Effects of dezocine or flurbiprofen combined with propofol-remifentanil in cervical precancerosis conization
10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2018.02.011
- VernacularTitle:地佐辛或氟比洛芬酯复合丙泊酚-瑞芬太尼静脉麻醉在子宫颈癌前病变锥切术中麻醉效果的比较
- Author:
Hu L(U)
1
;
Wankun CHEN
;
Yanjun ZHAO
;
Hua YIN
;
Yun ZHU
Author Information
1. 复旦大学附属肿瘤医院麻醉科
- Keywords:
Dezocine;
Flurbiprofen;
Remifentanil;
Propofol;
Cervical conization
- From:
China Oncology
2018;28(2):146-150
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Background and purpose: Cervical conization is a common operation to treat precancerous tissues performed under non-intubated anesthesia. As common opioid analgesics have side effects of inhibiting respiration and circulation, other kinds of analgesic drugs should be coordinated to improve the anesthetic effect, without interfering the respiration and circulation. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of dezocine or flurbiprofen combined with propofolremifentanil in cervical precancerosis conization. Methods: Sixty patients who underwent cervical conization were equally randomized into dezocine group (group D), flurbiprofen group (group F) and 0.9％ natural saline (group N) with 20 patients in each group, and received dezocine 0.1 mg/kg, flurbiprofen 1 mg/kg or 0.9％ natural saline in 5 mL respectively before anesthesia induction. During the anesthesia induction, the targeted control infusion of remifentanil in effect concentration was set at 1.5 ng/mL, and the plasma concentration of propofol was set at 2 μg/mL. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), surplus pulse O2 (SPO2) and mean arterial pressure (MAP), MAP were monitored before the anesthesia induction (T0) and after (T1), at the start of cervical conization (T2), and at the end of operation (T3). The incidence of respiratory depression and body movements during surgery were observed. The satisfaction degree of the surgeon to the opening status of cervix was evaluated. The post-operative recovery time, visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, nausea and vomiting in the following 12 hours were also recorded. Results: The HR, RR, SPO2 and MAP in three groups did not have any significant change (P＞0.05) at T0, T1 and T3. At T2 the HR and MAP decreased significantly in group D and group F compared with group N (P＜0.05), and there was no significant difference between group D and group F (P＞0.05). The surgical satisfaction degree of "Good" in group D was 80％, significantly higher than that in group N (30％) and group F (50％), indicating a better cervix opening in group D. The recovery time in three groups had no significant difference, and the VAS scores in group D and group F were lower than those in group N (P＜0.05) after operation, and patients did not have nausea or vomiting in the following 12 hours. Conclusion: Both the dezocine and flurbiprofen could improve the anesthetic effect in cervical conization and post-operative comfort, with less respiratory or circulation depression. Dezocine showed better improvement than flurbiprofen in cervix opening and the inhibition of stress response and body movements during surgery.
