【摘要】 目的 比较利多卡因不同剂量预处理对罗库溴铵注射痛的影响。 方法 120例行全身麻醉择期手术的患者按照完全随机的方法分为利多卡因10 mg 3 mL预处理组（A组），利多卡因25 mg 3 mL预处理组（B组），利多卡因50 mg 3 mL预处理组（C组），生理盐水3 mL预处理组（D组）。观察不同剂量的利多卡因预处理对罗库溴铵注射痛的影响。 结果 A、B、C和D组注射罗库溴铵的疼痛发生率分别为53%、27%、3%和90%。与生理盐水预处理组相比，利多卡因预处理组能明显减轻罗库溴铵引起的注射痛（Plt;0.01）；剂量越大，效果越明显。 结论 利多卡因10、25、50 mg预处理均能显著降低罗库溴铵注射时引起的疼痛，以50 mg利多卡因更为有效。【Abstract】 Objective To compare the effects of different doses of lidocaine pretreatment on the pain from injection with rocuronium. Methods One hundred and twenty patients of general anesthesia had undergone elective surgery, were randomly divided into lidocaine 10 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group A), lidocaine 25 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group B), lidocaine 50 mg 3 mL pretreated group (group C) and saline 3 mL pretreated group (group D). The effects of different doses of lidocaine pretreatment on injection pain of rocuronium were observed. Results The pain incidence from injection with rocuronium in A, B, C, D groups were 53%, 27%, 3% and 90% respectively. The higher dose of lidocaine, the more obvious effect. Conclusion Lidocaine pretreatment with 10, 25, 50 mg can reduce the severity of pain from injection with rocuronium, and lidocaine 50 mg is the most effective.
目的 探究静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚在无痛胃镜麻醉应用中的可行性、安全性和有效性。 方法 纳入2012年4月－5月行无痛胃镜检查的患者102例，随机分为两组：利多卡因组（L组）和生理盐水组（S组）。L组于麻醉诱导前缓慢静注2%利多卡因2 mg/kg，S组给予相同容量的生理盐水。比较两组间的异丙酚诱导剂量、追加剂量和总量，以及检查中呛咳反应、体动的发生率，麻醉时间，不良事件和不良反应发生率，麻醉医生和患者满意度是否有差异。 结果 L组较S组异丙酚诱导剂量减少约0.17 mg/kg，差异有统计学意义（P=0.03）；余指标差异均无统计学意义。 结论 将静脉利多卡因用于无痛胃镜麻醉，虽能减少异丙酚诱导剂量，但减少程度并不明显；不能改善诱导前后血流动力学的剧烈波动，也未能缩短总的麻醉时间；在抑制术中呛咳反应、体动方面也未见明显优势。无论是从安全性还是经济学方面考虑，我们都不推荐将静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚麻醉的方案用于无痛胃镜检查。
Objective To systematically review the effects of lidocaine for preventing pain on injection of propofol. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2012), PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, HighWire, EMbase, CBM and CNKI were searched electronically to collect literature published from January, 1985 to December, 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were indentified about lidocaine for preventing injection pain of propofol. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assess the quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Fifteen trials involved 1 332 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, adding lidocaine into propofol lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.44, Plt;0.000 01); using different doses of lidocaine before injection lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.59, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.75, Plt;0.000 1); using different doses of lidocaine after venous occlusion lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.44, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.52, Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Lidocaine could reduce the pain on injection of propofol. Using lidocaine 40 mg after venous occlusion is a relatively effective method to lower the incidence of pain on injection which is more suitable for outpatient who receive intravenous anesthesia without preoperation medication.
