Abstract

The incidence of varicose disease of the lower extremities throughout the world remains at a fairly high level. Given its socio-economic significance, low-impact surgical treatment methods continue to improve, as well as methods of anesthesia for them. In most cases, the mixtures used for infiltration anesthesia during endovenous surgery include lidocaine and adrenaline. The active substance of adrenaline, epinephrine hydrochloride, has a direct stimulating effect on α- and β-adrenergic receptors, and can cause serious disturbances in the cardiovascular system. It is not recommended for patients with CVD and endocrine system pathologies. Aim. minimize pain when performing tumescent anesthesia during endovenous radiofrequency obliteration of veins. Material and Methods. A comparative study was performed in which 192 patients with clinical forms of chronic C2-C6 venous disease took part. All patients using the envelope method were divided into three groups: patients of the first group (I) planned to perform RFO and miniphlebectomy using Klein mixture for tumescent anesthesia, the pH of which was 6.6, lidocaine concentration 0.04%. Patients of the second group (II) planned anesthesia using a solution, the pH of which was 7.3, the concentration of lidocaine was 0.02%. In patients of the third group (III), a solution with a pH of 7.4 was used, the concentration of lidocaine was 0.08%. The level of pain during the administration of the anesthetic was evaluated using two scales – the verbal descriptive scale of pain assessment (VASOB) and the visual analogue scale (VAS). Results. Patient groups were comparable in age, sex, clinical form of the disease. When assessing pain on a verbal descriptive scale, 50% of patients (27) in group II noted a complete absence of pain during tumescent anesthesia, in group III – 54.5% (48). Very severe pain (8 points) was noted by 4 patients from Group I, who were anesthetized by administering a Klein mixture, which constituted 8%; unbearable pain (10 points) also noted two patients from this group (4%). According to YOUR, the average pain in the first group was 3.02 ± 1.07, in the second – 1.13 ± 0.23, in the third – 0.93 ± 0.27 (p = 0.05). Pronounced pain (more than 5 cm according to YOUR) was noted only in the first group in 12 patients (24%). Conclusion. None of the test solutions completely removed pain during tumescent paravasal anesthesia. But the use of a solution with a pH of 7.3-7.4 is less painful when administered and significantly reduces pain during tumescent anesthesia, which was used in patients of groups II and III.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call