馬若蘭 吳安石 沈 薦 李敏哲 石立新
(首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院麻醉科,北京 100020)
·臨床論著·
腹橫筋膜阻滯在腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛中的應(yīng)用*
馬若蘭①吳安石**沈 薦②李敏哲②石立新①
(首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院麻醉科,北京 100020)
目的探討腹橫筋膜(transversus abdominis plane,TAP)阻滯在腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛中的應(yīng)用價(jià)值。方法選擇2015年3月~2016年11月北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)68例,以隨機(jī)數(shù)字表法分為2組。TAP組33例,麻醉插管后在超聲引導(dǎo)下以0.375%羅哌卡因20 ml行雙側(cè)TAP阻滯;對(duì)照組35例,按同樣方法注射等劑量生理鹽水。比較2組術(shù)后2、4、8、12、24 h靜態(tài)及動(dòng)態(tài)疼痛數(shù)字評(píng)分(numeric rating scale,NRS),以及術(shù)后腸蠕動(dòng)恢復(fù)(有腸鳴音)時(shí)間、術(shù)后首次下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間、圍手術(shù)期治療費(fèi)用、術(shù)后并發(fā)癥。結(jié)果與對(duì)照組相比,TAP組術(shù)后恢復(fù)腸鳴音早[(28.1±9.8) h vs. (35.6±9.4) h,t=-3.214,P=0.002],術(shù)后首次下床早[(1.7±0.6) d vs. (2.0±0.6) d,t=-2.030,P=0.046],術(shù)后住院時(shí)間短[(7.1±1.2) d vs. (7.8±1.7) d,t=-2.122,P=0.038]。TAP組術(shù)后2、4、8、12、24 h靜態(tài)及動(dòng)態(tài)疼痛NRS均顯著低于對(duì)照組[2 h靜態(tài)(3.3±0.8)分vs. (4.0±0.8)分,t=-3.922,P=0.000;4 h靜態(tài)(2.8±0.9)分vs. (3.5±0.7)分,t=-4.090,P=0.000;8 h靜態(tài)(2.5±0.6)分vs. (3.1±0.6)分,t=-4.535,P=0.000;12 h靜態(tài)(2.4±0.6)分vs. (3.0±0.4)分,t=-5.074,P=0.000;24 h靜態(tài)(2.3±0.7)分vs. (2.7±0.5)分,t=-3.239,P=0.002;2 h動(dòng)態(tài)(4.1±1.0)分vs. (4.9±1.1)分,t=-3.261,P=0.002;4 h動(dòng)態(tài)(3.9±0.8)分vs. (4.5±1.0)分,t=-3.001,P=0.004;8 h動(dòng)態(tài)(3.5±0.8)分vs. (4.2±0.7)分,t=-3.742,P=0.000;12 h動(dòng)態(tài)(3.2±0.8)分vs. (3.7±0.7)分,t=-3.350,P=0.001;24 h動(dòng)態(tài)(2.6±0.7)分vs. (3.3±0.6)分,t=-4.706,P=0.000]。2組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥(惡心、嘔吐、腸梗阻、消化道出血、切口感染、肺部感染、心力衰竭)發(fā)生率差異無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P>0.05)。結(jié)論TAP阻滯能為腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)提供良好的術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛,有利于術(shù)后恢復(fù)。
腹橫筋膜阻滯; 術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛; 直腸癌; 腹腔鏡
