1、 2015 4 2 017 4 80 , (n=40) (n=40) , ( ) T0 SBP DBP HR , T1 T2 T3 T4 SBP DBP HR (P0.05) , (P0.05) , (P0.05) , 17.5% (7/40) 67.5% (27/40) (P0.05) , ; ; ; ( ) ; ; General anesthesia and combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in hip replacement surgery and adverse effects analysis Zhang Mei-lan Depart
2、ment of Anesthesiology, Shangrao Peoples Hospital; Abstract Objective To analyze the effect and adverse reactions of general anesthesia and combined spinal epidural anesthesia in hip replacement. Methods The clinical data of our hospital from April 2015 to April 2017 were 80 cases of hip replacement
3、 patients were analyzed, on the basis of anesthesia methods these patients were divided into general anesthesia group (n=40) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia group (n=40) , the effect of anesthesia on hemodynamics, two groups of patients (lower limb muscle) and dosage, onset time, complete bl
4、ock time and recovery time, the incidence of adverse reactions for statistical analysis of anesthesia. Results The T0 difference between the two groups were SBP, DBP, HR and T1 had no statistical significance, T2, T3, T4 group of combined spinal epidural anesthesia in patients with SBP, DBP and HR w
5、ere significantly lower than the general anesthesia group (P 0.05) , anesthesia dose was significantly less than the general anesthesia group (P 0.05) . The onset time, block time, lower extremity muscle relaxant completely recovery time were significantly shorter than the general anesthesia group (
6、P 0.05) , the incidence of adverse reactions was 17.5% (7/40) was significantly lower than the general anesthesia group 67.5% (27/40) (P 0.05) . Conclusion The application of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in hip replacement is better than general anesthesia and has less adverse reactions.
7、Keyword General anesthesia; Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia; Hip replacement; Application effect (lower limb muscle relaxation) ; Adverse reactions; , , 1 , , , , 2 , 3 2015 4 2017 4 80 , , 1 1.1 2015 4 2017 4 80 , : X CT , ; : (n=40) (n=40) 17 , 23 , 5386 , ; 4872 kg, 17 d, , 28 , 12 ; Gard
8、en , 25 , 15 ; (ASA) , 23 , 17 ; , 38 , 2 18 , 22 , 5486 , ; 4972 kg, 27 d, , 27 , 13 ; Garden , 24 , 16 ; ASA , 22 , 18 ; , 37 , 3 , 1.2 30 min 0.5 mg +10 mg , (ECG) (Sp O2) , , , 2.0 mg/kg +0.2 mg/kg , 1.0% , +0.060.08 mg/kg , 2.0 ; , , L34 , AS-E/S 16 , 1.2 m L 0.75% , 0.2 m L/s, , , 60 /min , 0.
9、5 g , 20% , 15 mg , 1.3 (T0) (T1) (T2) (T3) (T4) (SBP) (DBP) (HR) , , , 1.4 , , , , ; , , ; , , 4 1.5 SPSS 20.0 , , t , (%) , ;P0.05 2 2.1 T0 SBP DBP HR , T1 T2 T3 T4 SBP DBP HR (P0.05) , 1 1 Hemodynamic changes in two groups of patients at different time points 2.2 95.0% (38/40) 90.0% (36/40) 2 2 n
10、 (%) Table 2 Comparison of anesthetic effects between the two groupsn (%) 2.3 (P0.05) , (P0.05) , 3 2.4 17.5% (7/40) 67.5% 4 3 , 5, , , 5, , 6 , , , , , 7 , T0 SBP DBP HR , T1 T2 T3 T4 SBP DBP HR (P0.05) , (P0.05) , (P0.05) , (P0.05) , , , 3 Table 3 Anesthetic dose, onset time, block complete time a
11、nd recovery time 4 n (%) Table 4 Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groupsn (%) 1 . (HR) J. , 2012, 10 (17) :217-218. 2 , , . - J. , 2012, 33 (5) :597-599. 3 . J. , 2012, 22 (5) :814-815. 4 . J. , 2012, 10 (17) :7-8. 5 , , , . J. , 2011, 40 (35) :3607-3609. 6 . J. , 2013, 19 (17) :65-66. 7 . J. , 2013, 19 (25) :82-83.
