超声引导下改良腰骶丛阻滞联合MAC与脊髓麻醉对老年髋关节手术患者血浆炎症因子影响的比较

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2026.01.005

中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01) : 31 -37. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2096-0263.2026.01.005

麻醉医学

超声引导下改良腰骶丛阻滞联合MAC与脊髓麻醉对老年髋关节手术患者血浆炎症因子影响的比较

邓厚盛¹, 张治明¹, 姜黎珊², 陆雅萍², 刘明娟²^,^†(

)

¹423003　郴州市第一人民医院麻醉科
²314001　嘉兴市第一医院麻醉与疼痛医学中心

收稿日期:2024-03-22 出版日期:2026-02-05
通信作者: 刘明娟
基金资助:
浙江省医药卫生科技计划(2020KY949); 浙江省麻醉学临床重点专科资助(2023-ZJZK-001); 郴州市第一人民医院院级科研项目(N20206); 郴州市重点研发项目(ZDYF2020012); 湘南学院校级科研项目(2025XJ91)

Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block combined with MAC and spinal anesthesia on plasma inflammatory factors in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery

Housheng Deng¹, Zhiming Zhang¹, Lishan Jiang², Yaping Lu², Mingjuan Liu²^,^†()

¹Department of Anesthesiology, Chenzhou First People's Hospital, Chenzhou City, Hunan Province 423003, China
²Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Research Center, Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University, Jiaxing 314001, China

Received:2024-03-22 Published:2026-02-05
Corresponding author: Mingjuan Liu

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

引用本文：

邓厚盛, 张治明, 姜黎珊, 陆雅萍, 刘明娟. 超声引导下改良腰骶丛阻滞联合MAC与脊髓麻醉对老年髋关节手术患者血浆炎症因子影响的比较[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2026, 12(01): 31-37.

Housheng Deng, Zhiming Zhang, Lishan Jiang, Yaping Lu, Mingjuan Liu. Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block combined with MAC and spinal anesthesia on plasma inflammatory factors in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Geriatric Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation(Electronic Edition), 2026, 12(01): 31-37.

目的

比较超声引导下改良腰骶神经丛阻滞（MLPB）联合监护下麻醉管理（MAC）与脊髓麻醉（SA）对老年髋关节手术患者围手术期预后及炎症应激反应的影响。

方法

招募2019年1月至2020年1月嘉兴市第一医院骨科行单侧髋关节手术患者62例，年龄65~90岁，ASA分级Ⅱ或Ⅲ级。所有招募者以随机数字表法被分为2组，MLPB组和SA组。MLPB组在手术前进行超声引导下改良型腰骶丛神经阻滞，分别于患者手术侧腰丛和骶丛注射0.375%罗哌卡因30 ml，并术中联合MAC；SA组蛛网膜下腔注射0.375%盐酸罗哌卡因1.5 ml和无菌水1 ml共2.5 mL进行脊髓麻醉。主要观察指标是术后6 h血浆IL-1β，IL-6和TNF-α浓度。次要观察指标有围术期血流动力学的变化、术后6 h、12 h、24 h、36 h、48 h静息时和运动时疼痛评分以及围术期不良反应的发生情况。

结果

与MLPB组相比，SA组术后6 h血浆IL-1β、IL-6、TNF-α水平显著升高（P<0.05）。SA组在麻醉结束时及麻醉结束后15分钟收缩压、舒张压、平均动脉压均显著降低（P<0.05）。在SA组中，53.33%的患者至少发生过一次严重低血压，而MLPB组中仅有6.45%的患者发生过显著性低血压（P<0.05）。此外，与MLPB组相比，SA组患者在术后6 h和12 h静息时和运动时疼痛评分较高，差异具有统计学意义。同时SA组恶心、呕吐发生率显著增加（P<0.05），其他并发症发生率两组比较差异无统计学意义。

结论

超声引导下MLPB联合MAC能降低老年患者术后的炎症刺激，且患者术中血流动力学较稳定，术后疼痛刺激减少，不良反应发生减少，在老年髋关节手术中有更好的麻醉效果。

关键词: 改良腰骶神经丛阻滞, 脊髓麻醉, 老年患者, 髋部手术

Objective

To compare the effects of ultrasound-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block (MLPB) combined with monitor anesthesia care (MAC)and spinal anesthesia (SA) on perioperative prognosis and inflammatory stress response in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery.

