目的:观察经喉罩全凭七氟醚吸入麻醉在小儿腹股沟疝手术中的临床应用效果。方法：60例ASAⅠⅡ级择期行腹股沟疝囊高位结扎术的患儿随机分成喉罩七氟醚组（实验组）和氯胺酮组（对照组）。实验组以七氟醚诱导后置入喉罩，经喉罩全凭七氟醚吸入维持麻醉，对照组以氯胺酮和异丙酚诱导和维持麻醉。比较两组血流动力学、呼气末CO2分压（PETCO2）、手术时间、苏醒时间、出室时间（在恢复室内停留时间）。记录术中和术后不良反应如体动反应、嗜睡、恶心呕吐等发生情况。结果：对照组在T3、T4、T5时点HR、BP均明显高于实验组相应时点（Plt;0.05）。实验组患儿苏醒时间和出室时间均明显低于对照组（Plt;0.05）。对照组体动反应和嗜睡发生率明显高于实验组（Plt;0.05）。实验组术后恶心发生率明显高于对照组（Plt;0.05）。结论：经喉罩全凭七氟醚吸入麻醉用于小儿腹股沟疝手术，术中经过更平稳，麻醉恢复更快，术中及术后不良反应少。
【摘要】 目的 探讨腰硬联合麻醉复合丙泊酚恒速输注清醒镇静的可行性、理想的药物剂量、术中知晓情况以及麻醉质量和效果。 方法 收集2009年3-12月480例美国麻醉医师协会（ASA）Ⅰ～Ⅲ级拟在腰硬联合麻醉下行下腹部、会阴部、下肢手术的患者480例，随机分为咪达唑仑组（M组）、丙泊酚Ⅰ组（PA组）、丙泊酚Ⅱ组（PB组）、丙泊酚Ⅲ组（PC组），每组各120例。四组患者均于腰2-3或腰3-4行腰硬联合麻醉，蛛网膜下腔注入轻比重0.2 %布比卡因12～15 mg，麻醉平面确切后，M组予以咪达唑仑0.04~0.06 mg/kg，PA组先予以负荷量丙泊酚0.50 mg/kg再以2.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PB组予以负荷量丙泊酚0.75 mg/kg再以3.00 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，PC组予以负荷量丙泊酚1.00 mg/kg再以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注。观察患者给药前（T0）、给药1（T1）、3（T2）、5（T3）、10（T4）、30（T5）、60 min（T6）各时点血流动力学平均动脉血压（MAP）、心率（HR）的变化、脑电双频指数（BIS）值及镇静评分、术中所看到的图片的回忆及不良反应。 结果 各组在给予镇静药后MAP、HR均有所下降，但测量值的变化在正常范围内；在T3时间点，各组BIS值及镇静/警醒OAA/S评分降低，与T0比较，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05）；与其他3组比较，在T4、T5、T6时点PC组BIS值与OAA/S评分降低，差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.05），PC组的镇静遗忘满意率高于其他3组；各组间未见发生严重的舌后坠、呼吸暂停和血氧饱和度（SpO2）lt;90%。 结论 在下腹部、下肢手术中，应用腰硬联合麻醉复合1.00 mg/kg负荷量的丙泊酚继而以3.75 mg/（kg•h）剂量持续泵注，可取得良好的镇静效果，不良反应小。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the feasibility, ideal dose, intra-operative awareness as well as the quality and effectiveness of constant infusion of propofol under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for conscious sedation. Methods A total of 480 patients at ASA grade Ⅰ-Ⅲ to be operated in the lower abdomen, perineum and lower limbs under CSEA from March to December 2009 were randomly divided into four groups: midazolam group (M group), propofol group Ⅰ (PA group), propofol group Ⅱ (PB group), and propofol group Ⅲ (PC group), with 120 patients in each group. All four groups of patients underwent CSEA at L2-3 or L3-4 and accepted pinal injection of 12-15 mg of 0.2% hypobaric bupivacaine. After the anesthetic plane was confirmed, patients in M group accepted 0.04-0.06 mg/kg of midazolam; patients in PA group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.50 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 2.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PB group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 0.75 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.00 mg/(kg•h); patients in PC group accepted propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h). The change of hemodynamics including the mean arterial pressure (MAP) and the heart rate (HR), bispectral index (BIS) values, sedation scores, memory of pictures seen during operation and adverse effects before drug administration (T0), at minute 1 (T1), 3 (T2), 5 (T3), 10 (T4), 30 (T5) and 60 (T6) after drug administration were observed. Results MAP and HR decreased in all the four groups after administration of sedatives, but the changes of measured values were within normal ranges. BIS value and the Observer’s Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (OAA/S) scale decreased in all groups at T3, compared with those at T0 (Plt;0.05). Compared with the other 3 groups, BIS valueand OAA/S scale were significantly lower in PC group at T4, T5 and T6 (Plt;0.05), and the satisfaction rate of sedation and amnesia was much higher. No serious glossocoma, apnea and SpO2 below 90% was observed in all the four groups. Conclusion During the surgery of lower abdomen and lower limbs, application of CSEA combined with propofol at a loading dose of 1.00 mg/kg followed by continuous infusion at a dose of 3.75 mg/(kg•h) can achieve a good sedative effect, with little side effect.