Local anaesthetic-only upper blepharoplasty: a viable alternative?

Robert Phan, F. Lin
{"title":"Local anaesthetic-only upper blepharoplasty: a viable alternative?","authors":"Robert Phan, F. Lin","doi":"10.34239/ajops.v2n2.150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Local anaesthetic-only upper blepharoplasties are not routinely performed in the clinic in Australia. There is a lack of data to demonstrate whether they are any less safe or efficacious compared with upper blepharoplasties performed with sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) in theatre. Perioperative and postoperative antibiotics may also be administered for surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis. This paper aims to determine whether local-only upper blepharoplasties are safe and efficacious compared with upper blepharoplasties performed with sedation or GA, and whether prophylactic antibiotic use is indicated. \nMethod: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing upper blepharoplasties from a single surgeon’s private clinic was performed from March 2014 to October 2018. The clinic’s database was interrogated and patient age, anaesthetic type, operative site, use of peri- or postoperative antibiotics, and complications were recorded including infection, return to theatre, chemosis and asymmetry noted by the patient and requiring revision surgery. \nResults: A total of 97 patients were included for analysis. Complication rates of local-only upper blepharoplasties performed in the clinic were not higher than when performed under sedation or GA in theatre. When analysing antibiotic use, although 32 of the 97 patients (33%) were not prescribed antibiotics preoperatively, postoperatively, or pre- and postoperatively, no patients developed infections. \nConclusion: When performed by a qualified surgeon with appropriate equipment, local-only upper blepharoplasties carried-out in the clinic are as safe and efficacious as those performed with sedation or GA in theatre. Prophylactic antibiotic use demonstrated no advantage in SSI prevention for patients undergoing upper blepharoplasties.","PeriodicalId":264055,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34239/ajops.v2n2.150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Local anaesthetic-only upper blepharoplasties are not routinely performed in the clinic in Australia. There is a lack of data to demonstrate whether they are any less safe or efficacious compared with upper blepharoplasties performed with sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) in theatre. Perioperative and postoperative antibiotics may also be administered for surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis. This paper aims to determine whether local-only upper blepharoplasties are safe and efficacious compared with upper blepharoplasties performed with sedation or GA, and whether prophylactic antibiotic use is indicated. Method: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing upper blepharoplasties from a single surgeon’s private clinic was performed from March 2014 to October 2018. The clinic’s database was interrogated and patient age, anaesthetic type, operative site, use of peri- or postoperative antibiotics, and complications were recorded including infection, return to theatre, chemosis and asymmetry noted by the patient and requiring revision surgery. Results: A total of 97 patients were included for analysis. Complication rates of local-only upper blepharoplasties performed in the clinic were not higher than when performed under sedation or GA in theatre. When analysing antibiotic use, although 32 of the 97 patients (33%) were not prescribed antibiotics preoperatively, postoperatively, or pre- and postoperatively, no patients developed infections. Conclusion: When performed by a qualified surgeon with appropriate equipment, local-only upper blepharoplasties carried-out in the clinic are as safe and efficacious as those performed with sedation or GA in theatre. Prophylactic antibiotic use demonstrated no advantage in SSI prevention for patients undergoing upper blepharoplasties.
仅局部麻醉的上睑成形术:一个可行的选择?
简介:仅局部麻醉的上睑成形术在澳大利亚的诊所并不常见。目前还缺乏数据来证明它们是否比镇静或全身麻醉(GA)的上睑成形术更不安全或更有效。围手术期和术后抗生素也可用于预防手术部位感染(SSI)。本文旨在确定局部上睑成形术与镇静或GA上睑成形术相比是否安全有效,以及是否需要预防性使用抗生素。方法:回顾性分析2014年3月至2018年10月在同一家私人诊所接受上睑成形术的患者。查询临床数据库,记录患者的年龄、麻醉类型、手术部位、围手术期或术后抗生素的使用以及并发症,包括感染、返回手术室、化疗和患者注意到的不对称并需要翻修手术。结果:共纳入97例患者进行分析。临床上局部上睑成形术的并发症发生率不高于镇静或GA下的手术。在分析抗生素使用情况时,虽然97例患者中有32例(33%)未在术前、术后或术前及术后使用抗生素,但没有患者发生感染。结论:当由合格的外科医生和适当的设备进行手术时,在临床上进行局部上睑成形术与在剧院进行镇静或GA手术一样安全有效。预防性使用抗生素对上睑成形术患者的SSI预防没有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信