Preoperative assessment of expectations, anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
P. Verelst, M. Verstraeten, N. Tulkens, T. Maertens
{"title":"Preoperative assessment of expectations, anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopic surgery","authors":"P. Verelst, M. Verstraeten, N. Tulkens, T. Maertens","doi":"10.56126/71.4.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective : In this observational study, we aimed at measuring preoperative anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery.\n\nBackground : Little is known about preoperative anxieties, expectations and preferences of patients undergoing surgery, for which both spinal or general anesthesia can be provided. Literature shows that spinal anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative co- morbidity and mortality rates as compared to general anesthesia (1-2). Anxiety itself is an important factor influencing patients’ outcome (3).\n\nMethods : Every patients >18 years old undergoing an ambulatory arthroscopy of the knee in the surgical day care center of the AZ Nikolaas (in Sint-Niklaas and Beveren), was asked preoperatively to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire focused both on the patients’ knowledge about and preference of anesthesia, as well as their preoperative anxieties and worries. Patients were asked to score preoperative anxiety on a 5-point anxiety scale for any of 9 aspects/complications of the anesthetic (placement of the IV cannula, spinal puncture, death, awareness, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, cognitive impairment, infection, blood loss). During the study period, from January 11/01/ 2019 to 11/06/2019, a total of 806 patients were asked to fill out the questionnaire. 201 of these patients completed the questionnaire and were consequently enrolled in the study. This work has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the AZ Nikolaas on 11/11/2018 and by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital in Antwerp (UZA) on 19/11/ 2018.\n\nResults : Seventy-five % of patients had a clear preference for their anesthesia technique. Of these, 2/3 opted for general anesthesia. Patients mainly based their preference on a subjective feeling ; a minority had discussed the choice with their surgeon or general practitioner. Rarely, patients indicated the wish to talk to the anesthesiologist about their choice. Fear for a spinal puncture occurred in 40% of patients (median anxiety score 3/5, range 1-5) and was therefore the most prominent anxiety in this patient population.\n\nConclusions : Patients’ greater preference for general over spinal anesthesia was clearly based rather on a subjective than an objective basis. Forty 40% of patients had a substantial fear for spinal puncture. By informing patients about the risks and complications of the different anesthesia techniques, anxiety feelings can probably be alleviated, and a well-judged decision about their anesthesia technique can be made. There is room for improvement in communication and discussion between patients and anesthesiologists about the patients’ choice of anesthesia technique.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/71.4.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective : In this observational study, we aimed at measuring preoperative anxiety and preferences for anesthesia in patients undergoing knee arthroscopic surgery. Background : Little is known about preoperative anxieties, expectations and preferences of patients undergoing surgery, for which both spinal or general anesthesia can be provided. Literature shows that spinal anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative co- morbidity and mortality rates as compared to general anesthesia (1-2). Anxiety itself is an important factor influencing patients’ outcome (3). Methods : Every patients >18 years old undergoing an ambulatory arthroscopy of the knee in the surgical day care center of the AZ Nikolaas (in Sint-Niklaas and Beveren), was asked preoperatively to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire focused both on the patients’ knowledge about and preference of anesthesia, as well as their preoperative anxieties and worries. Patients were asked to score preoperative anxiety on a 5-point anxiety scale for any of 9 aspects/complications of the anesthetic (placement of the IV cannula, spinal puncture, death, awareness, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, cognitive impairment, infection, blood loss). During the study period, from January 11/01/ 2019 to 11/06/2019, a total of 806 patients were asked to fill out the questionnaire. 201 of these patients completed the questionnaire and were consequently enrolled in the study. This work has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the AZ Nikolaas on 11/11/2018 and by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital in Antwerp (UZA) on 19/11/ 2018. Results : Seventy-five % of patients had a clear preference for their anesthesia technique. Of these, 2/3 opted for general anesthesia. Patients mainly based their preference on a subjective feeling ; a minority had discussed the choice with their surgeon or general practitioner. Rarely, patients indicated the wish to talk to the anesthesiologist about their choice. Fear for a spinal puncture occurred in 40% of patients (median anxiety score 3/5, range 1-5) and was therefore the most prominent anxiety in this patient population. Conclusions : Patients’ greater preference for general over spinal anesthesia was clearly based rather on a subjective than an objective basis. Forty 40% of patients had a substantial fear for spinal puncture. By informing patients about the risks and complications of the different anesthesia techniques, anxiety feelings can probably be alleviated, and a well-judged decision about their anesthesia technique can be made. There is room for improvement in communication and discussion between patients and anesthesiologists about the patients’ choice of anesthesia technique.
门诊膝关节镜手术患者对麻醉的期望、焦虑和偏好的术前评估
目的:在这项观察性研究中,我们旨在测量膝关节镜手术患者的术前焦虑和对麻醉的偏好。背景:对接受手术的患者的术前焦虑、期望和偏好知之甚少,手术既可以提供脊髓麻醉,也可以提供全身麻醉。文献表明,与全身麻醉相比,脊髓麻醉与较低的术后并发症和死亡率有关(1-2)。焦虑本身是影响患者预后的一个重要因素(3)。方法:要求在AZ Nikolaas(Sint Niklaas和Beveren)外科日托中心接受膝关节动态关节镜检查的每名>18岁的患者在术前填写问卷。问卷调查的重点是患者对麻醉的了解和偏好,以及术前的焦虑和担忧。患者被要求对麻醉的9个方面/并发症(静脉插管放置、脊椎穿刺、死亡、意识、疼痛、术后恶心呕吐、认知障碍、感染、失血)中的任何一个进行5分焦虑量表的术前焦虑评分。在研究期间,从2019年1月11日至2019年6月11日,共有806名患者被要求填写问卷。其中201名患者完成了问卷调查,因此被纳入研究。这项工作已于2018年11月11日获得AZ Nikolaas伦理委员会的批准,并于2018年9月19日获得安特卫普大学医院伦理委员会的认可。结果:75%的患者明确偏好他们的麻醉技术。其中2/3选择全身麻醉。患者的偏好主要基于主观感受;少数人曾与他们的外科医生或全科医生讨论过这个选择。很少有病人表示希望和麻醉师谈谈他们的选择。对脊椎穿刺的恐惧发生在40%的患者中(中位焦虑评分3/5,范围1-5),因此是该患者群体中最突出的焦虑。结论:患者更喜欢全身麻醉而不是脊髓麻醉,这显然是基于主观而非客观的基础。40%的患者非常害怕脊椎穿刺。通过告知患者不同麻醉技术的风险和并发症,焦虑感可能会减轻,并可以对他们的麻醉技术做出判断。患者和麻醉师之间关于患者麻醉技术选择的沟通和讨论还有改进的空间。
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
×
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