腹腔鏡直腸癌手術(shù)與開腹手術(shù)在安全性和有效性等方面具有相同的臨床效果[1]。雖然腹腔鏡直腸癌手術(shù)輔助切口很小,但是術(shù)后疼痛問(wèn)題仍然亟待解決。完善的術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛可以減輕應(yīng)激反應(yīng),加速患者恢復(fù),縮短住院時(shí)間[2]。腹腔鏡直腸癌術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛尚無(wú)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方案,腹橫筋膜(transversus abdominis plane,TAP)阻滯通過(guò)局麻藥阻滯腹內(nèi)斜肌與腹橫肌之間腹壁傳入神經(jīng)纖維,有效阻斷腹壁前側(cè)的痛覺傳入[3]。本研究通過(guò)隨機(jī)對(duì)照臨床試驗(yàn)方法,評(píng)估TAP阻滯對(duì)腹腔鏡直腸癌術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的臨床效果。
本研究為前瞻性設(shè)計(jì),研究方案由北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院倫理委員會(huì)審批通過(guò)(編號(hào):2014-科-117),所有患者術(shù)前均簽署知情同意書。選擇2015年3月~2016年11月北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院腹腔鏡直腸癌手術(shù)70例。病例納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):①年齡18~70歲;②體重45~100 kg;③術(shù)前腸鏡病理診斷為直腸癌,腫瘤長(zhǎng)徑≤6 cm,腫瘤距肛緣距離5~15 cm,影像學(xué)檢查未見遠(yuǎn)處臟器轉(zhuǎn)移,行腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù);④ASAⅠ~Ⅲ級(jí);⑤意識(shí)清晰,能理解疼痛數(shù)字評(píng)分(numeric rating scale,NRS)的含義并表達(dá);⑥無(wú)酒精及藥物成癮史,無(wú)局麻藥物過(guò)敏史。病例排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):①術(shù)前行新輔助放化療;②腹腔鏡下不能完成手術(shù),中轉(zhuǎn)開腹;③腹腔廣泛粘連;④術(shù)中發(fā)現(xiàn)遠(yuǎn)處臟器轉(zhuǎn)移或腹腔廣泛種植轉(zhuǎn)移;⑤術(shù)中行保護(hù)性造口。
采用隨機(jī)數(shù)字表法將擬入組病人隨機(jī)分為2組各35例,TAP組全身麻醉后行羅哌卡因雙側(cè)TAP阻滯,對(duì)照組同樣位置注射等劑量生理鹽水。TAP組2例退出。
2組一般資料比較見表1,無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P>0.05),具有可比性。2組共10例ASA Ⅲ級(jí),其中6例合并高血壓、冠心病,血壓、血脂控制較差,2例合并高血壓、糖尿病,血糖控制較差,2例合并慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)。
表1 2組一般資料比較
1.2.1 麻醉方法 入室后常規(guī)開放外周靜脈通道,使用多功能監(jiān)護(hù)儀監(jiān)測(cè)心電圖、血壓、心率、血氧飽和度及呼氣末CO2分壓。麻醉誘導(dǎo)給予咪達(dá)唑侖0.04 mg/kg,丙泊酚1.5 mg/kg,舒芬太尼30 μg,順阿曲庫(kù)銨10 mg。氣管插管后,TAP組行雙側(cè)TAP阻滯,腹壁部位皮膚常規(guī)消毒鋪巾,將無(wú)菌超聲探頭置于一側(cè)肋緣下自腹白線向外側(cè)移動(dòng),找到腹直肌與腹橫肌之間的移行處,選擇腋前線肋緣與髂骨連線中點(diǎn)為穿刺點(diǎn),沿光束縱軸平面插入22G穿刺針,直至腹直肌與腹橫肌之間,注射器回抽無(wú)血后,先注射0.375%羅哌卡因1 ml,待超聲掃描驗(yàn)證藥物在筋膜間隙擴(kuò)散,確定針尖位置后,繼續(xù)注射羅哌卡因19 ml;對(duì)側(cè)按同樣方法注射羅哌卡因20 ml。對(duì)照組按同樣方法于雙側(cè)相同位置注射生理鹽水各20 ml。阻滯完成后即可開始手術(shù),給予丙泊酚6 mg/(kg·h)及瑞芬太尼0.012 mg/(kg·h)麻醉維持。術(shù)中維持循環(huán)穩(wěn)定,根據(jù)血壓、心率變化追加舒芬太尼及其他血管活性藥物,每間隔45 min追加順阿曲庫(kù)銨4 mg。若血壓、心率高于基線值的30%,則加大丙泊酚及瑞芬太尼的輸注速率,維持呼氣末CO2分壓30~35 mm Hg,手術(shù)結(jié)束前30 min停用順阿曲庫(kù)銨,手術(shù)結(jié)束停用丙泊酚及瑞芬太尼。自主呼吸恢復(fù)達(dá)到拔管指征時(shí)拔除氣管導(dǎo)管。
