Khresat Wesam, Ibrahim Jraisat, Hend Harahsheh, Jamilah Al Sarairah, Rawan Hiyari, Rafeed Al Drous, Firas Sha'ban, Anas Abdallat, Rami Alqroom
{"title":"膝关节关节镜下脊柱、硬膜外和全身麻醉:多样性、公平性和包容性——比较研究。","authors":"Khresat Wesam, Ibrahim Jraisat, Hend Harahsheh, Jamilah Al Sarairah, Rawan Hiyari, Rafeed Al Drous, Firas Sha'ban, Anas Abdallat, Rami Alqroom","doi":"10.4103/aer.aer_93_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knee arthroscopic surgery is a commonly performed procedure for diagnosing and treating knee joint problems. This procedure can be achieved under various types of anesthesia, general; or by applying regional anesthesia or even local. Epidural anesthesia and peripheral nerve blockage have been utilized in short procedures and provided a shorter length of hospital stay than general anesthesia in many former articles; however, spinal anesthesia including bupivacaine infusion has also offered a shorter length of hospital stay compared to general anesthesia. While the literature has not compared optimal techniques for these valid options.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This review was conducted to challenge the hypothesis: What would be of choice for local anesthesia agents (either epidural or spinal anesthesia) that would be comparable to short-acting general anesthesia agents in terms of patient satisfaction and discharge times?!</p><p><strong>Setting and design: </strong>The review was conducted as a prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized using a sealed envelope method to be selected to one anesthesia technique (general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>During the period between January 2019 and December 2020, 198 patients underwent unilateral knee joint arthroscopy. Seventy-seven patients refused anesthesia randomization and opted for one option directly. One hundred and twenty-one patients were qualified for the final recruitment stage of this analysis to contribute to the anesthesia randomization and they were assigned into three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographical analysis showed no significant differences between cohorts. No major surgical or anesthetic adverse effects were reported. Anesthesia reported satisfactory for incision among three groups. For regional anesthesia cohorts, sphincteric control (voiding) considered a mandatory parameter for discharge, was shorter in the epidural group compared to the spinal anesthesia cohort (154 ± 28 vs. 189 ± 47 min, <i>P</i> < 0.0013). Time to discharge for the three cohorts was also significantly shorter for general anesthesia and epidural cohorts as compared to spinal cohort (general, 106 ± 29 min; epidural, 90 ± 18 min; spinal, 151 ± 48 min, <i>P</i> < 0.003). A total of 114 patients stated that they would select the same anesthetic method over again.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review revealed that regional epidural anesthesia using 2-chloroprocaine and general anesthesia using short-acting agents were similarly successful in terms of perioperative conditions and duration of hospital stay in our center. Whereas spinal anesthesia using 10 mg of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl in the same setting lacked behind in terms of extended discharge time and showed a higher prevalence of adverse effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":7798,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","volume":"16 2","pages":"181-186"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9701338/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Spinal, Epidural, and General Anesthesia for Knee Joint Arthroscopy: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - Comparison Study.\",\"authors\":\"Khresat Wesam, Ibrahim Jraisat, Hend Harahsheh, Jamilah Al Sarairah, Rawan Hiyari, Rafeed Al Drous, Firas Sha'ban, Anas Abdallat, Rami Alqroom\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/aer.aer_93_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Knee arthroscopic surgery is a commonly performed procedure for diagnosing and treating knee joint problems. This procedure can be achieved under various types of anesthesia, general; or by applying regional anesthesia or even local. Epidural anesthesia and peripheral nerve blockage have been utilized in short procedures and provided a shorter length of hospital stay than general anesthesia in many former articles; however, spinal anesthesia including bupivacaine infusion has also offered a shorter length of hospital stay compared to general anesthesia. While the literature has not compared optimal techniques for these valid options.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This review was conducted to challenge the hypothesis: What would be of choice for local anesthesia agents (either epidural or spinal anesthesia) that would be comparable to short-acting general anesthesia agents in terms of patient satisfaction and discharge times?!