Application of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral nerve block in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn441417-20240905-03016

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective　To explore the application effect of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral nerve block (TPVB) in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy. Methods　A total of 100 patients with lung cancer who underwent single-hole thoracoscopic lobectomy in Weihai Municipal Hospital from March 2021 to March 2023 were selected as the study objects and were divided into a control group and a study group with 50 cases in each group by the random number table method. There were 29 males and 21 females in the control group, aged (58.71±7.53) years; the body mass index was (22.13±1.69) kg/m²; the tumor length was (2.35±1.06) cm; the pathological types were: 22 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 26 cases of adenocarcinoma, and 2 cases of adeno-squamous cell carcinoma. There were 31 males and 19 females in the study group, aged (59.54±7.81) years; the body mass index was (22.06±1.83) kg/m²; the tumor length was (2.39±1.17) cm; the pathological types were: 25 cases of squamous cell carcinoma, 22 cases of adenocarcinoma, and 3 cases of adeno-squamous cell carcinoma. The control group underwent thoracic epidural anesthesia, and the study group underwent ultrasound-guided TPVB. The basic conditions (operation time, anesthesia time, intraoperative fluid infusion volume, intraoperative sufentanil dosage, use of vasoactive drugs, urine volume, and blood loss), static (quiet state) and dynamic (deep breathing) pain degrees [Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)] 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h after surgery, and serum cytokine levels [monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)] and pulmonary function indicators [forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), vital capacity (VC), maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMF), and maximum ventilatory volume (MVV)] after entry and 24 and 48 h after surgery were compared between the two groups. Repeated measure ANOVA, independent sample t test, paired t test, and χ² test were used for statistical analysis. Results　The duration of anesthesia in the study group was shorter than that in the control group [(96.09±17.42) min vs. (141.42±19.51) min], and the proportion of use of vasoactive drugs was lower than that in the control group [2.00% (1/50) vs. 18.00% (9/50)] (both P<0.05). At 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 72 h after surgery, the static and dynamic VAS scores of the study group were lower than those of the control group (all P<0.05). At 24 and 48 h after surgery, serum levels of MCP-1, PGE2, and TNF-α in the study group were lower than those in the control group [(60.34±7.01) ng/L vs. (69.50±7.54) ng/L, (49.41±7.63) ng/L vs. (58.65±7.22) ng/L, (372.40±36.74) ng/L vs. (388.52±39.08) ng/L, (293.96±35.80) ng/L vs. (322.85±33.78) ng/L, (37.80±5.02) ng/L vs. (55.23±6.45) ng/L, (36.81±4.88) ng/L vs. (45.73±5.24) ng/L] (all P<0.05); the FEV1, VC, MMF, and MVV in the study group were higher than those in the control group [(2.05±0.62) L vs. (1.57±0.71) L, (2.74±0.52) L vs. (1.99±0.38) L, (2.24±0.63) L vs. (1.85±0.52) L, (2.84±0.45) L vs. (2.21±0.40) L, (1.57±0.73) L/s vs. (0.96±0.51) L/s, (2.10±0.32) L/s vs. (1.81±0.27) L/s, (62.29±8.23) L vs. (58.77±8.09) L, (69.31±5.45) L vs. (66.74±6.03) L] (all P<0.05). Within 3 d after surgery, there was no statistically significant difference in the total incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion　Ultrasound-guided TPVB can effectively reduce the pain degree and the levels of serum MCP-1, PGE2, and TNF-α of lung cancer patients undergoing single-port thoracoscopic lobectomy, which is conducive to the rapid recovery of lung function and has certain safety.

Key words:

Ultrasound guidance, Thoracic paravertebral nerve block, Degree of pain, Lung function, Pulmonary lobectomy, Single-hole thoracoscope