1.2.2 手術(shù)方法 頭低腳高右傾分腿位,臍上1 cm處為觀察孔,右下腹12 mm主操作孔,左下腹10 mm操作孔,兩側(cè)臍旁5 mm操作孔各1個(gè)。遵循全直腸系膜切除原則[4],保留左結(jié)腸動(dòng)脈,低位結(jié)扎、切斷腸系膜下動(dòng)脈,徹底剔除腸系膜下動(dòng)脈根部淋巴脂肪組織[5],于腫瘤下緣2 cm處使用腔內(nèi)切割閉合器離斷直腸。左下腹斜行切口5~8 cm,在腹壁外切除腫瘤及其系膜,近段乙狀結(jié)腸埋置管型吻合器釘砧,將近段腸管重新放回腹腔。重建氣腹,經(jīng)肛放置管型吻合器器身,行端端吻合重建消化道,經(jīng)肛門注氣確定無(wú)吻合口漏。放置盆腔引流管一根。
1.2.3 術(shù)后處理 禁食水至肛門排氣,常規(guī)預(yù)防感染、靜脈補(bǔ)液等治療;術(shù)后18小時(shí)拔除胃管;間隔6小時(shí)聽診腹部一次,以確定腸鳴音是否恢復(fù),肛門排氣后進(jìn)流質(zhì)飲食;排便后拔除盆腔引流管。均不使用鎮(zhèn)痛泵。
記錄麻醉時(shí)間、手術(shù)時(shí)間、術(shù)后腸蠕動(dòng)恢復(fù)時(shí)間(有腸鳴音)、術(shù)后首次下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間;術(shù)后并發(fā)癥;術(shù)后2、4、8、12、24 h靜態(tài)(平臥時(shí))及動(dòng)態(tài)(翻身后)NRS評(píng)分(由護(hù)士或值班醫(yī)生詢問(wèn)患者疼痛情況并即時(shí)記錄),0為無(wú)痛,10分為劇痛。
2組68例腹橫筋膜阻滯均成功(超聲掃描驗(yàn)證藥物在筋膜間隙擴(kuò)散),操作過(guò)程順利,均無(wú)腹腔內(nèi)注射、注射部位血腫、神經(jīng)缺血麻痹和感染。2組麻醉時(shí)間、手術(shù)時(shí)間無(wú)顯著性差異,TAP組腸鳴音恢復(fù)時(shí)間、首次下床活動(dòng)時(shí)間、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間顯著短于對(duì)照組,見表2。TAP組術(shù)后2、4、8、12、24 h靜態(tài)及動(dòng)態(tài)NRS評(píng)分均明顯低于對(duì)照組,見表3。2組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率均無(wú)顯著性差異,見表4。并發(fā)癥發(fā)生時(shí)間均在術(shù)后72 h以內(nèi),對(duì)癥治療治愈,無(wú)死亡。其中3例腸梗阻均為麻痹性腸梗阻,3例心力衰竭均為左心衰竭。TAP組ASA Ⅲ級(jí)5例中2例出現(xiàn)并發(fā)癥(1例惡心,1例嘔吐),對(duì)照組ASA Ⅲ級(jí)5例中2例出現(xiàn)并發(fā)癥(均為術(shù)后惡心)。
表2 2組圍手術(shù)期指標(biāo)比較
表3 2組術(shù)后疼痛NRS評(píng)分比較
表4 2組術(shù)后并發(fā)癥比較[n(%)]
腹腔鏡結(jié)直腸手術(shù)雖然具有創(chuàng)傷小、術(shù)后恢復(fù)快等優(yōu)點(diǎn),但術(shù)后疼痛問(wèn)題并未得到系統(tǒng)性解決[6~9]。一般認(rèn)為腹腔鏡結(jié)直腸手術(shù)的術(shù)后疼痛在24 h內(nèi)最顯著,鎮(zhèn)痛完善可促使患者早期下床活動(dòng),促進(jìn)胃腸道功能恢復(fù),縮短術(shù)后住院時(shí)間,降低住院費(fèi)用,增加患者滿意度[10,11]。腹腔鏡結(jié)直腸手術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛尚無(wú)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)方案,靜脈注射、連續(xù)靜脈或硬膜外自控鎮(zhèn)痛、區(qū)域阻滯及局部鎮(zhèn)痛等術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛方法均可應(yīng)用。Gram等[12]認(rèn)為術(shù)后靜脈使用阿片類藥物可引起惡心嘔吐、呼吸抑制、過(guò)度鎮(zhèn)靜、瘙癢、胃腸道功能恢復(fù)時(shí)間延長(zhǎng)等;Levy等[13]認(rèn)為硬膜外自控鎮(zhèn)痛常引起運(yùn)動(dòng)阻滯、低血壓及尿潴留;Stuhldreher等[14]認(rèn)為局部麻醉不能顯著減輕術(shù)后疼痛,不能縮短術(shù)后住院時(shí)間。