Objective To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Methods We electronically searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), CNKI, VIP and CBM. The search was updated to December 2009. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were indentified about articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Study selection and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews. And RevMan5.0 was applied for statistical analysis in success rate. Results Nine trials involving 985 pulpitis patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that, both the anesthetic success rate (RR=1.33, 95%CI 1.23 to1.44) and maxillary anesthetic success rate (RR=1.65, 95%CI 1.38 to 1.98) of articaine were superior to that of lidocaine, but there was no statistical significance in mandibular anesthetic success rate between two groups (RR=1.28, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.69). Conclusion The current evidence shows that articaine is superior to lidocaine in anesthetic efficacy, and is good at maxillary anesthesia.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effects of nebulized lidocaine anesthesia and anesthesia with lidocaine and midazolam in patients with preoperative bronchoscopy. MethodsTotally, 136 inpatients between May 2002 and June 2013 with preoperative bronchoscopy were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to experimental group and control group with 68 patients in each. For patients in the experimental group, 8 mL of 2% lidocaine was administered through inhalation anesthesia, followed by 2-3 mg bolus of midazolam, and subsequently 0.5 mg of midazolam was administered every 2 minutes depending on patients' awareness. Patients in the control group accepted lidocaine alone for anesthesia. The clinical efficacy and adverse effects of both the two ways of anesthesia were observed. ResultsThe time of sustained and effective anesthesia was (24.5±2.8) minutes in the experimental group, as compared with (16.8±2.1) minutes in the control group (P<0.01). The average amount of consumption of lidocaine was (12.4±1.3) mL in the experimental group, as compared with (16.8±1.5) mL in the control group (P<0.01). The heart rate at 5 min after operation was (81.5±19.5) beats/min in the experimental group, as compared with (94.6±34.6) beats/min in the control group (P<0.01). The mean pulse oxygen saturation at 5 min after operation was (93.5±3.6)% in the experimental group, as compared with (88.2±13.3)% in the control group (P<0.01). ConclusionCombined application of lidocaine and midazolam before bronchoscopy is simple and feasible for anesthesia, which has higher success rate, lesser side effects and other reactions such as body movement and coughing.
ObjectiveTo study the feasibility of using propofol and remifentanil for tracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and investigate the influence of tracheal intubation on such vital signs as blood pressure and heart rates. MethodsEighty ASA I-Ⅱ patients who underwent general anesthesia in our hospital between December 2012 and April 2013 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in group A received fentanyl-propofol, while patients in group B received remifentanyl-propofol-lidocaine. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, and body weight (P>0.05). Conventional intubation induction method was used for group A:0.05-0.10 mg/kg midazolam, 4 μg/kg fentanyl, 1.0-1.5 mg/kg propofol, and 0.6-0.9 mg/kg atracurium were given and tracheal intubation was performed after muscle relaxation. Group B patients were treated with remifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid slow intravenous injection, and compound cricothyroid membrane puncture method before endotracheal intubation. We observed the two groups of patients for vital signs before and after induction, and choking cough reactions. ResultsPatients in both the two groups were all able to complete tracheal intubation. Circulation change and incidence of tachycardia in patients of group A were significantly higher than those in group B (P<0.05). The rates of bradycardia, hypoxemia, and choking cough response were low in both groups with no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). ConclusionRemifentanyl propofol-lidocaine compound liquid can be safely used for implementation of endotracheal intubation in patients who are awake, and the hemodynamic stability can be maintained.
Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
Objective To evaluate the analgesic effect of intra-articular ropivacaine with lidocaine. Methods A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Ninety patients receiving selective knee arthroscopy were randomized into three groups of 30 patients. At the end of the operation, before the release of the tourniquet, an intra-articular injection was administered to each patient through arthroscope, in accordance with their random allocation: 0.9% normal saline (normal saline group); 100 mg ropivacaine (ropivacaine alone group) and 100 mg ropivacaine and 100 mg 2% lidocaine (ropivacaine with lidocaine group). Pain intensity was assessed after the operation using the 100-mm visual-analog scale (VAS), and the amount of supplemental analgesics used within the following 24 hours were recorded. Results The VAS scores of 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine alone group (Plt;0.05). The VAS scores 0.5, 1 and 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and at the awaking moment, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, and 24 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine with lidocaine group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce a patient’s pain after operation. The combination of lidocaine with intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce the patient’s pain severity immediately after the operation and achieve an early analgesic effect.
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。