Comparison of the effectiveness of two different concentrations of ropivacaine for intrapleural analgesia in reducing stimulatory pain caused by chest tubes after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomised controlled study

比较两种不同浓度罗哌卡因用于胸膜内镇痛以减轻单孔胸腔镜手术后胸管引起的刺激性疼痛的有效性:一项随机对照研究

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pain caused by chest tube placed after uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (UVATS) is often neglected. Ropivacaine can be used to alleviate pain related to the chest tube, but the current lowest effective concentration of ropivacaine remains unclear. METHODS: To investigate the analgesic effect of administering two different concentrations of ropivacaine into the pleural cavity via pleural drainage tube bypass after UVATS. Ninety patients were randomly divided into three groups: Control group (PCIA only), Low-dose group (PCIA combined with intrathoracic infusion of 200 ml 0.25% ropivacaine), Medium-dose group (PCIA combined with intrathoracic infusion of 200 ml 0.5% ropivacaine). The analysis included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for chest tube-related pain and surgical incision pain at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h post-operation for each group. Compare incidence of adverse reactions (respiratory depression, hypotension, nausea/vomiting, arrhythmia, dizziness) within 48 h. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, both 0.25% and 0.50% ropivacaine effectively reduced chest tube-related pain (P < 0.001) and surgical incision pain (P < 0.001) at 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h postoperatively. However, no significant differences were observed between the two concentrations of ropivacaine in alleviating rest and cough pain related to the chest tube (P > 0.05) or surgical incision (P > 0.05) within 48 h postoperatively. Adverse reaction rates were similar among groups within 48 h postoperatively (P = 0.383). CONCLUSION: The analgesic effect of ropivacaine infusion with concentrations of 0.25% and 0.50% administered via intrathoracic pumps for chest tube-related pain after UVATS showed no significant difference, but both were superior to the sole use of PCIA. REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2200065184.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。