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.
Objective To systematically evaluate effectiveness, dosage and adverse reaction of sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), so as to provide evidence for rational drug use in clinic. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library, the special trials registered in the Cochrane anesthesia group, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched by the end of 2012, and the relevant periodicals were also manually searched to collect the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on sufentanil versus fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia. According to the Cochrane Handbook 5.0, literature was screened, data were extracted, and quality of the included studies was critically assessed. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 25 RCTs involving 1 944 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) as for visual analog scale (VAS), compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative VAS at 2-hour, 4-hour, 8-hour, 12-hour, 24-hour and 48-hour was decreased in the sufentanil group; b) as for sedation scale, the fentanyl group, the postoperative sedation at 12-hour and 24-hour was lower in the sufentanil group when adopting 0 to 3 points scoring method, but there were no significant differences at other time points; c) as for drug dosage, compared with the fentanyl group, the postoperative drug consumption at 24-hour and 48-hour was less in the sufentanil group; d) as for adverse reaction, the incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, dizziness and somnolence in the sufentanil group was lower than those in the fentanyl group. But there was no significant difference in other adverse reactions such as skin itching, limbs numbness and motor disturbance between the two groups; and e) as for the demands of additional analgesic drugs, compared with the fentanyl group, the incidence of demanding additional analgesic drugs was lower in the sufentanil group. Conclusion Compared with fentanyl, sufentanil has better effects of analgesia and sedation for PCEA; Its dosage and incidence of adverse reactions are lower, so sufentanil is safer in clinic.
目的 评价地佐辛配伍丙泊酚联合喉罩用于无痛纤维支气管镜检查的效果。 方法 将2012年10月－12月拟行纤维支气管镜检查，且按美国麻醉医师协会分级Ⅰ或Ⅱ级的60例患者，随机分为芬太尼组（F组）、地佐辛组（D组）、生理盐水组（N组）,每组20例。采用双盲法给药，静脉注射芬太尼（10 μg/mL）或地佐辛（1 mg/mL）或生理盐水0.1 mL/kg，5 min后3组缓慢静脉注射丙泊酚2 mg/kg诱导后置入喉罩，术中保留自主呼吸，持续泵入丙泊酚4～6 mg/（kg·h）维持麻醉，观察3组患者诱导前（T0）、诱导后时（T1）、纤维支气管镜操作时（T2）、术毕时（T3）及拔除喉罩时（T4）的生命体征，记录丙泊酚总用量、苏醒时间、苏醒时的呼吸道疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS），记录术中及术后有关并发症的发生情况。 结果 与N组相比，D、F两组丙泊酚总用量减少、苏醒时间缩短，头昏及术中体动发生率、VAS评分明显降低（P＜0.05）；呼吸暂停的发生率D组最低（P＜0.05）；恶心、呕吐的发生率F组最高（P＜0.05）。 结论 地佐辛配伍丙泊酚联合喉罩用于无痛纤维支气管镜检查，麻醉效果满意，术后镇痛效果好，值得临床推广。
【摘要】 目的 探讨术中应用曲马多、芬太尼对全麻苏醒期镇痛效果的影响。 方法 2009年10月-2010年4月将80例静脉麻醉下行胃癌根治术的患者随机分为4组:Q1组曲马多1 mg/kg、F1组芬太尼1 μg/kg、Q2组曲马多2 mg/kg、F2组芬太尼2 μg/kg。各组分别于术毕前30 min静注给药。手术结束后送恢复室，比较4组的呼唤睁眼时间、拔管时间、拔管后即刻疼痛评分（VAS评分）、术前术后平均动脉压（MAP）、心率（HR）、脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2）的变化以及不良反应的发生情况。 结果 4组患者呼唤睁眼时间差异无统计学意义（Pgt;0.05），F2组的拔管时间明显长于其他3组（Plt;0.05），Q1组和F1组的疼痛评分明显高于Q2组和F2组（Plt;0.05），在T2时点，Q2组和F2组的MAP值明显低于Q1组和F1组（Plt;0.05）。 结论 曲马多2 mg/kg与芬太尼2 μg/kg的镇痛效果的效果相当，但安全性更高，更加适合全麻苏醒期的镇痛治疗。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effects of tramadol and fentanyl on analgesia in the early recovery period after general anesthesia. Methods A total of 80 patients who underwent the operation of gastric cancer under general anesthesia from October 2009 to April 2010 were randomly divided into four groups: group Q1 received tramadol 1 mg/kg, group F1 received fentanyl 1 μg/kg, group Q2 received tramadol 2 mg/kg, and group F2 received fentanyl 2 μg/kg. Thirty minutes before the end of surgery, intravenous administration was performed on all of the patients. In the recovery room, the wake-up time, extubation time, pain level evaluated by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) before and after the surgery, and incidence of complications were recorded. Results No significant differences in wake-up time among the four groups were found (Pgt;0.05). The extubation time was longer in group F2 than that in the other three groups (Plt;0.05). The VAS scores in group Q1 and F1 were higher than those in group Q2 and F2. At the T2 time point, MAP in group Q2 and F2 were lower than those in group Q1 and F1 (Plt;0.05). Conclusion The analgesic efficacy of tramadol 2 mg/kg is similar to that of fentanyl 2 μg/kg, but tramadol is more suitable for analgesic treatment in recovery period after general anesthesia due to the higher security.
