动脉内膜剥脱术的相关风险因素[J].中国普外基础与临床杂志,2021,28(6):831-836. DOI:10.7507/1007-9424.202009036.
[19] 郭乐乐,陈冬梅.超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞复合全身麻醉对行肺癌根治术患者的影响研究[J].实用心脑肺血管病杂志,2021,29(S2):73-75.
[20] 陈燕,和优娟,王飞飞, 等.超声引导下腹横肌平面阻滞联合全身麻醉在腹腔镜结直肠癌根治术中的疗效及安全性观察[J].贵州医药,2021,45(11):1781-1782. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-744X.2021.11.058.
[21] 王英伟.超声引导下腰骶丛神经阻滞联合喉罩通气全身麻醉在老年患者髋关节手术中的应用效果分析[J].中国医药指南,2018,16(27):122-123. DOI:10.15912/j.cnki.gocm. 2018.27.100.
[22] 赵玺,孙凤英,许鲁琪, 等.超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞的研究进展[J].国际医药卫生导报,2021,27(18):2826-2830. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2021.18.007.

超声引导下颈浅丛神经阻滞联合全身麻醉在颈动脉内膜剥脱术中的应用效果

Application effect of ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus block combined with general anesthesia in carotid endarterectomy

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 7

编辑推荐

Metrics

[1]	范玉滢, 马红艳, 余文俊, 张燕. 葡萄糖酸氯己定抗菌透明敷料在腰大池置管术后患者中的应用效果及对感染率的影响[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(7): 989-991.
[2]	陈英, 徐庆梅, 张磊. PBL-Seminar结合鲶鱼效应在ICU护士新技术能力培训中的应用[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(4): 563-568.
[3]	郑现霞杜冬梅韩丰阳. 椎旁神经阻滞复合全身麻醉对胸中下段食管癌患者术后苏醒质量及镇痛效果的影响[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(17): 2470-2473.
[4]	张冉徐国亭. 硬膜外麻醉联合全麻在老年结直肠癌患者腹腔镜手术中的应用价值[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(14): 1982-1985.
[5]	严敏怡, 王燕. 院前救护中加强院前急救护理管理的应用效果分析[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(11): 1539-1542.
[6]	董敏, 郭文巍, 刘辉, 曾秋璇. 加速康复外科理念下全麻电视辅助胸腔镜肺部切除术患者安全进食时间的探讨[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(11): 1610-1614.
[7]	张竞文, 向媛, 杨雪梅, 柳慧. 二尖瓣置换术后患者剖宫产术中再发房颤的麻醉管理1例[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2022, 28(10): 1435-1437.