| Citation: |
LI Yumei, DING Wenping, YU Lianya, LI Xiang, GAO Zhennan, YUAN Wei, JIA Mengxing. Anterior quadratus lumbar block versus posterior quadratus lumbar block at lateral arcuate ligament in recovery quality after laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. Journal of Clinical Medicine in Practice, 2023, 27(11): 128-132,148. DOI: 10.7619/jcmp.20230692
|
To compare the postoperative recovery quality between ultrasound-guided anterior quadratus lumbar block (QLB) and posterior QLB at lateral arcuate ligament after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).
A total of 126 patients with elective LC were selected and randomly divided into QLB at lateral arcuate ligament combined with general anesthesia group (group Q), posterior QLB combined with general anesthesia group (group W), and combined intravenous-inhalation anesthesia group (group K), with 42 cases in each group. At 30 minutes before induction of general anesthesia, group Q was given bilateral QLB at lateral arcuate ligament, group W was given bilateral posterior QLB, and group K was not given block. The score of the 40-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-40) at 24 hours after operation, the scores of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at resting and moving states at the time points of immediately after extubation and 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after operation, the time to the first walk, the time to the first anal exhaust, the number of remedial analgesia, and the incidence of adverse reactions at 24 hours after surgery were observed in three groups.
Compared with the group K, the QoR-40 score at 24 h after operation decreased significantly in the group Q and the group W (P < 0.05); compared with the group W, the QoR-40 score at 24 h after operation decreased significantly in the group Q (P < 0.05); compared with the group K, the VAS scores at resting and moving states at the time points of immediately after extubation and 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after operation decreased significantly in the group Q (P < 0.05), and the VAS scores at resting and moving states at the time points of immediately after extubation and 2, 4 and 8 hours after operation significantly decreased in the group W (P < 0.05); compared with the group W, the VAS scores at resting and moving states at the time points of immediately after extubation and 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 hours after operation decreased significantly in the group Q (P < 0.05); compared with the group K, the total incidence rate of adverse reactions at 24 h after operation decreased significantly in the group Q and the group W, and the overall incidence rate of adverse reactions at 24 h after operation in the group Q was significantly lower than that in the group W (P < 0.05); the time to the first walk, the time to first anal exhaust and the number of remedial analgesia in the group Q were significantly lower than those in the group W and the group K (P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with posterior QLB, ultrasound-guided anterior QLB at lateral arcuate ligament can improve the analgesic effect after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, prolong the analgesic duration, shorten the postoperative recovery time, and improve the recovery quality in the early stage after operation.
| [1] |
BITTNER R, SCHWARZ J. Primary unilateral not complicated inguinal hernia: our choice of TAPP, why, results and review of literature[J]. Hernia, 2019, 23(3): 417-428. doi: 10.1007/s10029-019-01959-z
|
| [2] |
薛战国. 腹腔镜胆囊切除术治疗急性结石性胆囊炎患者的效果及安全性分析[J]. 中国药物与临床, 2020, 20(13): 2225-2227. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YWLC202013058.htm
|
| [3] |
MITRA S, KHANDELWAL P, ROBERTS K, et al. Pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review of the current options[J]. Pain Pract, 2012, 12(6): 485-496. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00513.x
|
| [4] |
HAJONG R, DHAL M R, NATUNG T, et al. A comparative study of postoperative port-site pain after gallbladder retrieval from umbilical versus epigastric ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy[J]. J Family Med Prim Care, 2019, 8(5): 1617-1620. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_172_19
|
| [5] |
BLANCO R. Tap block under ultrasound guidance: the description of a "no pops" technique[J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2007, 32(Suppl. 1): 130.