Methods

From January 2019 to January 2020, 62 patients aged 65-90 years old, ASA grade Ⅱ or Ⅲ, underwent unilateral hip operation in the Department of Orthopedics of Jiaxing First Hospital. All the recruiters were divided into 2 groups, MLPB group and SA group, according to random number table method. The MLPB group underwent ultrasus-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block before surgery, and 0.375% ropivacaine 30 ml was injected into the lumbosacral plexus and sacral plexus respectively on the surgical side, and intraoperative combined MAC. In SA group, 1.5 ml of 0.375% ropivacaine hydrochloride and 1 ml of sterile water was injected into subarachnoid space for spinal anesthesia. The main outcome measures were theplasma concentrations ofIL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α at 6 h after surgery. Secondary outcome measures included perioperative hemodynamic changes, resting and moving pain scores at 6h, 12 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48h, and perioperative adverse reactions.

Results

Compared with MLPB group, plasma levels of IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α in SA group at 6 h after operation were significantly increased (P<0.05). In SA group, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were significantly decreased at the end of anesthesia and 15 minutes after anesthesia (P<0.05). In the SA group, 53.33% of patients experienced at least one episode of severe hypotension, while only 6.45% of patients in the MLPB group experienced significant hypotension (P<0.05). In addition, compared with the MLPB group, patients in the SA group had higher pain scores at resting and moving at 6 and 12 hours after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant. At the same time, the incidence of nausea and vomiting in SA group was significantly increased (P<0.05), and the incidence of other complications was not statistically significant between the two groups.

Conclusion

Ultrasound-guided MLPB combined with MAC can reduce postoperative inflammatory stimulation in elderly patients, and the hemodynamics of patients are stable, the postoperative pain stimulation is reduced, the occurrence of adverse reactions is reduced, and there is a better anesthetic effect in elderly hip surgery.

Key words: Modified lumbosacral plexus block anesthesia, Spinal anesthesia, Elderly patients, Hip surgery

图1 超声引导下改良腰骶丛阻滞注：超声引导下前路腰丛神经阻滞超声影像（A-C）。A、患者取平卧位；B、给药前超声影像；C、给药后超声影像。超声引导下骶丛神经阻滞超声影像（D-F）。D、患者取健侧卧位；E、给药前超声影像；F、给药后超声影像

表1 两组老年髋关节手术患者一般资料的比较

变量	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	性别（例，男/女）	体重指数（kg/m²，±s）	ASA分级，Ⅱ/Ⅲ（例）	糖尿病[例（%）]	高血压[例（%）]	冠心病[例（%）]	慢阻肺[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	80.04±5.78	14/17	20.70±2.73	5/26	4（12.90）	15（48.39）	7（22.58）	4（12.90）
SAB组	31	79.21±6.67	12/19	21.52±3.16	7/24	5（16.13）	13（41.94）	8（25.81）	5（16.13）
t/χ²值		0.524	0.265	1.093	0.413	0.075	0.261	0.088	0.075
P值		0.603	0.601	0.279	0.523	0.719	0.610	0.767	0.719

表1 两组老年髋关节手术患者一般资料的比较

变量	例数	年龄（岁，±s）	性别（例，男/女）	体重指数（kg/m²，±s）	ASA分级，Ⅱ/Ⅲ（例）	糖尿病[例（%）]	高血压[例（%）]	冠心病[例（%）]	慢阻肺[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	80.04±5.78	14/17	20.70±2.73	5/26	4（12.90）	15（48.39）	7（22.58）	4（12.90）
SAB组	31	79.21±6.67	12/19	21.52±3.16	7/24	5（16.13）	13（41.94）	8（25.81）	5（16.13）
t/χ²值		0.524	0.265	1.093	0.413	0.075	0.261	0.088	0.075
P值		0.603	0.601	0.279	0.523	0.719	0.610	0.767	0.719

