髋关节镜检查中的脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉--大流行病(COVID)和流行病(阿片类药物)驱动的研究

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Thomas J. W., Kay S Jones, Nicole Dwyer, Amy M McManus, Ellen B Byrd, Wallace L Freeman
{"title":"髋关节镜检查中的脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉--大流行病(COVID)和流行病(阿片类药物)驱动的研究","authors":"Thomas J. W., Kay S Jones, Nicole Dwyer, Amy M McManus, Ellen B Byrd, Wallace L Freeman","doi":"10.1093/jhps/hnae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.","PeriodicalId":48583,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal versus general anesthesia for hip arthroscopy—a pandemic (COVID) and epidemic (opioid) driven study\",\"authors\":\"Thomas J. W., Kay S Jones, Nicole Dwyer, Amy M McManus, Ellen B Byrd, Wallace L Freeman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jhps/hnae009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnae009\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnae009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是根据围手术期的可测量参数,比较髋关节镜手术中的全身麻醉(GA)和脊髓麻醉(SA)。大流行标志着从GA到SA的转变,因此我们对前120例连续SA病例与大流行前最后120例GA病例进行了回顾性回顾。人口统计学数据包括年龄、性别、体重指数、术前麻醉剂使用情况和所实施的手术。比较了两组患者在麻醉后护理病房的住院时间、入院和出院时的视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、吗啡毫克当量用量、区域阻滞需求和意外事件。此外,还比较了从进入手术室到完成诱导麻醉的时间长度。从人口统计学角度来看,两组患者几乎完全相同。SA 组使用的吗啡毫克当量(6.0 对 8.1;P = 0.005)明显较少,不需要麻醉药的人数较多(17 对 7;P = 0.031),需要阻滞的人数较少(1 对 14;P = 0.001),入院时的 VAS 评分较低(5.2 对 6.2;P = 0.003)。五名早期 SA 患者因尿潴留需要导尿,通过让患者在手术室呼叫时排尿并避免使用抗胆碱能药物,在研究后期避免了这一情况的发生。SA患者完成诱导麻醉的时间延长了0.8分钟。使用 GA 或 SA 均可有效地进行髋关节镜手术。与GA相比,SA对麻醉后护理单元疼痛的控制在统计学上有明显的改善,这体现在较低的入室VAS、较少的麻醉药需求和较少的区域阻滞需求。尿潴留是 SA 的一个潜在问题,通过常规预防措施可将其降到最低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Spinal versus general anesthesia for hip arthroscopy—a pandemic (COVID) and epidemic (opioid) driven study
The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
20.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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