目的:比較芬太尼與利多卡因宮旁阻滯麻醉在人工流產術中的療效。方法:選擇我院2009年3月~2009年5月門診終止妊娠早孕婦女100例,分為兩組。芬太尼組50例,利多卡因組50例。比較兩組宮旁阻滯麻醉鎮痛效果及人流綜合征發生率。結果:芬太尼組的鎮痛效果明顯優于利多卡因組,人流綜合征的發生率明顯低于利多卡因組。結論:芬太尼宮旁阻滯麻醉具有鎮痛效果明顯，人流綜合征發生率低等優點，優于利多卡因麻醉效果。
目的 系統評價瑞芬太尼用于全身麻醉下剖宮產時對新生兒的影響。 方法 檢索Cochrane Library、PubMed、OVID、EMbase、CNKI、萬方等中外數據庫，收集1990年－2012年關于瑞芬太尼用于全身麻醉下剖宮產的臨床隨機對照研究。按Cochrane系統評價方法評估文獻質量，用Revman 5.1軟件對提取的數據進行Meta分析。 結果 共納入10項研究，包括342例產婦。與空白對照組相比，瑞芬太尼降低新生兒1 min Apgar評分[WMD=?0.46，95%CI（?0.65，?0.27），P＜0.000 01]，提高出生時臍動脈pH值[WMD=0.01，95%CI（0.00，0.02），P=0.004]，增加出生時窒息發生率[RR=1.76，95%CI（1.06，2.95），P=0.03]；當誘導劑量為1.0～1.5 μg/kg時，對5 min Apgar評分無影響[WMD=?0.14，95%CI（?0.32，0.04），P=0.13]。 結論 瑞芬太尼用于全身麻醉剖宮產可減輕新生兒酸中毒，但是會對新生兒產生一過性的呼吸抑制。
The present study was to investigate the effects of infusing remifentanil-poly-caprolactone (REM-PCL) through the abdominal aorta on spinal cord ischemia reperfusion injury (SCIRI). The model of SCIRI was created by clamping the infrarenal aortic in thirty-six New Zealand white rabbits, which were randomly divided into sham group (group S), control group (group C), and REM-PCL group (group R) with 12 rabbits in each one. The spinal cord microcirculatory blood flow (SCMBF) and blood flow rate (BFR) were monitored before ischemia, 15 min, 30 min, 60 min and 120 min after reperfusion, respectively. Neurologic Function was evaluated before ischemia, 6h, 12h and 24h after reperfusion. The concentration of serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE), interleukin-lβ (IL-lβ) and interleukin-8 (IL-8) were monitored before ischemia, 45 min after ischemia, 30 min, 60 min, 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after reperfusion. The abnormal rate of motor neuron of spinal cord tissues and the level of superoxide dismutase (SOD), reactive oxygen species (ROS), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX), malondialdehyde (MDA), total anti-oxidation capacity (T-AOC) and mitochondrial swelling degree (MSD) in neural mitochondria were determined before ischemia, 45 min after clamping, 60 min and 120 min after reperfusion. As a result, the neural mitochondrial SOD, GSH-PX and T-AOC decreased while ROS, MDA, MSD, IL-lβ, IL-8 and NSE distinctly increased after clamping of the abdominal aorta as compared to the value before ischemia in group C (P < 0.01). Neurologic function scores recovered more rapidly in group R than those in group C during reperfusion (P < 0.01). The neural mitochondrial SOD, GSH-PX and T-AOC were distinctly higher while ROS, MDA, MSD, IL-lβ, IL-8 and NSE were distinctly lower in group R than those in group C (P < 0.01). The abnormal rate of motor neuron was significantly higher in group C during reperfusion than that in group R (P < 0.01). It has been shown that the intra-aortic REM-PCL infusion can alleviate SCIRI by inhibiting inflammatory response and improving mitochondrial anti-oxidation capacity.