表2 两组老年髋关节手术患者围术期资料的比较

组别	例数	手术时间（min，±s）	术中出血（ml，±s）	胶体液输注量（ml，±s）	血管活性药使用率[例（%）]	术后舒芬太尼使用率[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	100.24±23.34	150（100，250）	421±136.11	2（6.45）	1（3.23）
SAB组	31	109.30±21.63	250（100，400）	625±216.51	16（51.61）	6（19.35）
t/χ²值		1.585	5.952	4.441	15.34	4.026
P值		0.118	0.114	0.0001	0.0001	0.045
组别	例数	ICU入住率[例（%）]	术后第一次镇痛时间（h，±s）	术后第一次下床时间（h，±s）	术后第一次排气时间（h，±s）	术后第一次排便时间（h，±s）
MLPB组	31	1（3.23）	16.5±1.5	26.3±5.3	8.2±2.1	52.4±2.3
SAB组	31	2（6.67）	7.6±1.6	32.6±4.9	11.3±3.2	60.2±0.9
t/χ²值		0.350	22.59	4.860	4.509	2.642
P值		0.554	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.010

表2 两组老年髋关节手术患者围术期资料的比较

组别	例数	手术时间（min，±s）	术中出血（ml，±s）	胶体液输注量（ml，±s）	血管活性药使用率[例（%）]	术后舒芬太尼使用率[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	100.24±23.34	150（100，250）	421±136.11	2（6.45）	1（3.23）
SAB组	31	109.30±21.63	250（100，400）	625±216.51	16（51.61）	6（19.35）
t/χ²值		1.585	5.952	4.441	15.34	4.026
P值		0.118	0.114	0.0001	0.0001	0.045
组别	例数	ICU入住率[例（%）]	术后第一次镇痛时间（h，±s）	术后第一次下床时间（h，±s）	术后第一次排气时间（h，±s）	术后第一次排便时间（h，±s）
MLPB组	31	1（3.23）	16.5±1.5	26.3±5.3	8.2±2.1	52.4±2.3
SAB组	31	2（6.67）	7.6±1.6	32.6±4.9	11.3±3.2	60.2±0.9
t/χ²值		0.350	22.59	4.860	4.509	2.642
P值		0.554	0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.010

表3 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后并发症发生率的比较

组别	例数	肺炎[例（%）]	头痛[例（%）]	背痛[例（%）]	恶心[例（%）]	呕吐[例（%）]	低血压[例（%）]	谵妄[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	1（3.23）	2（6.45）	6（19.35）	2（6.45）	3（9.68）	3（9.68）	1（3.23）
SAB组	31	2（6.45）	5（16.13）	8（25.80）	8（25.80）	9（29.03）	4（12.90）	5（16.13）
χ²值		0.3503	1.449	0.369	4.292	3.720	0.161	2.952
P值		0.554	0.229	0.544	0.038	0.054	0.688	0.086

表3 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后并发症发生率的比较

组别	例数	肺炎[例（%）]	头痛[例（%）]	背痛[例（%）]	恶心[例（%）]	呕吐[例（%）]	低血压[例（%）]	谵妄[例（%）]
MLPB组	31	1（3.23）	2（6.45）	6（19.35）	2（6.45）	3（9.68）	3（9.68）	1（3.23）
SAB组	31	2（6.45）	5（16.13）	8（25.80）	8（25.80）	9（29.03）	4（12.90）	5（16.13）
χ²值		0.3503	1.449	0.369	4.292	3.720	0.161	2.952
P值		0.554	0.229	0.544	0.038	0.054	0.688	0.086

表4 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后各时间点静息时VAS评分的比较（

±s）

组别	例数	6h	12 h	24 h	36 h	48 h
MLPB组	31	2.10±0.80	2.63±0.56	3.03±0.67	3.10±0.61	3.20±0.48
SAB组	31	3.68±0.72	3.80±0.61	3.87±0.86	3.43±0.57	3.33±0.55
t值		6.439	7.740	4.188	2.195	1.0
P值		0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.032	0.321

表4 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后各时间点静息时VAS评分的比较（

±s）

组别	例数	6h	12 h	24 h	36 h	48 h
MLPB组	31	2.10±0.80	2.63±0.56	3.03±0.67	3.10±0.61	3.20±0.48
SAB组	31	3.68±0.72	3.80±0.61	3.87±0.86	3.43±0.57	3.33±0.55
t值		6.439	7.740	4.188	2.195	1.0
P值		0.0001	0.0001	0.0001	0.032	0.321

表5 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后各时间点运动时VAS评分的比较（

±s）

组别	例数	6h	12 h	24 h	36 h	48 h
MLPB组	31	2.70±0.59	3.06±0.52	3.20±0.80	3.33±0.48	3.37±0.55
SAB组	31	3.12±0.59	3.53±0.68	3.83±0.65	3.50±0.63	3.20±0.61
t值		3.042	2.980	3.356	1.153	1.105
P值		0.003	0.004	0.001	0.253	0.273

表5 两组老年髋关节手术患者术后各时间点运动时VAS评分的比较（

±s）

组别	例数	6h	12 h	24 h	36 h	48 h
MLPB组	31	2.70±0.59	3.06±0.52	3.20±0.80	3.33±0.48	3.37±0.55
SAB组	31	3.12±0.59	3.53±0.68	3.83±0.65	3.50±0.63	3.20±0.61
t值		3.042	2.980	3.356	1.153	1.105
P值		0.003	0.004	0.001	0.253	0.273

图2 两组患者围术期血流动力学的比较。A、收缩压的变化；B、舒张压的变化；C、平均动脉压的变化；D、心率的变化。与MLPB组患者比较，^aP，^bP，^cP<0.05，差异具有统计学意义

图3 两组患者血浆中炎症因子浓度的比较。A、血浆IL-1β浓度；血浆B、IL-6浓度；C、血浆TNF-α浓度。与MLPB组患者比较，^aP，^bP，^cP<0.05，差异具有统计学意义