TAP阻滯的概念自提出以來(lái)即廣受關(guān)注,其解剖基礎(chǔ)是:腹壁皮膚、肌肉及壁層腹膜感覺神經(jīng)主要由T7~L1脊神經(jīng)前支支配,這些神經(jīng)經(jīng)過(guò)腹壁外側(cè),穿過(guò)腹內(nèi)斜肌與腹橫肌之間的筋膜到達(dá)腹壁前側(cè),沿途分支支配腹前外側(cè)壁各肌層,皮支分布于相應(yīng)區(qū)域的皮膚;T7~T9前支由腋前線內(nèi)側(cè)進(jìn)入TAP層,T9~L1前支則在腋前線外側(cè)走行進(jìn)入TAP層。TAP阻滯即通過(guò)將局麻藥注入腹內(nèi)斜肌與腹橫肌之間的神經(jīng)筋膜層,以達(dá)到阻滯前腹壁神經(jīng)的目的[15]。超聲引導(dǎo)下TAP阻滯定位清晰,操作安全性高,神經(jīng)阻滯效果好[16]。大量研究證實(shí)TAP阻滯復(fù)合全身麻醉可減少圍手術(shù)期阿片類藥物使用量,降低手術(shù)應(yīng)激反應(yīng),維持血流動(dòng)力學(xué)穩(wěn)定,為腹部手術(shù)提供有效的術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛[17~20]。Tran等[21]在超聲引導(dǎo)下行TAP阻滯,向髂嵴上方的腹橫肌平面內(nèi)注射苯胺染料,僅T10~L1神經(jīng)根染色,提示TAP阻滯可能僅適用于下腹部手術(shù)。作為長(zhǎng)效局部麻醉藥,與布比卡因相比,羅哌卡因親脂性更低,不易滲透進(jìn)入大的有髓神經(jīng)運(yùn)動(dòng)纖維,運(yùn)動(dòng)阻滯發(fā)生率低,中樞神經(jīng)系統(tǒng)毒性和心臟毒性小[22],故成為TAP阻滯的首選局部麻醉藥。目前研究認(rèn)為,使用羅哌卡因行TAP阻滯的術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛持續(xù)時(shí)間長(zhǎng),遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)其局部浸潤(rùn)麻醉的鎮(zhèn)痛時(shí)間,這可能與筋膜間隙血供較差、藥物清除緩慢有關(guān)[23]。本研究以前瞻性隨機(jī)對(duì)照研究的方式,探討TAP阻滯在腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛中的應(yīng)用價(jià)值,結(jié)果顯示TAP組比對(duì)照組具有術(shù)后恢復(fù)腸鳴音早、術(shù)后首次下床早、術(shù)后住院時(shí)間短的優(yōu)勢(shì),進(jìn)一步的靜態(tài)及動(dòng)態(tài)NRS評(píng)分也佐證了雙側(cè)TAP阻滯對(duì)術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛的有效作用。
TAP阻滯也有操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和并發(fā)癥,局麻藥劑量需參考患者體重與身體一般情況等多方面因素,避免局麻藥毒性反應(yīng)[3]。而本研究顯示,與對(duì)照組相比,TAP組在術(shù)后并發(fā)癥(惡心、嘔吐、腸梗阻、消化道出血、切口感染、肺部感染、心力衰竭)發(fā)生率上的差異并沒(méi)有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,這提示隨著TAP阻滯技術(shù)的應(yīng)用,接受度逐漸升高,操作規(guī)范進(jìn)一步細(xì)化,在現(xiàn)有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)下,其帶來(lái)的潛在操作風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和并發(fā)癥是能夠被有效控制的。本研究樣本量小,存在選擇偏倚,尚需進(jìn)行多中心、大樣本研究和進(jìn)一步分層分析以得到確切結(jié)論。
綜上所述,TAP阻滯對(duì)腹腔鏡直腸癌低位前切除術(shù)后鎮(zhèn)痛效果顯著,可有效促進(jìn)患者早期下床活動(dòng),加快胃腸道功能恢復(fù),縮短術(shù)后住院時(shí)間,其術(shù)后并發(fā)癥可控,值得在臨床上進(jìn)一步推廣使用。
1 Bonjer HJ,Deijen CL,Abis GA,et al.A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.N Engl J Med,2015,372(14):1324-1332.
