Comparison of General Anesthesia With Spinal Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery of Patients With Selective Abdominal Hysterectomy in Patients Vising the Largest Women’s Disease Hospital in Northwestern Iran

IF 0.8 Q4 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
M. Mortazavi, M. Parish, A. Dorosti, H. Mohammadipour Anvari
{"title":"Comparison of General Anesthesia With Spinal Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery of Patients With Selective Abdominal Hysterectomy in Patients Vising the Largest Women’s Disease Hospital in Northwestern Iran","authors":"M. Mortazavi, M. Parish, A. Dorosti, H. Mohammadipour Anvari","doi":"10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The quality of recovery can affect the results of abdominal hysterectomy although this effect is unknown in different methods of anesthesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) methods on the quality of the recovery of patients with selective abdominal hysterectomy in patients visiting the largest women’s disease hospital in Northwestern Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with the participation of 350 patients with abdominal hysterectomy, who were selected by convenience sampling in Al-Zahra hospital, Tabriz, Iran in 2019. Demographic data, visual pain scale, hemodynamic status, and Aldrete-Kroulik index were recorded for each patient. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, t-test, multivariate regression, and Kolmogorov-Simonov tests in SPSS 20, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the hemodynamic status, it was found that the SA group was more stable than the GA group but this difference was not significant (P>0.05). Regarding the need for pethidine, the results revealed that the mean (± standard deviation) of the GA group was significantly higher (35.14 ± 10.14) than that of the SA group (20.15 ± 05.25, P=0.039) while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the use of the antiemetic drug (P=0.203). Finally, the evaluations of the quality of recovery showed that the mean±) SD) of the quality of recovery in SA patients was significantly higher compared to GA patients (P=0.015). Conclusions: In general, the quality of recovery was higher in the SA compared to the GA regarding abdominal hysterectomy.","PeriodicalId":14346,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Women's Health and Reproduction Sciences","volume":"118 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Women's Health and Reproduction Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: The quality of recovery can affect the results of abdominal hysterectomy although this effect is unknown in different methods of anesthesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) methods on the quality of the recovery of patients with selective abdominal hysterectomy in patients visiting the largest women’s disease hospital in Northwestern Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with the participation of 350 patients with abdominal hysterectomy, who were selected by convenience sampling in Al-Zahra hospital, Tabriz, Iran in 2019. Demographic data, visual pain scale, hemodynamic status, and Aldrete-Kroulik index were recorded for each patient. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, t-test, multivariate regression, and Kolmogorov-Simonov tests in SPSS 20, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the hemodynamic status, it was found that the SA group was more stable than the GA group but this difference was not significant (P>0.05). Regarding the need for pethidine, the results revealed that the mean (± standard deviation) of the GA group was significantly higher (35.14 ± 10.14) than that of the SA group (20.15 ± 05.25, P=0.039) while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the use of the antiemetic drug (P=0.203). Finally, the evaluations of the quality of recovery showed that the mean±) SD) of the quality of recovery in SA patients was significantly higher compared to GA patients (P=0.015). Conclusions: In general, the quality of recovery was higher in the SA compared to the GA regarding abdominal hysterectomy.
全麻与脊髓麻醉对伊朗西北部最大的妇女疾病医院选择性腹部子宫切除术患者康复质量的比较
目的:恢复质量会影响腹式子宫切除术的效果,但不同麻醉方式对恢复质量的影响尚不清楚。因此,本研究比较了全身麻醉(GA)和脊髓麻醉(SA)两种麻醉方式对伊朗西北部最大的妇女疾病医院选择性腹式子宫切除术患者康复质量的影响。材料与方法:本横断面描述性研究选取2019年在伊朗大不里兹Al-Zahra医院进行的350例腹性子宫切除术患者。记录每位患者的人口学数据、视觉疼痛量表、血流动力学状态和Aldrete-Kroulik指数。数据分析采用SPSS 20的Mann-Whitney检验、t检验、多元回归和Kolmogorov-Simonov检验,P0.05)。在哌替啶需用方面,GA组的平均值(±标准差)(35.14±10.14)显著高于SA组(20.15±05.25,P=0.039),而两组止吐药物的使用差异无统计学意义(P=0.203)。最后,对恢复质量的评价显示,SA患者的恢复质量的平均值(±)SD)明显高于GA患者(P=0.015)。结论:总的来说,在腹部子宫切除术中,SA组的恢复质量高于GA组。
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
1.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: All kind of knowledge contributing to the development of science by its content, value, level and originality will be covered by IJWHR. Problems of public health and their solutions are at the head of the windows opening us to the world. The "International Journal of Women''s Health and Reproduction Sciences” is a modern forum for scientific communication, covering all aspects women health and reproduction sciences, in basic and clinical sciences, mainly including: -Medical Education in Women Health and Reproduction Sciences -Cardiology in Women Health-Related Reproductive Problems -Sports Medicine in Women Health and Reproduction Sciences -Psychiatry in Women Health-Related Reproductive Problems -Antioxidant Therapy in Reproduction Medicine Sciences -Nutrition in Women Health and Reproduction Sciences -Defense Androgen and Estrogen -Fertility and Infertility -Urogynecology -Endometriosis -Endocrinology -Breast Cancer -Menopause -Puberty -Eroticism -Pregnancy -Preterm Birth -Vaginal Diseases -Sex-Based Biology -Surgical Procedures -Nursing in Pregnancy -Obstetrics/Gynecology -Polycystic Ovary Syndrome -Hyperandrogenism in Females -Menstrual Syndrome and Complications -Oncology of Female Reproductive Organs -Traditional Medicine in Women Reproductive Health -Ultrasound in Women Health Reproduction sciences -Stem Cell Research In Women Reproduction Sciences -Complementary Medicine in Women Reproductive Health -Female Sexual Dysfunction: Pathophysiology & Treatment
×
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