1	He W, You YY, Sun K, et al. Admission delay is associated with worse surgical outcomes for elderly hip fracture patients: A retrospective observational study [J]. World J Emerg Med, 2020, 11(1): 27-32.
2	Karaca S, Ayhan E, Kesmezacar H, et al. Hip fracture mortality: is it affected by anesthesia techniques? [J]. Anesthesiol Res Pract, 2012, 2012: 708754.
3	Liu Y, Su M, Li W, et al. Comparison of general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, and general anesthesia with laryngeal mask airway and nerve block for intertrochanteric fracture surgeries in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study [J]. BMC Anesthesiol, 2019, 19(1): 230.
4	Rashid RH, Shah AA, Shakoor A, et al. Hip fracture surgery: does type of anesthesia matter? [J]. Biomed Res Int, 2013, 2013: 252356.
5	Wang Sisi, Wu Ziyi, Song Yanhong, et al. Application of ultrasound-guided regional blocks in the perioperative period of hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and network meta-analysis [J]. J Clin Anesth, 2025, 109: 112110.
6	Chen LM, Liu J, Yang J, et al. Combined fascia iliaca and sciatic nerve block for hip surgery in the presence of severe ankylosing spondylitis: a Case-Based literature review [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2016, 41(2): 158-163.
7	Girón-Arango L, Peng PWH, Chin KJ, et al. Pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for hip fracture [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2018, 43(8): 859-863.
8	Amiri HR, Zamani MM, Safari S. Lumbar plexus block for management of hip surgeries [J]. Anesth Pain Med, 2014, 4(3): e19407.
9	Sajjad MU, Blennow K, Knapskog AB, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid levels of interleukin-8 in delirium, dementia, and cognitively healthy patients [J]. J Alzheimers Dis, 2020, 73(4): 1363-1372.
10	Pérez Mencia MT, Palomero Rodríguez MA, Laporta-Baez Y, et al. Low-dose hypobaric bupivacaine spinal lateral position anesthesia for hip surgery in high-risk surgical patients [J]. J Clin Anesth, 2015, 27(5): 426-427.
11	Kilinc LT, Sivrikaya GU, Eksioglu B, et al. Comparison of unilateral spinal and continous spinal anesthesia for hip surgery in elderly patients [J]. Saudi J Anaesth, 2013, 7(4): 404-409.
12	Shi ZY, Jiang CN, Shao G. Application of lower limb nerve block combined with slow induction of light general anesthesia and tracheal induction in elderly hip surgery [J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(40): e12581.
13	Yang SG, Chen K, Wan L. Combination of ultrasound-guided lumbosacral plexus block with anterior quadratus lumborum block in supine position for hip surgery: a case report [J]. J Anesth, 2020, 34(5): 777-780.
14	Hanauer Matthieu, Heimann Alexander F, Kricka Pavel, et al. The PENG Block in Elective Primary Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Associated with Reduced Length of Stay: A Multidisciplinary Prospective Randomized Double-Blinded Controlled Tria [J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2025, 107: 805-810.
15	Mei B, Zha HN, Lu XL, et al. Peripheral nerve block as a supplement to light or deep general anesthesia in elderly patients receiving total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study [J]. Clin J Pain, 2017, 33(12): 1053-1059.
16	Short AJ, Barnett JJG, Gofeld M, et al. Anatomic study of innervation of the anterior hip capsule: implication for Image-Guided intervention [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2018, 43(2): 186-192.
17	Chen WQ, Guo N, Wang SS, et al. General laryngeal mask airway anesthesia with lumbar plexus and sciatic block provides better outcomes than general anesthesia and endotracheal intubation in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery [J]. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2018, 78: 227-232.
18	Matharu GS, Garriga C, Rangan A, et al. Does regional anesthesia reduce complications following total hip and knee replacement compared with general anesthesia? an analysis from the National joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the isle of man [J]. J Arthroplasty, 2020, 35(6): 1521-1528.e5.
19	Bareka MTI, Hantes M, Arnaoutoglou E, et al. Superior perioperative analgesia with combined femoral-obturator-sciatic nerve block in comparison with posterior lumbar plexus and sciatic nerve block for ACL reconstructive surgery [J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 2018, 26(2): 478-484.
20	Bullock WM, Yalamuri SM, Gregory SH, et al. Ultrasound-Guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca technique provides benefit as an analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2017, 36(2): 433-438.
21	Aragola S, Arenson B, Tenenbein M, et al. Prospective randomized trial of continuous femoral nerve block with posterior capsular injection versus periarticular injection for analgesia in primary total knee arthroplasty [J]. Can J Surg, 2021, 64(3): E265-E272.
22	Polania Gutierrez JJ, Ben-David B, Rest C, et al. Quadratus lumborum block type 3 versus lumbar plexus block in hip replacement surgery: a randomized, prospective, non-inferiority study [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2021, 46(2): 111-117.
23	Marhofer P, Oismüller C, Faryniak B, et al. Three-in-one blocks with ropivacaine: evaluation of sensory onset time and quality of sensory block [J]. Anesth Analg, 2000, 90(1): 125-128.
24	Cappelleri G, Aldegheri G, Ruggieri F, et al. Effects of using the posterior or anterior approaches to the lumbar plexus on the minimum effective anesthetic concentration (MEAC) of mepivacaine required to block the femoral nerve: a prospective, randomized, Up-and-Down study [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2008, 33(1): 10-16.
25	Vermeylen K, Soetens F. Supra-inguinal injection for fascia iliaca compartment block results in more consistent spread towards the lumbar plexus than an infra-inguinal injection: a volunteer study a concern on the influence of patient's breathing [J]. Reg Anesth Pain Med, 2019: rapm-2019.
26	Jiang P, Zhang Y, Ru BB, et al. Systematic investigation of cytokine signaling activity at the tissue and single-cell levels [J]. Nat Methods, 2021, 18(10): 1181-1191.
27	Atasoy Karakas L, Tugrul D, Sahin Uysal N, et al. Associations between IL-1α, IL-1β, TNFα, and IL-6 variations, and susceptibility to transposition of the great arteries [J]. BMC Cardiovasc Disord, 2022, 22(1): 229.
28	Zhu MH, Mei YL, Zhou RF, et al. Effects of anterior approach to quadratus lumborum block on postoperative cognitive function following hip surgery in older People: a randomized controlled clinical trial [J]. BMC Geriatr, 2023, 23(1): 835.