摘要：

目的　探究超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞（TPVB）在单孔胸腔镜下肺叶切除术患者中的应用效果。方法　选取2021年3月至2023年3月威海市立医院收治的100例行单孔胸腔镜下肺叶切除术的肺癌患者作为研究对象。采用随机数字表法，将患者分为对照组和研究组，各50例。对照组男29例，女21例；年龄（58.71±7.53）岁；体重指数（22.13±1.69）kg/m²；肿瘤长径（2.35±1.06）cm；病理类型：鳞癌22例，腺癌26例，腺鳞癌2例。研究组男31例，女19例；年龄（59.54±7.81）岁；体重指数（22.06±1.83）kg/m²；肿瘤长径（2.39±1.17）cm；病理类型：鳞癌25例，腺癌22例，腺鳞癌3例。对照组采用胸段硬膜外麻醉，研究组采用超声引导下TPVB。比较两组术中基本情况（手术时长、麻醉时长、术中补液量、术中舒芬太尼用量、血管活性药物使用情况、尿量、失血量），术后6、12、24、36、48、72 h静态（安静状态）和动态（深呼吸）疼痛程度［视觉模拟评分法（VAS）］，入室后及术后24、48 h血清细胞因子水平［单核细胞趋化蛋白-1（MCP-1）、前列腺素E2（PGE2）、肿瘤坏死因子α（TNF-α）］、肺功能指标［第1秒用力呼气容积（FEV1）、肺活量（VC）、最大呼气中段流量（MMF）、最大通气量（MVV）］。采用重复测量方差分析、独立样本t检验、配对t检验和χ²检验进行统计学分析。结果　研究组麻醉时长短于对照组［（96.09±17.42）min比（141.42±19.51）min］，且使用血管活性药物占比低于对照组［2.00%（1/50）比18.00%（9/50）］（均P<0.05）。术后6、12、24、36、48、72 h，研究组静态、动态VAS评分均低于对照组（均P<0.05）。术后24、48 h，研究组血清MCP-1、PGE2和TNF-α水平均低于对照组［（60.34±7.01）ng/L比（69.50±7.54）ng/L、（49.41±7.63）ng/L比（58.65±7.22）ng/L，（372.40±36.74）ng/L比（388.52±39.08）ng/L、（293.96±35.80）ng/L比（322.85±33.78）ng/L，（37.80±5.02）ng/L比（55.23±6.45）ng/L、（36.81±4.88）ng/L比（45.73±5.24）ng/L］（均P<0.05）；研究组FEV1、VC、MMF、MVV均大于对照组［（2.05±0.62）L比（1.57±0.71）L、（2.74±0.52）L比（1.99±0.38）L，（2.24±0.63）L比（1.85±0.52）L、（2.84±0.45）L比（2.21±0.40）L，（1.57±0.73）L/s比（0.96±0.51）L/s、（2.10±0.32）L/s比（1.81±0.27）L/s，（62.29±8.23）L比（58.77±8.09）L、（69.31±5.45）L比（66.74±6.03）L］（均P<0.05）。术后3 d内，两组不良反应总发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论　超声引导下TPVB可有效降低行单孔胸腔镜下肺叶切除术的肺癌患者术后疼痛程度和血清MCP-1、PGE2、TNF-α水平，有助于肺功能恢复，安全性较好。

关键词:

超声引导, 胸椎旁神经阻滞, 疼痛程度, 肺功能, 肺叶切除, 单孔胸腔镜

Han Bing, Wang Xing, Zhao Bin, Deng Chuanjun, Liu Kuan.

Application of ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral nerve block in patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2025, 31(3): 429-434.

韩冰王星赵斌邓传军刘宽.

超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞在单孔胸腔镜下肺叶切除术患者中的应用效果 [J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2025, 31(3): 429-434.