目的:探討甲狀腺手術中氟比洛芬酯對丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉效果的影響。方法:將210例擇期丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉下行甲狀腺手術患者隨機分為對照組和氟比洛芬酯組,每組105例。于切皮前30 min,對照組靜脈注入等量生理鹽水10mL,氟比洛芬酯組經靜脈注入氟比洛芬酯注射液100 mg。分別記錄患者麻醉前10 min (T0)、切皮時(T1)、切皮后10 min (T2)、切除腺體時 (T3)以及拔管時 (T4) 的血流動力學 (SBP、DBP、HR) 的變化以及術后口述描述評分(VRS)。結果:與對照組比較, 氟比洛芬酯組T14時SP、DP均降低,兩組差別有統計學意義(Plt;005)。氟比洛芬酯組離開手術室時無痛率明顯高于對照組,兩組差別有統計學意義(Plt;005)。結論:氟比洛芬酯對丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉下行甲狀腺手術患者血流動力學影響小,且減輕術后疼痛,術后恢復更為舒適。
目的:比較七氟醚吸入麻醉和丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼靜脈麻醉用于小兒手術的臨床效果。方法:100例1～8歲的患兒隨機分為丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼組(A組)與七氟醚吸入組(B組）。麻醉誘導后,A組持續輸注丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼維持麻醉,B組吸入七氟醚維持麻醉。術中根據生命體征調整丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼的輸注速度及七氟醚的吸入濃度,記錄術中循環變化、術后麻醉恢復情況。結果:與B組相比,A組術中MAP下降明顯(Plt;005)。結論:與A組相比,B組術中生命體征控制平穩;術后清醒迅速、完全、平穩,拔管時間無明顯差異。
【摘要】 目的 確定在不同濃度七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導無肌松氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量（ED50）。 方法 2009年7月-2009年11月擇期手術患者60例，ASA I~II，年齡20~59歲，按照入室的順序隨機分為Ⅰ組（2%七氟醚組）和Ⅱ組（3%七氟醚組），預沖8%七氟醚誘導，眼瞼反射消失后，調節七氟醚呼氣末濃度分別維持在2%或3%，同時按照序貫法注入瑞芬太尼，瑞芬太尼注射90 s后氣管插管。記錄麻醉誘導前、患者意識消失時、插管前1 min、插管后1 min及插管后3 min心率、平均動脈壓的變化。 結果 2%、3%的七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量（ED50）及其相對應的95%可信區間分別為0.585 μg/kg及0.533～0.626 μg/kg和0.492 μg/kg及0.451～0.572 μg/kg。 結論 2%、3%的七氟醚復合瑞芬太尼誘導氣管插管時瑞芬太尼的半數有效量及其相對應的95%可信區間分別為0.585 μg/kg及0.533～0.626 μg/kg和0.492 μg/kg及0.451～0.572 μg/kg。【Abstract】 Objective To determine the half effective dose (ED50) of remifentanil dose for tracheal intubation without neuromuscular relaxant in adult when combined with different concentration of sevoflurane. Methods Sixty ASA Ⅰ to Ⅱ adult aged 20 to 59 years old, scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled in this study between July 2009 to November 2009. All patients were ranged randomly into Group Ⅰ (2% sevoflurane) and Group Ⅱ (3% sevoflurane).Anesthesia was induced with 8% sevoflurane in 100% oxygenat at 6 L/min.After the loss of eyelash reflex, remifentanil was injected over 30 s, end-tidal sevoflurane concentration 2% or 3% was maitained. The dose of remifentanil was determined by up-and-down method. In 90 s after the end of bolus administration of remifentanil, the trachea was intubated. Mean blood pressure and heart rate were recorded at anaesthetic induction, the loss of eyelash reflex, before, in 1 min and 3 min after intubation. Results ED50 values (95% confidence intervals)of remifentanil for tracheal intubation during 2% and 3% sevoflurane induction without neuromuscular relaxant were 0.585 μg/kg and 0.533 - 0.626 μg/kg, and 0.492 μg/kg and 0.451 - 0.572 μg/kg, respectively. Conclusion ED50 values (95% confidence intervals)of remifentanil for tracheal intubation 2% and 3% sevoflurane induction without neuromuscular relaxant are 0.585 μg/kg (0.533 - 0.626 μg/kg) and 0.492 μg/kg (0.451 - 0.572 μg/kg), respectively.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for reduction of shoulder joint dislocation in the conscious elderly patients, and compare its efficacy with brachial plexus block anesthesia. MethodsSeventy elderly patients (American Sociaty of Anesthesiologist physical statusⅠ-Ⅱ) who underwent shoulder dislocation reduction in our hospital between August 2011 and December 2013 were randomly divided into two groups, each group having 35 cases. Patients in group A received brachial plexus nerve block anesthesia downlink gimmick reset, while patients in group B received the use of remifentanil-propofol and lidocaine compound liquid intravenous drop infusion for anesthesia downlink manipulative reduction. After successful anesthesia, two groups of patients were treated with traction and foot pedal method (Hippocrates) to reset. We observed the two groups of patients in the process of reduction, and recorded their hemodynamic changes, reset time, discharge time, postoperative satisfaction, intra-operative memory, breathing forgotten (breathing interval was longer than 15 seconds) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and then comparison was made between the two groups. ResultsPatients in both the two groups successfully completed manipulative reduction. Compared with group A, patients in group B had more stable hemodynamic indexes during the process of reduction, shorter reduction time, better anesthesia effect and higher postoperative satisfaction degree, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of time of leaving the operation room between the two groups (P>0.05). VAS score was higher in group A than that in group B (P<0.05). The occurrence of intra-operative memory amnesia and breathing forgotten phenomenon existed in part of the patients after operation in group B, but they did not occur in patients in group A. ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound fluid can be safely used in conscious elderly patients for shoulder joint dislocation reconstructive surgery, and it functions quickly with complete analgesia and stable hemodynamic indexes.
目的：探討丙泊酚、芬太尼用于纖支鏡檢查的安全性。方法：60例纖支鏡檢查患者分為丙泊酚組和對照組。丙泊酚組采用芬太尼1～15 μg/kg,丙泊酚1～2 mg/kg靜脈麻醉，觀察檢查前、纖支鏡進入聲門后5分鐘、檢查后的HR、BP、RR 、SpO2變化及兩組病例術中、術后的反應。結果：丙泊酚組檢查中HR、BP較對照組平穩(P＜0.01), RR、SpO2變化與對照組比較無明顯統計學差異(P＞0.05)，丙泊酚組檢查中、檢查后不良反應少，蘇醒快，患者滿意。結論：丙泊酚、芬太尼用于纖支鏡檢查，減少了患者的恐懼與痛苦，提供了良好的檢查條件，同時也是安全可行的。
Objective To systematically review the clinical effectiveness and safety of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2013), the database of the Cochrane Anesthesia Group, MEDLINE, EMbase, PubMed, Ovid, Springer, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to May 2013 for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sufentanil-propofol versus remifentanil-propofol during total intravenous anesthesia for neurosurgery. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Thirteen trials involving 647 patients were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) for hemodynamic changes, MAP decreased in the remifentanil-propofol group after induction and decreased 5 minutes after intubation, but no significant difference was found between the two groups; the two groups were alike in MAP changes during craniotomy and extubation, and in HR changes after induction, 5 minutes after intubation, during craniotomy and extubation, with no significant difference. b) The result of intra-operative wake-up test showed that, there was no significant difference in the sedative effect and the time of awaking between the two groups. c) For emergence time and extubation time, compared with the sufentanil-propofol group, emergence time and extubation time were significantly shorter than those in the remifentanil-propofol group. d) For side effects, there was no significant difference in side effects (such as post-operative nausea, vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness, chills and hypotension) between the two groups. And e) for post-operative pain, compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, post-operative 1-h and 2-h VAS were lower and the number of who need additional analgesic drugs within 24 h after operation was less in the sufentanil-propofol group, with significant differences. Both groups used the similar dosage of propofol with no significant difference. Conclusion Compared with the remifentanil-propofol group, hemodynamics changes in the sufentanil-propofol group is steadier after induction and during intubation. Patients in the sufentanil-propofol group are better in postoperative awakening quality. But they are alike in the incidence of side effects and propofol dosage.