目的：评估右美托咪定复合舒芬太尼用于老年青光眼患者经巩膜二极管激光睫状体光凝术 (transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation，TDLC)术后自控静脉镇痛(patient-controlled intravenous analgesia，PCIA)的安全性和有效性。方法：选择行TDLC术老年青光眼患者80例，采用随机数字表法将患者分为SD组(n=40)和S组(n=40)。SD组术后PCIA采用舒芬太尼1.5μg/kg+右美托咪定1.5 μg/kg+托烷司琼4mg；S组采用舒芬太尼2μg/kg+托烷司琼4mg。将相应药物置入生理盐水配成100mL混合液加入电子镇痛泵，手术结束即刻行PCIA至术后24h。观察比较两组患者基本情况和手术情况，比较术前(T0)、术后即刻(T1)、术后6h(T2)、术后12h(T3)和术后24h(T4)患者的收缩压(systolic blood pressure，SBP)、舒张压(diastolic blood pressure，DBP)、心率(heart rate，HR)、NRS疼痛评分、Ramsay镇静评分及非手术眼的眼内压(intraocular pressure，IOP)，比较术后恶心呕吐、呼吸抑制、躁动等不良反应及使用其他辅助镇痛药物的情况。结果：两组患者基本情况和手术情况的差异无统计学意义。两组各时点DBP、非手术眼IOP及NRS评分差异无统计学意义。SD组T3、T4时点SBP，T2、T3、T4时点HR以及T2、T3时点Ramsay评分均低于S组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者发生不良反应的总例数差异无统计学意义，但SD组恶心呕吐(1例)和烦躁(2例)发生率均低于S组(分别为6例和9例)，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者呼吸抑制和眩晕嗜睡发生率以及使用其他辅助镇痛药物例数差别无统计学意义，SD组舒芬太尼使用量低于S组(P<0.05)。结论：采用右美托咪定1.5μg/kg复合舒芬太尼1.5μg/kg行PCIA时不影响非手术眼IOP，可安全有效地应用于老年青光眼患者TDLC术后镇痛。

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine combined with sufentanil for postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after transscleral diode laser cyclophotocoagulation (TDLC) in elderly patients with glaucoma. Methods: Eighty elderly glaucoma patients undergoing TDLC were selected and randomly divided into a SD group (n=40) and a S group (n=40) by random number table method. In SD group (n=40), sufentanil 1.5 μg/kg, dexmedetomidine 1.5 μg/kg and tropisetron 4 mg were used for postoperative PCIA, and sufentanil 2 μg/kg and tropisetron 4 mg were used in S Group (n=40). The corresponding drugs in saline solution was added into 100 mL solution with electronic analgesia pump. PCIA was performed immediately after the operation until 24 h after the operation. The basic condition and operation situation of the two groups were observed and compared, and systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), NRS pain score, Ramsay sedation score and non-operation eye intraocular pressure (IOP) at preoperative (T0), after operation (T1), postoperative 6 h (T2), 12 h after operation (T3) and 24 h after operation (T4) were compared, and postoperative adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, restlessness and use of other auxiliary analgesic drug were also compared. Results: There was no significant difference between two groups of patients’ basic and surgical conditions. There was no significant difference between two groups at each time point DBP, non-operation eye IOP and NRS score. SBP at T3 and T4, HR at T2, T3 and T4, and Ramsay score at T2 and T3 in SD group were lower than the S group, the difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference in the total number of adverse reactions between two groups, but the incidence of nausea and vomiting and restlessness in group SD were lower than those in group respectively, the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of respiratory depression, dizziness, lethargy and the use of other auxiliary analgesics. The sufentanil usage in group SD was lower than that in group S (P<0.05). Conclusion: PCIA with dexmedetomidine 1.5 g/kg combined with sufentanil 1.5 g/kg does not affect the non-operation eye IOP. It can be safely and effectively applied to postoperative analgesia for elderly patients with glaucoma after TDLC

目的：在麻醉监测管理(monitored anesthesia care，MAC)中，通过与咪唑安定比较，观察右美托咪 定在玻璃体视网膜手术中应用的效果、安全性，探讨其应用可行性。方法：将择期玻璃体视网膜 手术患者40例随机双盲分入咪唑安定组(M组)和右美托咪定组(D组)。每组20例，两组患者均行球 后神经阻滞麻醉，连接脑电双频指数(bispectral index，BIS)监测仪监测并维持BIS值在70~90间， 观察和比较麻醉手术中及复苏期的平均动脉压(mean arterial pressure，MAP)、心率(heart rate， HR)、呼吸频率(respiratory rate，RR)、脉搏氧饱和度(oxygen saturation，SpO2)、Ramsay镇静评 分、疼痛数字评分法(Numerical Rating Scale，NRS疼痛评分)、手术医生和患者麻醉效果评分及不 良反应的差异。结果：与麻醉前比较，手术期D组用药后10 min内的心率、血压下降差异有统计学 意义(P<0.05)，且用药后10 min内D组心率下降幅度较M组更大(P<0.05)。在手术期和复苏期，D组 的NRS疼痛评分均显著低于M组且差异有统计学意义(均P<0.001)，而两组的Ramsay镇静评分差异 无统计学意义(P>0.05)。D组手术期患者的体动发生率和羟考酮使用率显著低于M组(均P<0.05)。 手术医生和患者的麻醉效果评分D组显著高于M组(均P<0.001)。结论：右美托咪定用于玻璃体视 网膜手术，较咪唑安定镇痛效果好且不良反应少，麻醉效果更好。

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for the monitored anesthesia care (MAC) management of patients undergoing vitreoretinal surgery. Methods: Forty patients undergoing selective vitreoretinal surgery were double-blind and randomly dividedinto midazolam group (group M) and dexmedetomidine group (group D), each group had 20 patients. Patients in both groups were anesthetized with posterior bulbous nerve block. Bispectral index (BIS) monitor was connected and the BIS value was maintained between 70 and 90. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SpO2), Ramsay sedation score, numerical rating scale (NRS), surgeon’s and patient’s anesthesia effect score and adverse reactions were recorded during anesthesia and recovery period. Results: Compared with the data of pre-anesthesia, there were statistical differences of the decrease of HR and MAP in group D within the 10 minutes after medication (P<0.05), and the decrease of HR in group D was greater than that in group M (P<0.05). The NRS pain score in group D was significantly lower than that in group M with statistical significance (P<0.001) during the operation and resuscitation, while there was no significant difference in Ramsay sedation score between the two groups during the operation and resuscitation (P>0.05). In terms of adverse reactions to anesthesia, the incidence of spontaneous movement and oxycodone utilization in group D were significantly lower than those in group M (P<0.05). The anesthesia effect scores of surgeons and patients in group D were significantly higher than those in group M (all P<0.001). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine has better analgesic effect and less adverse reactions than midazolam in vitreoretinal surgery.