References

[1] de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial[J]. N Engl J Med, 2020, 382(6):503-513. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793.
[2] 张洪军,李丽霞,刘稳,等.羟考酮超前镇痛复合超声引导下行肋间神经阻滞对早期非小细胞肺癌患者术后苏醒质量及疼痛程度的影响[J].临床心身疾病杂志,2020,26(2):57-60.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-187X.2020.02.014.
[3] 周晓琪.胸腔镜肺叶切除术与胸腔镜亚肺叶切除术治疗早期非小细胞肺癌的对比研究[J].现代肿瘤医学,2021,29(20):3568-3572.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-4992.2021. 20.012.
[4] 凌协安,万军,彭彬.单孔全胸腔镜肺叶切除术的应用价值研究[J].中国实用医药,2021,16(15):74-76.DOI:10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2021.15.026.
[5] 赵义,龙明绵,黄桂华,等.超声引导胸椎旁神经阻滞复合全麻在老年单孔胸腔镜肺癌根治术中的应用价值[J].中国老年学杂志,2021,41(7):1428-1431.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2021.07.025.
[6] 汤少鹏.胸腔镜辅助小切口结核性毁损肺叶切除术的效果及对术后肺部并发症的影响[J].中国实用医刊,2024,51(8):9-13.DOI:10.3760/cma.j.cn115689-20240104-00061.
[7] 马楚洲,陈琼仪,林梓霞,等.超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞和菱形肌-肋间肌阻滞对胸腔镜术后恢复质量的影响[J].临床麻醉学杂志,2021,37(10):1061-1064.DOI:10.12089/jca.2021.10.011.
[8] 周清华,范亚光,王颖,等.中国肺部结节分类、诊断与治疗指南(2016年版)[J].中国肺癌杂志,2016,19(12):793-798.DOI:10.3779/j.issn.1009-3419.2016.12.12.
[9] 李峰,钱宁,周森,等.超声引导下罗哌卡因竖脊肌平面阻滞对胸腔镜肺叶切除术患者术后疼痛的影响[J].中国医刊,2024,59(2):222-224.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1008-1070. 2024.02.024.
[10] Zhou T, Sun C. Effect of physical manipulation pulmonary rehabilitation on lung cancer patients after thoracoscopic lobectomy[J]. Thorac Cancer, 2022, 13(3):308-315. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.14225.
[11] Matsuo T, Imai K, Takashima S, et al. Outcomes and pulmonary function after sleeve lobectomy compared with pneumonectomy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Thorac Cancer, 2023, 14(9):827-833. DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.14813.
[12] Sakae TM, Yamauchi LHI, Takaschima AKK, et al. Comparison between erector spinal plane block and epidural block techniques for postoperative analgesia in open cholecystectomies: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Braz J Anesthesiol, 2020, 70(1):22-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2019.12.009.
[13] 刘家鹏,卓娜,韩建阁.超声引导胸椎旁神经阻滞在胸腔镜肺叶切除术中应用的临床观察研究[J].中国中西医结合外科杂志,2020,26(2):249-253.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007- 6948.2020.02.008.
[14] 汪姗,章蔚,柴小青,等.胸腔镜直视下经胸入路与超声引导下经皮入路胸椎旁神经阻滞对胸腔镜肺叶切除患者围术期镇痛的影响[J].安徽医学,2020,41(9):989-993.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1000-0399.2020.09.001.
[15] Li Y, Dong H, Tan S, et al. Effects of thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia on the stress response, pain relief, hospital stay, and treatment costs of patients with esophageal carcinoma undergoing thoracic surgery: a single-center, randomized controlled trial[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2019, 98(7):e14362. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000014362.
[16] Das S, Saha D, Sen C. Comparison among ultrasound-guided thoracic paravertebral block, erector spinae plane block and serratus anterior plane block for analgesia in thoracotomy for lung surgery[J]. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth, 2022, 36(12):4386-4392. DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2022.08.022.
[17] 陈曲敏,高海鹰,蔡东妙.超声引导胸椎旁神经阻滞在胸腔镜肺癌根治术术后镇痛的价值及对认知功能的影响[J].中国医疗器械信息,2024,30(16):19-21.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1006-6586.2024.16.006.
[18] Huang QW, Li JB, Huang Y, et al. A comparison of analgesia after a thoracoscopic lung cancer operation with a sustained epidural block and a sustained paravertebral block: a randomized controlled study[J]. Adv Ther, 2020, 37(9):4000-4014. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01446-3.
[19] Kingma BF, Eshuis WJ, de Groot EM, et al. Paravertebral catheter versus EPidural analgesia in Minimally invasive Esophageal resectioN: a randomized controlled multicenter trial (PEPMEN trial)[J]. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1):142. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-6585-1.
[20] 郭帅,吕艳,张伟,等.血清外泌体miRNA-21、MCP-1在以孤立结节为主的肺癌和肺结核中的表达水平研究[J].中国实用医药,2022,17(24):90-93.DOI:10.14163/j.cnki.11-5547/r.2022.24.024.
[21] Han H, Xie Q, Shao R, et al. Alveolar macrophage-derived gVPLA2 promotes ventilator-induced lung injury via the cPLA2/PGE2 pathway[J]. BMC Pulm Med, 2023, 23(1):494. DOI: 10.1186/s12890-023-02793-x.
[22] Xin P, Wang S, Xu X, et al. Natural fulvic acids inhibit non-small-cell lung cancer through the COX-2/PGE2/EP4 axis: In silico and in vivo assessments[J]. Heliyon, 2023, 9(6):e17080. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17080.
[23] 汪鹏.超声引导下胸椎旁神经阻滞用于胸腔镜肺癌根治术对患者肿瘤标志物、免疫功能及应激激素的影响[J].检验医学与临床,2020,17(19):2846-2849.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2020.19.027.
[24] 薛磊,贾洪峰,江婷婷,等.超声引导下不同TPV对单孔胸腔镜肺癌根治术患者MCP-1、PGE2等指标的影响[J].现代生物医学进展,2020,20(11):2156-2159.DOI:10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2020.11.034.
[25] Liu X, An J. Effects of serratus anterior plane block and thoracic paravertebral nerve block on analgesia, immune function and serum tumor markers in patients after thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer[J]. Nagoya J Med Sci, 2022, 84(3):506-515. DOI: 10.18999/nagjms.84.3.506.