摘要
目的将靶控输注技术与恒速输注静脉麻醉进行对比分析,评价双通道靶控技术应用于神经介入手术的安全性和可行性。方法择期行颅内栓塞手术患者40例,ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级,年龄20～60岁,随机分为T组(双通道靶控输注组,n=20)和C组(恒速输注组,n=20)。采用BIS指导下两种麻醉方法实施全身麻醉,观察两组患者术后自主呼吸恢复时间、呼之睁眼时间、拔除喉罩时间以及定向力恢复时间,评价临床应用的可行性。结果 T组呼之睁眼时间、拔除喉罩时间、定向力恢复时间分别为(16.8±5.8)min(、12.3±3.7)min和(11.1±3.8)min,短于相应C组(14.3±3.7)min(、17.3±2.6)min和(20.5±5.2)min,两组之间比较存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与恒速输注比较,双通道靶控输注麻醉方法对神经介入手术患者术后评价早期神经功能恢复和治疗效果有显著的优越性,是一种安全可行的麻醉方法,可广泛应用于神经介入手术。
Objective To evaluate the safety and feasibility of the double channel target-controlled infusion（TCI） and the constant speed infusion（CSI） used to the interventional neuroradiolo-gy.Methods Totally 40 ASA physical status I ～ II patients aged 20 ～60yr,scheduled for intracranil embolic surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups： group T（double channel target-controlled infu-sion group,n =20） and group C（constant speed infusion group,n = 20）.General anesthesia was performed with propofol and remifentanil by double TCI or CSI.Standard monitoring was applied by BIS、ECG、MAP、SpO2、HR.Observe the time of spontaneous respiratory recovery,awaken,remove laryngeal mask and orientation recovery in each group.Eualuate the safety and feasibility of the double channel TCI in clinical practice.Results In group T,the time of spontaneous respiratory recovery,awaken,remove laryngeal mask and orientation recovery were（16.8 ± 5.8） min、（12.3 ± 3.7） min and（11.1 ±3.8） min respectively,which were less than（14.3 ± 3.7） min、（17.3 ± 2.6） min and （20.5 ±5.2） min correspondingly in group C.Conclusion Compare to the constant speed infusion,the double channel target-controlled infusion have advantages of early neurological function recovery and treatment effect.This kind of anesthesia methods and options is a safet which can be widely used for interventional neuroradiology requiring general anesthesia.
出处
《医药论坛杂志》
2010年第20期23-25,共3页
Journal of Medical Forum
关键词
双通道靶控输注
恒速输注
神经介入手术
全身麻醉
评价
Double channel target- controlled infusion （TCI）
Constant speed infusion （ CSI ）
Interventional neuroradiology
Total anesthesia
Evaluation