目的:比较芬太尼与利多卡因宫旁阻滞麻醉在人工流产术中的疗效。方法:选择我院2009年3月~2009年5月门诊终止妊娠早孕妇女100例,分为两组。芬太尼组50例,利多卡因组50例。比较两组宫旁阻滞麻醉镇痛效果及人流综合征发生率。结果:芬太尼组的镇痛效果明显优于利多卡因组,人流综合征的发生率明显低于利多卡因组。结论:芬太尼宫旁阻滞麻醉具有镇痛效果明显，人流综合征发生率低等优点，优于利多卡因麻醉效果。
目的:比较瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚或依托咪酯全麻在腹腔镜妇科手术中的临床效果。方法:择期腹腔镜妇科手术80例,随机分成瑞芬太尼异丙酚组(RP组)和瑞芬太尼依托咪酯组(RE组),各40例。两组全麻诱导用药相同,维持麻醉RP组采用瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚、RE组采用瑞芬太尼联合依托咪酯。记录基础值、诱导后、插管后1 min、3 min、气腹时、气腹后10、20、30、40 min的动脉收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)、心率(HR);记录停药至自主呼吸恢复、睁眼、拔除气管导管、恢复定向能力的时间;记录清醒即刻及清醒后1、2、4、8、12、16、20、24 h患者疼痛程度,采用VAS评分;记录24 h内不良反应发生情况。 结果: 两组SBP、DBP均在诱导后明显低于基础值(Plt;001), 插管后恢复,气腹开始后趋于平稳;两组HR均在诱导后减慢(Plt;001),插管后及气腹开始时恢复。RP组自主呼吸恢复、呼之能睁眼、拔除气管导管及恢复定向能力的时间均明显短于RE组(Plt;001)。麻醉清醒即刻、清醒后1、2、4、8 h VAS评分RE组明显低于RP组(Plt;005),12、16、20、24 h VAS评分两组比较无显著性差异(Pgt;005)。术后发生恶心呕吐患者数RP组明显减少(Plt;005)。 结论:全麻行腹腔镜妇科手术时,瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚或依托咪酯都能缓解气腹及手术引起的血流动力学变化,瑞芬太尼联合异丙酚术后苏醒快且能明显降低术后恶心呕吐的发生率,但术后疼痛较为严重。
目的:比较七氟醚吸入麻醉和丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉用于小儿手术的临床效果。方法:100例1～8岁的患儿随机分为丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼组(A组)与七氟醚吸入组(B组）。麻醉诱导后,A组持续输注丙泊酚和瑞芬太尼维持麻醉,B组吸入七氟醚维持麻醉。术中根据生命体征调整丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼的输注速度及七氟醚的吸入浓度,记录术中循环变化、术后麻醉恢复情况。结果:与B组相比,A组术中MAP下降明显(Plt;005)。结论:与A组相比,B组术中生命体征控制平稳;术后清醒迅速、完全、平稳,拔管时间无明显差异。
目的:探讨甲状腺手术中氟比洛芬酯对丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉效果的影响。方法:将210例择期丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉下行甲状腺手术患者随机分为对照组和氟比洛芬酯组,每组105例。于切皮前30 min,对照组静脉注入等量生理盐水10mL,氟比洛芬酯组经静脉注入氟比洛芬酯注射液100 mg。分别记录患者麻醉前10 min (T0)、切皮时(T1)、切皮后10 min (T2)、切除腺体时 (T3)以及拔管时 (T4) 的血流动力学 (SBP、DBP、HR) 的变化以及术后口述描述评分(VRS)。结果:与对照组比较, 氟比洛芬酯组T14时SP、DP均降低,两组差别有统计学意义(Plt;005)。氟比洛芬酯组离开手术室时无痛率明显高于对照组,两组差别有统计学意义(Plt;005)。结论:氟比洛芬酯对丙泊酚—瑞芬太尼麻醉下行甲状腺手术患者血流动力学影响小,且减轻术后疼痛,术后恢复更为舒适。
目的：探讨丙泊酚、芬太尼用于纤支镜检查的安全性。方法：60例纤支镜检查患者分为丙泊酚组和对照组。丙泊酚组采用芬太尼1～15 μg/kg,丙泊酚1～2 mg/kg静脉麻醉，观察检查前、纤支镜进入声门后5分钟、检查后的HR、BP、RR 、SpO2变化及两组病例术中、术后的反应。结果：丙泊酚组检查中HR、BP较对照组平稳(P＜0.01), RR、SpO2变化与对照组比较无明显统计学差异(P＞0.05)，丙泊酚组检查中、检查后不良反应少，苏醒快，患者满意。结论：丙泊酚、芬太尼用于纤支镜检查，减少了患者的恐惧与痛苦，提供了良好的检查条件，同时也是安全可行的。