[1]	中国老年医学学会烧创伤分会. 老年患者皮肤撕裂伤防护专家共识(2022版)[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2023, 18(02): 98-103.
[2]	张芝, 孙海云. 舒适护理对老年腹股沟疝患者腹腔镜手术后睡眠质量及满意度的影响[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(04): 488-490.
[3]	邵乐宁, 何腾飞, 钟丰云, 吴浩荣. 嵌顿疝合并新型冠状病毒感染高龄患者的外科诊治体会[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 280-284.
[4]	李云锋, 俞永江. 抗凝治疗的老年腹股沟疝患者围手术期治疗研究进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 247-250.
[5]	董艳, 吴向阳, 林巧兰, 李国栋, 杨瑞洲. 基于快速康复外科理念的清单管理在老年双侧腹股沟疝患者围手术期的应用[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 354-358.
[6]	邓美云, 马兰, 胡惠惠. 双环节协同护理模式在老年腹股沟疝患者中的应用效果[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(03): 346-349.
[7]	杜文成, 黄若楠, 孙翀, 李瑞, 徐成臣, 胡开泰, 崔磊, 王辉, 谢应海. ERAS理念在老年腹腔镜联合胆道镜胆总管切开取石一期缝合患者中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2025, 14(03): 416-422.
[8]	陈先志, 许磊, 冯其柱, 王琦. 布地奈德联合复方异丙托溴铵雾化吸入在老年患者腹腔镜围手术期中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(04): 531-536.
[9]	中国医师协会结直肠肿瘤专业委员会, 中国抗癌协会NOSES专业委员会, 中国NOSES联盟. 老年结直肠肿瘤经自然腔道取标本手术（NOSES）指南[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2026, 15(01): 17-30.
[10]	王祯延, 邢国圣, 张震, 王朝阳, 马永祥, 乌新林. 中老年直肠癌患者腹腔镜下经自然腔道取标本手术与传统腹部小切口取标本手术的短期疗效及肛门功能对比[J/OL]. 中华结直肠疾病电子杂志, 2025, 14(05): 436-444.
[11]	沈汉超, 何炯周, 田君, 魏梁锋, 王守森. 老年重型颅脑损伤合并脑疝患者预后不良的危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华神经创伤外科电子杂志, 2023, 09(06): 350-354.
[12]	蒋坤寅, 韩少宇, 郝成俊, 杨峰, 张振清. 老年髋部骨折术后心脏不良事件的影响因素研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 96-102.
[13]	周章明, 余水, 梁张. 老年破裂前循环动脉瘤患者的急诊显微手术治疗研究[J/OL]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(02): 106-111.
[14]	李永胜, 孙家和, 郭书伟, 卢义康, 刘洪洲. 高龄结直肠癌患者根治术后短期并发症及其影响因素[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(09): 962-967.
[15]	卓徐鹏, 刘颖, 任菁菁. 感染性疾病与老年人低蛋白血症的相关性研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(08): 896-899.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block combined with MAC and spinal anesthesia on plasma inflammatory factors in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Comparison of the effects of ultrasound-guided modified lumbosacral plexus block combined with MAC and spinal anesthesia on plasma inflammatory factors in elderly patients undergoing hip surgery