脊柱与全身麻醉下膝关节镜检查的出院次数

Volker Gebhardt, M. Monnard, C. Weiss, M. Schmittner
{"title":"脊柱与全身麻醉下膝关节镜检查的出院次数","authors":"Volker Gebhardt, M. Monnard, C. Weiss, M. Schmittner","doi":"10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundSpinal anesthesia (SPA) and general anesthesia (GA) are both safe techniques for knee arthroscopy. In this prospective, single-centre, randomised, clinical trial we compared the discharge times of SPA using 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% and GA with propofol and sufentanil in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopy.Methods50 patients (18–80 years / American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I–III) were randomized equally to receive either SPA or GA. The main outcome variable was the time until discharge from the day-surgery centre. Anesthesia related side effects, postoperative analgesics and patient satisfaction were assessed.ResultsTwo of the spinal blocks failed and GA had to be provided. Despite of a faster recovery (unassisted ambulation: SPA: 90 (90–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p=0.0029), spontaneous voiding led to a delayed discharge in the SPA group (SPA: 240 (135–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p<0.0001). There were no differences between the groups regarding other anesthesia related side effects, postoperative demand of analgesics or patient satisfaction.ConclusionSPA with 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% leads to a later discharge than GA with sufentanil and propofol. However, a reevaluation of existing discharge recommendations including obligatory micturition is necessary, to make SPA become even more advantageous for ambulatory surgery.","PeriodicalId":50709,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Discharge times for knee arthroscopy in spinal vs. general anesthesia\",\"authors\":\"Volker Gebhardt, M. Monnard, C. Weiss, M. Schmittner\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundSpinal anesthesia (SPA) and general anesthesia (GA) are both safe techniques for knee arthroscopy. In this prospective, single-centre, randomised, clinical trial we compared the discharge times of SPA using 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% and GA with propofol and sufentanil in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopy.Methods50 patients (18–80 years / American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I–III) were randomized equally to receive either SPA or GA. The main outcome variable was the time until discharge from the day-surgery centre. Anesthesia related side effects, postoperative analgesics and patient satisfaction were assessed.ResultsTwo of the spinal blocks failed and GA had to be provided. Despite of a faster recovery (unassisted ambulation: SPA: 90 (90–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p=0.0029), spontaneous voiding led to a delayed discharge in the SPA group (SPA: 240 (135–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p<0.0001). There were no differences between the groups regarding other anesthesia related side effects, postoperative demand of analgesics or patient satisfaction.ConclusionSPA with 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% leads to a later discharge than GA with sufentanil and propofol. However, a reevaluation of existing discharge recommendations including obligatory micturition is necessary, to make SPA become even more advantageous for ambulatory surgery.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0303-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景脊柱麻醉(SPA)和全身麻醉(GA)都是膝关节镜检查的安全技术。在这项前瞻性、单中心、随机的临床试验中,我们比较了在进行动态膝关节镜检查的患者中,使用50mg 2%高压丙洛卡因的SPA和使用异丙酚和舒芬太尼的GA的出院时间。方法50例患者(18-80岁/美国麻醉医师学会分级I-III级)随机分为SPA组和GA组。主要结局变量为从日间手术中心出院的时间。评估麻醉相关副作用、术后镇痛药及患者满意度。结果2例脊髓阻滞失败,需给予GA。尽管SPA组恢复更快(无辅助活动:SPA: 90 (90 - 295)min vs. GA: 156 (93-235)min, p=0.0029),自然排尿导致SPA组延迟出院(SPA: 240 (135-295)min vs. GA: 156 (93-235)min, p<0.0001)。两组在其他麻醉相关副作用、术后镇痛药需求及患者满意度方面无差异。结论舒芬太尼和异丙酚加用高压氧丙罗卡因50mg组比加用舒芬太尼组更晚出院。然而,重新评估现有的出院建议,包括强制性排尿是必要的,使SPA对门诊手术更加有利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Discharge times for knee arthroscopy in spinal vs. general anesthesia
BackgroundSpinal anesthesia (SPA) and general anesthesia (GA) are both safe techniques for knee arthroscopy. In this prospective, single-centre, randomised, clinical trial we compared the discharge times of SPA using 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% and GA with propofol and sufentanil in patients undergoing ambulatory knee arthroscopy.Methods50 patients (18–80 years / American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade I–III) were randomized equally to receive either SPA or GA. The main outcome variable was the time until discharge from the day-surgery centre. Anesthesia related side effects, postoperative analgesics and patient satisfaction were assessed.ResultsTwo of the spinal blocks failed and GA had to be provided. Despite of a faster recovery (unassisted ambulation: SPA: 90 (90–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p=0.0029), spontaneous voiding led to a delayed discharge in the SPA group (SPA: 240 (135–295)min vs. GA: 156 (93–235)min, p<0.0001). There were no differences between the groups regarding other anesthesia related side effects, postoperative demand of analgesics or patient satisfaction.ConclusionSPA with 50mg hyperbaric prilocaine 2% leads to a later discharge than GA with sufentanil and propofol. However, a reevaluation of existing discharge recommendations including obligatory micturition is necessary, to make SPA become even more advantageous for ambulatory surgery.
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
Central European Journal of Medicine
Central European Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 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