Zehava Yohay, Yair Binyamin, Alla Saban, Adi Y Weintraub, Nurit Cohen, Neriya Zion Yohay, Michael Dubilet
{"title":"全身麻醉或脊髓麻醉后阴道盆底手术患者的疼痛水平和镇痛需求。","authors":"Zehava Yohay, Yair Binyamin, Alla Saban, Adi Y Weintraub, Nurit Cohen, Neriya Zion Yohay, Michael Dubilet","doi":"10.1159/000541962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate postoperative pain levels and analgesic drug requirements in women who underwent general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA) during vaginal pelvic floor surgeries.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials, setting, methods: </strong>Women aged 18 or above who underwent vaginal pelvic floor surgery between 2019 and 2021 were included in the study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed separately for vaginal wall repair and stress urinary incontinence surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 101 women underwent surgery under SA, and 99 women underwent surgery under GA. Intravenous analgesia administration rates were significantly lower under SA for both vaginal wall repair (20.2% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.017) and mid-urethral sling placement (20.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed that intravenous analgesia requirement was significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group after controlling for patient's age, concurrent hysterectomy, and mesh placement for vaginal wall repair (aOR = 0.33, p = 0.008) and mid-urethral sling placement (aOR = 0.37, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This is a retrospective study, thus the choice of anesthesia may be biased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SA is associated with less postoperative pain and intravenous analgesia requirement in women who undergo vaginal pelvic floor surgeries. However, further research is needed to determine the preferred anesthesia method for specific types of pelvic floor surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12952,"journal":{"name":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pain Level and Analgesic Requirements in Patients Who Underwent Vaginal Pelvic Floor Surgery following General or Spinal Anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Zehava Yohay, Yair Binyamin, Alla Saban, Adi Y Weintraub, Nurit Cohen, Neriya Zion Yohay, Michael Dubilet\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000541962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate postoperative pain levels and analgesic drug requirements in women who underwent general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA) during vaginal pelvic floor surgeries.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Participants/materials, setting, methods: </strong>Women aged 18 or above who underwent vaginal pelvic floor surgery between 2019 and 2021 were included in the study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed separately for vaginal wall repair and stress urinary incontinence surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 101 women underwent surgery under SA, and 99 women underwent surgery under GA. Intravenous analgesia administration rates were significantly lower under SA for both vaginal wall repair (20.2% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.017) and mid-urethral sling placement (20.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed that intravenous analgesia requirement was significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group after controlling for patient's age, concurrent hysterectomy, and mesh placement for vaginal wall repair (aOR = 0.33, p = 0.008) and mid-urethral sling placement (aOR = 0.37, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>This is a retrospective study, thus the choice of anesthesia may be biased.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SA is associated with less postoperative pain and intravenous analgesia requirement in women who undergo vaginal pelvic floor surgeries. However, further research is needed to determine the preferred anesthesia method for specific types of pelvic floor surgeries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541962\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541962","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本回顾性队列研究旨在调查阴道盆底手术中接受GA或SA的女性术后疼痛水平和镇痛药物需求。设计:回顾性队列研究。参与者/材料、环境、方法:在2019年至2021年期间接受阴道盆底手术的18岁或以上女性纳入研究。对阴道壁修复和压力性尿失禁手术分别进行单因素和多因素分析。结果:在研究期间,101例女性在SA下手术,99例女性在GA下手术。阴道壁修复(20.2% vs. 38.9%, P=0.017)和尿道中悬吊带放置(20.2% vs. 37.8%, P= 0.007)在SA下静脉镇痛给药率均显著低于阴道壁修复(20.2% vs. 38.9%, P=0.017)。多因素分析显示,在控制患者年龄、同时切除子宫、放置阴道壁补片(aOR= 0.33, p=0.008)和放置尿道中吊带(aOR= 0.37, p=0.004)后,SA组静脉镇痛需求显著低于GA组。局限性:这是一项回顾性研究,因此麻醉的选择可能有偏倚。结论:SA与接受阴道盆底手术的妇女术后疼痛和静脉镇痛需求减少有关。然而,需要进一步的研究来确定特定类型盆底手术的首选麻醉方法。关键词:全身麻醉;脊髓麻醉,镇痛,盆底手术,盆腔器官脱垂,压力性尿失禁,eras。摘要:脊柱麻醉下阴道盆底手术术后疼痛和静脉镇痛需求较少。
Pain Level and Analgesic Requirements in Patients Who Underwent Vaginal Pelvic Floor Surgery following General or Spinal Anesthesia.
Objective: This retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate postoperative pain levels and analgesic drug requirements in women who underwent general anesthesia (GA) or spinal anesthesia (SA) during vaginal pelvic floor surgeries.
Design: This was a retrospective cohort study.
Participants/materials, setting, methods: Women aged 18 or above who underwent vaginal pelvic floor surgery between 2019 and 2021 were included in the study. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed separately for vaginal wall repair and stress urinary incontinence surgery.
Results: During the study period, 101 women underwent surgery under SA, and 99 women underwent surgery under GA. Intravenous analgesia administration rates were significantly lower under SA for both vaginal wall repair (20.2% vs. 38.9%, p = 0.017) and mid-urethral sling placement (20.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis revealed that intravenous analgesia requirement was significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group after controlling for patient's age, concurrent hysterectomy, and mesh placement for vaginal wall repair (aOR = 0.33, p = 0.008) and mid-urethral sling placement (aOR = 0.37, p = 0.004).
Limitations: This is a retrospective study, thus the choice of anesthesia may be biased.
Conclusion: SA is associated with less postoperative pain and intravenous analgesia requirement in women who undergo vaginal pelvic floor surgeries. However, further research is needed to determine the preferred anesthesia method for specific types of pelvic floor surgeries.
期刊介绍:
This journal covers the most active and promising areas of current research in gynecology and obstetrics. Invited, well-referenced reviews by noted experts keep readers in touch with the general framework and direction of international study. Original papers report selected experimental and clinical investigations in all fields related to gynecology, obstetrics and reproduction. Short communications are published to allow immediate discussion of new data. The international and interdisciplinary character of this periodical provides an avenue to less accessible sources and to worldwide research for investigators and practitioners.