2 Cata JP,Gottumukkala V,Thakar D,et al.Effects of postoperative epidural analgesia on recurrence-free and overall survival in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer.J Clin Anesth,2014,26(1):3-17.
3 Breazu CM,Ciobanu L,Hadade A,et al.The efficacy of oblique subcostal transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic cholecystectomy:a prospective,placebo contrlled study.Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care,2016,23(1):12-18.
4 Odermatt M,Figueiredo N,Parvaiz A.Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.Laparosc Colorectal Surg,2017,11(1):121.
5 沈 薦,李敏哲,杜燕夫,等.腹腔鏡直腸癌前切除術(shù)中保留左結(jié)腸動(dòng)脈與否的臨床對(duì)照研究.中國(guó)微創(chuàng)外科雜志,2014,14(1):22-24,28.
6 Juo YY,Hyder O,Haider AH,et al.Is minimally invasive colon resection better than traditional approaches?First comprehensive national examination with propensity score matching.JAMA Surg,2014,149(2):177-184.
7 Van der Pas MH,Haglind E,Cuesta MA,et al.Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer (COLOR II):short-term outcomes of a randomised,phase 3 trial.Lancet Oncol,2013,14(3):210-218.
8 沈 薦,李敏哲,杜燕夫,等.直腸擴(kuò)張沖洗器在腹腔鏡乙狀結(jié)腸手術(shù)中的應(yīng)用.中國(guó)微創(chuàng)外科雜志,2015,15(11):1011-1014.
9 沈 薦,李敏哲,杜燕夫,等.弧形切割吻合器在腹腔鏡低位直腸癌前切除術(shù)中的臨床應(yīng)用.中華胃腸外科雜志,2016,19(3):284-286.
10 Keller DS,Ermlich BO,Schiltz N,et al.The effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks on post-operative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery:a prospective,randomized,double-blind trial.Dis Colon Rectum,2014,57(11):1290-1297.
11 Conaghan P,Maxwell-Armstrong C,Bedforth N,et al.Efficacy of transversus abdominis plane blocks in laparoscopic colorectal resections.Surg Endosc,2010,24(10):2480-2484.
12 Gram M,Erlenwein J,Petzke F,et al.Prediction of postoperative opioid analgesia using clinical-experimental parameters and electroencephalography.Eur J Pain,2017,21(2):264-277.
13 Levy BF,Scott MJ,Fawcett W,et al.Randomized clinical trial of epidural,spinal or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Br J Surg,2011,98(8):1068-1078.
14 Stuhldreher JM,Adamina M,Konopacka A,et al.Effect of local anesthetics on postoperative pain and opioid consumption in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.Surg Endosc,2012,26(6):1617-1623.
15 Finnerty O,Sharkey A,McDonnell JG.Transversus abdominis plane block for abdominal surgery.Minerva Anestesiol,2013,79(12):1415-1422.
16 Lee TH,Barrington MJ,Tran TM,et al.Comparison of extent of sensory block following posterior and subcostal approaches to ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block.Anaesth Intensive Care,2010,38(3):452-560.
17 Sinha A,Jayaraman L,Punhani D.Efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block after laparoscopic bariatric surgery:a double blind,randomized,controlled study.Obes Surg,2013,23(4):548-553.
18 Bartels SA,Vlug MS,Bemelman WA.Reply to letter:laparoscopy within fast-track or within enhanced recovery after surgery? Ann Surg,2014,259(2):e25.
19 De Oliveira GS Jr,Castro-Alves LJ,Nader A,et al.Transversus abdominis plane block to ameliorate postoperative pain outcomes after laparoscopic surgery:a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Anesth Analg,2014,118(2):454-463.