|
| [6] |
刘祥波, 欧册华, 母国. 腰方肌阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞用于成人腹部手术术后镇痛效果的Meta分析[J]. 临床麻醉学杂志, 2020, 36(7): 677-684. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LCMZ202007015.htm
|
| [7] |
EL-BOGHDADLY K, ELSHARKAWY H, SHORT A, et al. Quadratus lumborum block nomenclature and anatomical considerations[J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2016, 41(4): 548-549. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000411
|
| [8] |
于宏女, 于宏. 腹腔镜胆囊切除术后疼痛的原因分析与防治[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2016, 23(9): 1151-1155. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZPWL201609038.htm
|
| [9] |
MITRA S, KHANDELWAL P, ROBERTS K, et al. Pain relief in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a review of the current options[J]. Pain Pract, 2012, 12(6): 485-496. doi: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00513.x
|
| [10] |
BARAZANCHI A W H, MACFATER W, RAHIRI J L, et al. Evidence-based management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a PROSPECT review[J]. J Am Coll Surg, 2018, 227(4): e133.
|
| [11] |
KO A, HARADA M Y, SMITH E J, et al. Pain assessment and control in the injured elderly[J]. Am Surg, 2016, 82(10): 867-871. doi: 10.1177/000313481608201001
|
| [12] |
肖二卫, 王连才, 王亚峰, 等. 加速康复外科在腹腔镜联合胆道镜治疗胆囊结石合并肝外胆管结石中的应用[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2018, 33(5): 408-411. https://cdmd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CDMD-10093-1021737628.htm
|
| [13] |
李娅, 陆静, 朱红梅, 等. 加速康复外科理念下日间腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后早期活动方案可行性研究[J]. 临床普外科电子杂志, 2022, 10(1): 90-95. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-LCPW202201020.htm
|
| [14] |
卢泱, 王权光, 施克俭, 等. 腰方肌前路阻滞对腹部和背部各区域的阻滞效果[J]. 中华麻醉学杂志, 2017, 37(6): 697-699.
|
| [15] |
NIRAJ G, KELKAR A, JEYAPALAN I, et al. Comparison of analgesic efficacy of subcostal transversus abdominis plane blocks with epidural analgesia following upper abdominal surgery[J]. Anaesthesia, 2011, 66(6): 465-471.
|
| [16] |
KYNG K J, EDHAGER A V, HENRIKSEN T B, et al. Biomarker discovery by mass spectrometry in cerebrospinal fluid and plasma after global hypoxia-ischemia in newborn piglets[J]. Neonatology, 2018, 114(4): 307-314.
|
| [17] |
TAMURA T, YOKOTA S, ITO S, et al. Local anesthetic spread into the paravertebral space with two types of Quadratus lumborum blocks: a crossover volunteer study[J]. J Anesth, 2019, 33(1): 26-32.
|
| [18] |
MUROUCHI T, IWASAKI S, YAMAKAGE M. Quadratus lumborum block: analgesic effects and chronological ropivacaine concentrations after laparoscopic surgery[J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2016, 41(2): 146-150.
|
| [19] |
LI H L, SHI R, WANG Y. A modified approach below the lateral arcuate ligament to facilitate the subcostal anterior Quadratus lumborum block[J]. J Pain Res, 2021, 14: 961-967.
|
| [20] |
DAI S D, WAKAMATSU K, TANAKA Y, et al. The postoperative patient-reported quality of recovery in colorectal cancer patients under enhanced recovery after surgery using QoR-40[J]. BMC Cancer, 2015, 15: 799.
|
| [21] |
GORNALL B F, MYLES P S, SMITH C L, et al. Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review[J]. Br J Anaesth, 2013, 111(2): 161-169.
|
| [22] |
ELSHARKAWY H. Quadratus lumborum blocks[J]. Adv Anesth, 2017, 35(1): 145-157.
|
| [23] |
周桂云, 杨小林, 任映梅, 等. 超声引导下弓状韧带上腰方肌阻滞用于腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者的镇痛效果[J]. 江苏医药, 2022, 48(9): 883-886. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YIYA202209005.htm
|
| 1. |
吴艳，相开放. 甲状腺乳头状癌组织中MTAP、SETD2表达水平及其与临床病理特征的关系. 黑龙江医药. 2023(03): 704-706 .
|
© 2020 《实用临床医药杂志》编辑部
Address: 江苏省扬州市江阳中路136号，扬州大学江阳路北校区14号楼201室China Pos: 225009Tel: 0514-87978917、87978989、87978807
Supported by:
Beijing Renhe Information Technology Co., Ltd.
苏公网安备 32100302010246号
DownLoad: