切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华老年病研究电子杂志 ›› 2022, Vol. 09 ›› Issue (02) : 35 -39. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-8757.2022.02.008

老年消化疾病

地佐辛联合耳穴压豆对老年患者无痛胃镜下黏膜切除术后疼痛的缓解效果
陈礼鹏1, 程启闰1, 朱为民1, 季木西2, 郑培奋1,()   
  1. 1. 310013 杭州,浙江医院消化内科
    2. 310013 杭州,浙江医院内镜中心
  • 收稿日期:2021-12-02 出版日期:2022-05-28
  • 通信作者: 郑培奋
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省医药卫生科技项目(2020KY397)

Efficacy of dezocine combined with auricular point sticking to relieve the postoperation pain of painless gastric endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients

Lipeng Chen1, Qirun Cheng1, Weimin Zhu1, Muxi Ji2, Peifen Zheng1,()   

  1. 1. Digestive System Department, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou 310013, China
    2. Endoscopy Center, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou 310013, China
  • Received:2021-12-02 Published:2022-05-28
  • Corresponding author: Peifen Zheng
引用本文:

陈礼鹏, 程启闰, 朱为民, 季木西, 郑培奋. 地佐辛联合耳穴压豆对老年患者无痛胃镜下黏膜切除术后疼痛的缓解效果[J]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2022, 09(02): 35-39.

Lipeng Chen, Qirun Cheng, Weimin Zhu, Muxi Ji, Peifen Zheng. Efficacy of dezocine combined with auricular point sticking to relieve the postoperation pain of painless gastric endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients[J]. Chinese Journal of Geriatrics Research(Electronic Edition), 2022, 09(02): 35-39.

目的

探讨术前静脉应用地佐辛联合术后给予耳穴压豆对老年患者无痛胃镜下黏膜切除术后疼痛的缓解效果。

方法

选取2020年1月至2021年2月在浙江医院接受无痛胃镜下黏膜切除术的老年患者300例并随机(抽签法)分组,其中100例术前应用地佐辛联合术后耳穴压豆(地佐辛+耳穴压豆组),100例仅术前应用地佐辛(地佐辛组),100例无上述干预措施(对照组)。排除胃镜检查时发现合并消化性溃疡、手术中发现新病灶及术后出现迟发性穿孔的30例患者,最终地佐辛+耳穴压豆组88例、地佐辛组93例、对照组89例。采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)对患者术后3、12、24、48 h的腹痛程度进行评分,统计术后不良反应等情况。计数资料的比较采用χ2检验,计量资料的比较采用方差分析,腹痛程度的比较采用混合效应模型。

结果

地佐辛+耳穴压豆组、地佐辛组术后腹痛发生率的差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.221,P>0.05),但均明显低于对照组(χ2=8.037、5.924,P<0.05或0.01)。3组患者腹痛程度的差异呈现出组别、时间差异(F=7.718、29.690,P<0.01);地佐辛+耳穴压豆组和地佐辛组的腹痛程度均较对照组轻(P<0.01),患者术后12、24 h腹痛程度均高于术后3、48 h(P<0.01)。3组患者术后不良反应发生率的差异无统计学意义(χ2=4.260,P>0.05)。

结论

地佐辛联合术后及时给予耳穴压豆对缓解老年患者胃镜下黏膜切除术后疼痛有较好的效果,无明显不良反应,值得临床推广。

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of dezocine combined with auricular point sticking to relieve the postoperation pain of painless gastric endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients.

Methods

A total of 300 elderly patients who underwent painless endoscopic mucosal resection in Zhejiang Hospital during January 2020 and February 2021 were randomly divided into three groups. Among them, 100 cases were treated with dizocine before operation combined with auricular point sticking after operation (dizocine + auricular point sticking group), 100 cases were treated with dizocine only (dizocine group), and 100 cases were not treated with the above intervention measures (control group). Excluding 30 cases with peptic ulcer found during gastroscopy, new focus found during operation and delayed perforation after operation, there were 88 cases in the dizocine + auricular point sticking group, 93 cases in the dizocine group and 89 cases in the control group. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to score the degree of abdominal pain at 3, 12, 24 and 48 hours after operation, and the postoperative adverse reactions were recorded. Chi-square test was used for comparison of counting data, analysis of variance was used for comparison of measurement data, and mixed effect model was used to compare the degree of abdominal pain.

Results

The incidence of postoperative abdominal pain in the dizocine + auricular point sticking group and dizocine group was significantly lower than that in the control group (χ2=8.037, 5.924, P < 0.05 or 0.01), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ2=0.221, P > 0.05). The degree of abdominal pain was differed among groups and among different time points (F=7.718, 29.690, P < 0.01), which was lighter in dizocine + auricular point sticking group and dizocine group compared with the control group (P < 0.01), and that at 12 and 24 hours after operation was higher than that at 3 and 48 hours after operation (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions among the three groups (χ2=4.260, P > 0.05) .

Conclusion

Dizocine combined with auricular point sticking has a good effect on relieving the pain of elderly patients after endoscopic mucosal resection without obvious adverse reactions, which is worthy of clinical application.

表2 3组患者术后3 h腹痛评分情况(例)
表3 3组患者术后12 h腹痛评分情况(例)
表4 3组患者术后24 h腹痛评分情况(例)
表5 3组患者术后48 h腹痛评分情况(例)
表6 3组患者术后不良反应的发生情况[例(%)]
[1]
曹毛毛,陈万青.中国恶性肿瘤流行情况及防控现状[J].中国肿瘤临床201946(3):145-149.
[2]
左婷婷,郑荣寿,曾红梅,等.中国胃癌流行病学现状[J].中国肿瘤临床201744(1):52-58.
[3]
赵晓晏.EMR/ESD治疗早期胃癌[J].现代医药卫生201733(7):985-987.
[4]
王翠萍.无痛胃镜与普通胃镜检查的比较[J].中外医学研究201715(23):53-54.
[5]
李保全.无痛内镜诊疗技术与常规方法检查消化内科疾病的对比研究[J].系统医学20194(18):50-52.
[6]
Kim JW, Jang JY, Park YM, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with pain after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric epithelial neoplasm[J]. Surg Endosc, 2019, 33(3):794-801.
[7]
陈小慧,任晓强,马亚兵,等.术后疼痛引起老年患者术后认知功能障碍的相关机制研究进展[J].南方医科大学学报201939(9):1122-1126.
[8]
杨艳华.地佐辛注射液缓解术后疼痛的安全性与有效性临床分析[J].贵州医药201741(3):287-289.
[9]
张月鰆.耳穴压豆治疗术后疼痛的护理干预体会[J].健康前沿201726(6):88.
[10]
辛磊,李兆申.积极开展舒适化内镜筛查努力提高早期胃癌的诊断率[J].中华医学信息导报201631(17):15.
[11]
Bell A. The neurobiology of acute pain[J]. Vet J, 2018, 237:55-62.
[12]
张铁铮,李佳男.术后镇痛问题的思辨[J].医学与哲学201839(24):12-15.
[13]
郭云观,冯艺.亦敌亦友——术后阿片类药物镇痛研究进展[J].中国疼痛医学杂志201723(10):721-726.
[14]
曾彦茹,佘守章,黄宇光,等.阿片类药物地佐辛临床应用研究现状[J].广东医学201839(1):6-9.
[15]
肖湘,祝浩栋.地佐辛临床应用的研究进展[J].临床合理用药杂志201912(6):172-174.
[16]
An LJ, Zhang Y, Su Z, et al. A single dose dezocine suppresses emergence agitation in preschool children anesthetized with sevoflurane-remifentanil[J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2017, 17(1):154.
[17]
Li XT, Ma CQ, Qi SH, et al. Combination of propofol and dezocine to improve safety and efficacy of anesthesia for gastroscopy and colonoscopy in adults: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2019, 7(20):3237-3246.
[18]
李竹梅.耳穴埋豆对腹部术后疼痛的护理观察[J].光明中医201631(12):1815-1817.
[19]
邓辉,杨敏,曾娟妮,等.耳穴压豆治疗慢性肛裂术后疼痛90例疗效观察[J].中国肛肠病杂志201939(3):62-63.
[20]
Kim SY, Jung SW, Choe JW, et al. Predictive factors for pain after endoscopic resection of gastric tumors[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2016, 61(12):3560-3564.
[21]
孟曙龙.地佐辛注射液不良反应分析[J].临床合理用药杂志202013(2):14:.
[22]
贺晋豪,张晨宁,罗学虎,等. 29例地佐辛致不良反应文献分析[J].中国药物应用与监测202118(4):248-251.
[1] 李凤仪, 李若凡, 高旭, 张超凡. 目标导向液体干预对老年胃肠道肿瘤患者术后血流动力学、胃肠功能恢复的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 29-32.
[2] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[3] 李婷婷, 吴荷玉, 张悦, 程康, 张晓芳, 程娅婵. 复合保温策略在老年腹腔镜解剖性肝切除术中的应用研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 522-525.
[4] 刘跃刚, 薛振峰. 腹腔镜腹股沟疝日间手术在老年患者中的安全性分析[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 711-714.
[5] 代格格, 杨丽, 胡媛媛, 周文婷. 手术室综合干预在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 759-763.
[6] 张汪, 徐淑英, 张爱华, 夏芬荣, 汪露. 手术室体温护理结合细节护理干预在老年腹股沟疝围手术期的应用效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 635-638.
[7] 赵宏霞, 刘静, 李晓薇, 陈金婵, 汪志霞. 腹腔镜下经阴道子宫全切术联合阴道前后壁修补术治疗老年子宫脱垂效果[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 561-565.
[8] 孙伟, 林丽, 师高洋. 超声引导下连续髂腹股沟-髂腹下神经阻滞与腹横肌平面阻滞在老年腹股沟疝手术中应用效果比较[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 593-597.
[9] 杨鹏, 刘冲. PFNA治疗老年股骨转子间骨折后隐匿性失血及其危险因素的横断面研究[J]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2023, 09(05): 301-306.
[10] 姜里蛟, 张峰, 周玉萍. 多学科诊疗模式救治老年急性非静脉曲张性上消化道大出血患者的临床观察[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 520-524.
[11] 单秋洁, 孙立柱, 徐宜全, 王之霞, 徐妍, 马浩, 刘田田. 中老年食管癌患者调强放射治疗期间放射性肺损伤风险模型构建及应用[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 388-393.
[12] 毛树文, 袁方, 唐昊, 王建民. 针刀调节交感神经对老年胃溃疡患者胃功能和溃疡愈合的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(05): 326-330.
[13] 郭震天, 张宗明, 赵月, 刘立民, 张翀, 刘卓, 齐晖, 田坤. 机器学习算法预测老年急性胆囊炎术后住院时间探索[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 955-961.
[14] 晏美娟, 邵礼晖. 高水平脂蛋白(a)与无“三高”老年人群小动脉硬化型脑小血管病的相关性研究[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 458-463.
[15] 邓颖, 黄山, 胡慧秀, 孙超. 老年缺血性脑卒中患者危险因素聚集情况分析[J]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 344-349.
阅读次数
全文


摘要