20 Fields AC,Gonzalez DO,Chin EH,et al.Laparoscopic-assisted transversus abdominis plane block for post-operative pain control in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair:a randomized controlled trial.J Am Coll Surg,2015,221(2):462-469.
21 Tran TM,Ivanusic JJ,Hebbard P,et al.Determination of spread of inject ate after ultrasound-guided transgress abdomens plane block:a cadaveric study.Br J Anaesth,2009,102(1):123-127.
22 Kuthiala G,Chaudhary G.Ropivacaine:a review of its pharmacology and clinical use.Indian J Anaesth,2011,55(2):104-110.
23 Tikuisis R,Miliauskas P,Lukoseviciene V,et al.Transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain relief after hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery:a randomized,placebo-controlled clinical trial.Tech Coloproctol,2016,20(12):835-844.
ApplicationofTransversusAbdominisPlaneBlockinPostoperativeAnalgesiaforLaparoscopicRectalCarcinomaSurgery
MaRuolan,WuAnshi*,ShenJian,etal.
*DepartmentofAnesthesiology,BeijingChaoyangHospital,CapitalMedicalUniversity,Beijing100020,China
WuAnshi,E-mail:wuanshicmu@163.com
ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical value of transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in postoperative analgesia for laparoscopic rectal carcinoma surgery.MethodsA total of 68 patients with rectal carcinoma receiving laparoscopic rectal carcinoma surgery were recruited for the study. These cases were obtained from Beijing Chaoyang Hospital. All the patients were randomly divided into two groups, 33 patients for TAP group and 35 for control group. For TAP group, 0.375% ropivacaine was used in ultrasound-guided bilateral TAP block after anesthesia induction, while the same dose of normal saline was used for control group. Perioperative events (recovering time of intestinal peristalsis, postoperative leaving bed time, and hospital stay), postoperative complications, postoperative static and dynamic pain numerical rating scale (NRS) at 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h were compared between the two groups.ResultsThe TAP group had significantly shorter recovering time of bowel sound [(28.1±9.8) h vs. (35.6±9.4) h,t=-3.214,P=0.002], postoperative leaving bed time [(1.7±0.6) d vs. (2.0±0.6) d,t=-2.030,P=0.046], and hospital stay [(7.1±1.2) d vs. (7.8±1.7) d,t=-2.122,P=0.038] than the control group. The postoperative 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h static and dynamic NRS of the TAP group were significantly lower than the control group [static: 2 h, (3.3±0.8) points vs. (4.0±0.8) points,t=-3.922,P=0.000; 4 h, (2.8±0.9) points vs. (3.5±0.7) points,t=-4.090,P=0.000; 8 h, (2.5±0.6) points vs. (3.1±0.6) points,t=-4.535,P=0.000; 12 h, (2.4±0.6) points vs. (3.0±0.4) points,t=-5.074,P=0.000; 24 h, (2.3±0.7) points vs. (2.7±0.5) points,t=-3.239,P=0.002; dynamic: 2 h, (4.1±1.0) points vs. (4.9±1.1) points,t=-3.261,P=0.002; 4 h, (3.9±0.8) points vs. (4.5±1.0) points,t=-3.001, P=0.004; 8 h, (3.5±0.8) points vs. (4.2±0.7) points,t=-3.742,P=0.000; 12 h, (3.2±0.8) points vs. (3.7±0.7) points,t=-3.350,P=0.001; 24 h, (2.6±0.7) points vs. (3.3±0.6) points,t=-4.706,P=0.000]. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication (nausea, vomiting, intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal bleeding, incision infection, pulmonary infection, heart failure) between the two groups (P>0.05).ConclusionTAP block is an effective postoperative analgesia method after laparoscopic rectal carcinoma surgery, which promotes postoperative recovery of patients.
Transversus abdominis plane block; Postoperative analgesia; Rectal carcinoma; Laparoscopy
A
1009-6604(2017)12-1064-005
10.3969/j.issn.1009-6604.2017.12.003
國(guó)家自然科學(xué)基金面上項(xiàng)目(81171025、81371199、81771139)
**
,E-mail:wuanshicmu@163.com
① (首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬北京口腔醫(yī)院麻醉科,北京 100050)
② (首都醫(yī)科大學(xué)附屬北京朝陽(yáng)醫(yī)院普外科,北京 100020)
2017-02-28)
2017-09-26)
王惠群)