M.A. Martín , G. Ollé , F. Oferil , Ll Opisso , M. Serra-Prat , L. Hidalgo
{"title":"门诊膝关节镜治疗的康复时间及患者满意度","authors":"M.A. Martín , G. Ollé , F. Oferil , Ll Opisso , M. Serra-Prat , L. Hidalgo","doi":"10.1016/j.ambsur.2005.06.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span><span>The aim of this study was to compare recovery time and satisfaction of patients operated under two anaesthetic techniques. A randomised-controlled trial that enrolled ASA<span> I–II patients submitted to ambulatory knee arthroscopy<span> was designed. Patients included were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: general intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), </span></span></span>spinal anaesthesia<span><span> with lidocaine (LIDO), and spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine (PRILO). Spinal groups did not receive supplementary sedation. Major outcome measures considered were both the time to discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and from the day-case surgical unit (DSU), the incidence of adverse events, postoperative need for </span>analgesics and patients satisfaction. One hundred and twenty patients were enrolled. Mean time from the patients comes into operating room to discharge from PACU was 125</span></span> <!-->±<!--> <!-->27<!--> <!-->min for the PRILO group, 109<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->24<!--> <!-->min for the LIDO group and 106<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->34<!--> <!-->min for the TIVA group (<em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.01). Time to discharge from the ASU was 279<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->37<!--> <!-->min for the PRILO group, 261<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->53<!--> <!-->min for the TIVA group and 241<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->36<!--> <!-->min for the LIDO group (<em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.001). No significant differences were observed in the appearance of adverse events, the need for postoperative analgesics and the degree of patient satisfaction among the study groups. A shorter recuperation time was observed in the LIDO group, but more TIVA patients preferred to have the same anesthetic again. All three anaesthetic methods are useful for ambulatory knee arthroscopy.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38794,"journal":{"name":"Ambulatory Surgery","volume":"12 2","pages":"Pages 75-79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ambsur.2005.06.005","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recovery time and patient satisfaction in ambulatory knee arthroscopy\",\"authors\":\"M.A. Martín , G. Ollé , F. Oferil , Ll Opisso , M. Serra-Prat , L. Hidalgo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ambsur.2005.06.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span><span>The aim of this study was to compare recovery time and satisfaction of patients operated under two anaesthetic techniques. A randomised-controlled trial that enrolled ASA<span> I–II patients submitted to ambulatory knee arthroscopy<span> was designed. Patients included were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: general intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), </span></span></span>spinal anaesthesia<span><span> with lidocaine (LIDO), and spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine (PRILO). Spinal groups did not receive supplementary sedation. Major outcome measures considered were both the time to discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and from the day-case surgical unit (DSU), the incidence of adverse events, postoperative need for </span>analgesics and patients satisfaction. One hundred and twenty patients were enrolled. Mean time from the patients comes into operating room to discharge from PACU was 125</span></span> <!-->±<!--> <!-->27<!--> <!-->min for the PRILO group, 109<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->24<!--> <!-->min for the LIDO group and 106<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->34<!--> <!-->min for the TIVA group (<em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.01). Time to discharge from the ASU was 279<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->37<!--> <!-->min for the PRILO group, 261<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->53<!--> <!-->min for the TIVA group and 241<!--> <!-->±<!--> <!-->36<!--> <!-->min for the LIDO group (<em>P</em> <!--><<!--> <!-->0.001). No significant differences were observed in the appearance of adverse events, the need for postoperative analgesics and the degree of patient satisfaction among the study groups. A shorter recuperation time was observed in the LIDO group, but more TIVA patients preferred to have the same anesthetic again. All three anaesthetic methods are useful for ambulatory knee arthroscopy.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ambulatory Surgery\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 75-79\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ambsur.2005.06.005\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ambulatory Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966653205000387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambulatory Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966653205000387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
摘要
本研究的目的是比较两种麻醉方式下患者的恢复时间和满意度。设计了一项随机对照试验,纳入了ASA I-II型患者,并接受了动态膝关节镜检查。纳入的患者被随机分配到三个研究组中的一个:全身静脉麻醉(TIVA)、利多卡因脊髓麻醉(LIDO)和丙罗卡因脊髓麻醉(PRILO)。脊髓组未给予补充镇静。考虑的主要结局指标包括麻醉后护理病房(PACU)和日间外科病房(DSU)出院时间、不良事件发生率、术后镇痛药需求和患者满意度。120名患者入组。PRILO组患者进入手术室至PACU出院的平均时间为125±27 min, LIDO组为109±24 min, TIVA组为106±34 min (P <0.01)。PRILO组ASU出院时间为279±37 min, TIVA组为261±53 min, LIDO组为241±36 min (P <0.001)。在不良事件的出现、术后镇痛药物的需要和患者满意度方面,研究组之间没有观察到显著差异。LIDO组恢复时间较短,但更多的TIVA患者倾向于再次使用相同的麻醉剂。所有三种麻醉方法都适用于门诊膝关节镜检查。
Recovery time and patient satisfaction in ambulatory knee arthroscopy
The aim of this study was to compare recovery time and satisfaction of patients operated under two anaesthetic techniques. A randomised-controlled trial that enrolled ASA I–II patients submitted to ambulatory knee arthroscopy was designed. Patients included were randomly assigned to one of the three study groups: general intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), spinal anaesthesia with lidocaine (LIDO), and spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine (PRILO). Spinal groups did not receive supplementary sedation. Major outcome measures considered were both the time to discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and from the day-case surgical unit (DSU), the incidence of adverse events, postoperative need for analgesics and patients satisfaction. One hundred and twenty patients were enrolled. Mean time from the patients comes into operating room to discharge from PACU was 125 ± 27 min for the PRILO group, 109 ± 24 min for the LIDO group and 106 ± 34 min for the TIVA group (P < 0.01). Time to discharge from the ASU was 279 ± 37 min for the PRILO group, 261 ± 53 min for the TIVA group and 241 ± 36 min for the LIDO group (P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the appearance of adverse events, the need for postoperative analgesics and the degree of patient satisfaction among the study groups. A shorter recuperation time was observed in the LIDO group, but more TIVA patients preferred to have the same anesthetic again. All three anaesthetic methods are useful for ambulatory knee arthroscopy.