</p><p><strong>Setting and design: </strong>The review was conducted as a prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized using a sealed envelope method to be selected to one anesthesia technique (general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>During the period between January 2019 and December 2020, 198 patients underwent unilateral knee joint arthroscopy. Seventy-seven patients refused anesthesia randomization and opted for one option directly. One hundred and twenty-one patients were qualified for the final recruitment stage of this analysis to contribute to the anesthesia randomization and they were assigned into three groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Demographical analysis showed no significant differences between cohorts. No major surgical or anesthetic adverse effects were reported. Anesthesia reported satisfactory for incision among three groups. For regional anesthesia cohorts, sphincteric control (voiding) considered a mandatory parameter for discharge, was shorter in the epidural group compared to the spinal anesthesia cohort (154 ± 28 vs. 189 ± 47 min, <i>P</i> < 0.0013). Time to discharge for the three cohorts was also significantly shorter for general anesthesia and epidural cohorts as compared to spinal cohort (general, 106 ± 29 min; epidural, 90 ± 18 min; spinal, 151 ± 48 min, <i>P</i> < 0.003). A total of 114 patients stated that they would select the same anesthetic method over again.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review revealed that regional epidural anesthesia using 2-chloroprocaine and general anesthesia using short-acting agents were similarly successful in terms of perioperative conditions and duration of hospital stay in our center. Whereas spinal anesthesia using 10 mg of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl in the same setting lacked behind in terms of extended discharge time and showed a higher prevalence of adverse effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7798,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"181-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9701338/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_93_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia, Essays and Researches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aer.aer_93_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:膝关节镜手术是诊断和治疗膝关节疾病的常用方法。本手术可在各种麻醉方式下实现,一般;或者通过局部麻醉甚至局部麻醉。硬膜外麻醉和周围神经阻滞在短时间手术中使用,比以前的许多文章中提供了更短的住院时间;然而,与全身麻醉相比,包括布比卡因输注在内的脊髓麻醉也提供了更短的住院时间。而文献并没有比较这些有效选择的最佳技术。目的:本综述旨在挑战以下假设:在患者满意度和出院时间方面,局部麻醉药物(硬膜外麻醉或脊髓麻醉)与短效全身麻醉药物相媲美的选择是什么?背景和设计:本研究为前瞻性随机研究。患者采用密封信封法随机选择一种麻醉技术(全身麻醉、硬膜外麻醉或脊髓麻醉)。材料与方法:2019年1月至2020年12月,198例患者行单侧膝关节关节镜检查。77例患者拒绝麻醉随机化,直接选择一种方案。121名患者符合本分析的最后招募阶段,以促进麻醉随机化,他们被分为三组。结果:人口统计学分析显示各组间无显著差异。没有重大的手术或麻醉不良反应的报道。三组切口麻醉均满意。对于区域麻醉队列,与脊髓麻醉队列相比,硬膜外组的括约肌控制(排尿)被认为是出院的强制性参数(154±28 vs 189±47分钟,P < 0.0013)。与脊柱组相比,全麻和硬膜外组的三个队列的出院时间也显著缩短(一般,106±29分钟;硬膜外,90±18分钟;脊柱,151±48 min, P < 0.003)。共有114名患者表示他们会再次选择相同的麻醉方法。结论:本综述显示,在我们中心,使用2-氯普鲁卡因硬膜外区域麻醉和使用短效药物的全身麻醉在围手术期条件和住院时间方面同样成功。而脊髓麻醉使用10mg布比卡因联合芬太尼在相同的环境中,在延长出院时间方面缺乏落后,并显示出更高的不良反应发生率。
Spinal, Epidural, and General Anesthesia for Knee Joint Arthroscopy: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - Comparison Study.
Background: Knee arthroscopic surgery is a commonly performed procedure for diagnosing and treating knee joint problems. This procedure can be achieved under various types of anesthesia, general; or by applying regional anesthesia or even local. Epidural anesthesia and peripheral nerve blockage have been utilized in short procedures and provided a shorter length of hospital stay than general anesthesia in many former articles; however, spinal anesthesia including bupivacaine infusion has also offered a shorter length of hospital stay compared to general anesthesia. While the literature has not compared optimal techniques for these valid options.
Aims: This review was conducted to challenge the hypothesis: What would be of choice for local anesthesia agents (either epidural or spinal anesthesia) that would be comparable to short-acting general anesthesia agents in terms of patient satisfaction and discharge times?!
Setting and design: The review was conducted as a prospective, randomized study. Patients were randomized using a sealed envelope method to be selected to one anesthesia technique (general, epidural, or spinal anesthesia).
Materials and methods: During the period between January 2019 and December 2020, 198 patients underwent unilateral knee joint arthroscopy. Seventy-seven patients refused anesthesia randomization and opted for one option directly. One hundred and twenty-one patients were qualified for the final recruitment stage of this analysis to contribute to the anesthesia randomization and they were assigned into three groups.
Results: Demographical analysis showed no significant differences between cohorts. No major surgical or anesthetic adverse effects were reported. Anesthesia reported satisfactory for incision among three groups. For regional anesthesia cohorts, sphincteric control (voiding) considered a mandatory parameter for discharge, was shorter in the epidural group compared to the spinal anesthesia cohort (154 ± 28 vs. 189 ± 47 min, P < 0.0013). Time to discharge for the three cohorts was also significantly shorter for general anesthesia and epidural cohorts as compared to spinal cohort (general, 106 ± 29 min; epidural, 90 ± 18 min; spinal, 151 ± 48 min, P < 0.003). A total of 114 patients stated that they would select the same anesthetic method over again.
Conclusion: This review revealed that regional epidural anesthesia using 2-chloroprocaine and general anesthesia using short-acting agents were similarly successful in terms of perioperative conditions and duration of hospital stay in our center. Whereas spinal anesthesia using 10 mg of bupivacaine combined with fentanyl in the same setting lacked behind in terms of extended discharge time and showed a higher prevalence of adverse effects.