Anesthetic Approach in Ambulatory Vitrectomy: Peribulbar Block vs. Balanced General Anesthesia

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI:10.1155/2022/3838222
Bárbara Gouveia, L. Ferreira, P. Maia
{"title":"Anesthetic Approach in Ambulatory Vitrectomy: Peribulbar Block vs. Balanced General Anesthesia","authors":"Bárbara Gouveia, L. Ferreira, P. Maia","doi":"10.1155/2022/3838222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Vitrectomy is one of the most common outpatient ophthalmic surgeries. The anesthetic technique used in outpatient surgery should contribute to a faster functional recovery, better pain control, and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to compare peribulbar block and balanced general anesthesia, in patients undergoing outpatient vitrectomy. Methods A prospective cohort study was carried out, including adult patients undergoing ambulatory vitrectomy, between January and February 2018. Peribulbar block or balanced general anesthesia was the independent variable analyzed. Clinical and perioperative variables were evaluated, namely, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting in the postoperative period, intraoperative hypotension, patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique, time to oral diet introduction and to hospital discharge, operating room occupancy time, and pharmacological costs. SPSS® 27 was used for statistical analyses. Results Twenty-one patients were evaluated, 11 of whom underwent peribulbar block and 10 underwent balanced general anesthesia. Patients undergoing peribulbar block did not experience postoperative pain when compared to patients undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.001). Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 18.2% of patients undergoing peribulbar block and in 70% of those undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.03). Time to oral diet introduction (<1 hour vs. > 2 hours; p < 0.05), operating room occupancy time (70 vs. 90 minutes; p=0.027), time to hospital discharge (17 vs. 22.5 hours; p=0.004), and pharmacological costs (4.65 vs. 12.09 euros; p < 0.05) were lower in patients undergoing peribulbar block versus balanced general. Conclusions Peribulbar block seems to meet the criteria of an ideal anesthetic technique in outpatient vitrectomy surgery.","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3838222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background Vitrectomy is one of the most common outpatient ophthalmic surgeries. The anesthetic technique used in outpatient surgery should contribute to a faster functional recovery, better pain control, and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to compare peribulbar block and balanced general anesthesia, in patients undergoing outpatient vitrectomy. Methods A prospective cohort study was carried out, including adult patients undergoing ambulatory vitrectomy, between January and February 2018. Peribulbar block or balanced general anesthesia was the independent variable analyzed. Clinical and perioperative variables were evaluated, namely, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting in the postoperative period, intraoperative hypotension, patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique, time to oral diet introduction and to hospital discharge, operating room occupancy time, and pharmacological costs. SPSS® 27 was used for statistical analyses. Results Twenty-one patients were evaluated, 11 of whom underwent peribulbar block and 10 underwent balanced general anesthesia. Patients undergoing peribulbar block did not experience postoperative pain when compared to patients undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.001). Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 18.2% of patients undergoing peribulbar block and in 70% of those undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.03). Time to oral diet introduction (<1 hour vs. > 2 hours; p < 0.05), operating room occupancy time (70 vs. 90 minutes; p=0.027), time to hospital discharge (17 vs. 22.5 hours; p=0.004), and pharmacological costs (4.65 vs. 12.09 euros; p < 0.05) were lower in patients undergoing peribulbar block versus balanced general. Conclusions Peribulbar block seems to meet the criteria of an ideal anesthetic technique in outpatient vitrectomy surgery.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
动态玻璃体切除术的麻醉方法:球周阻滞与平衡全麻
背景玻璃体切除术是最常见的门诊眼科手术之一。门诊手术中使用的麻醉技术应有助于更快的功能恢复、更好的疼痛控制和更少的并发症。本研究的目的是比较球周阻滞和平衡全麻在门诊接受玻璃体切除术的患者中的作用。方法对2018年1月至2月期间接受门诊玻璃体切除术的成年患者进行前瞻性队列研究。球周阻滞或平衡全麻是分析的自变量。评估了临床和围手术期的变量,即术后疼痛、术后恶心和呕吐、术中低血压、患者对麻醉技术的满意度、口服饮食介绍和出院时间、手术室占用时间和药物成本。SPSS®27用于统计分析。结果21例患者接受了评估,其中11例接受了球周阻滞,10例接受了平衡全麻。与接受平衡全身麻醉的患者相比,接受球周阻滞的患者没有术后疼痛(p=0.001)。18.2%的球周阻滞患者和70%的平衡全身麻醉患者发生术中低血压(p=0.03)( 2小时;p<0.05)、手术室占用时间(70 vs.90分钟;p=0.027)、出院时间(17 vs.22.5小时;p=0.004)和药物成本(4.65 vs.12.09欧元;p<0.05)在接受球周阻滞的患者中低于平衡型普通型。结论球周阻滞符合门诊玻璃体切除术的理想麻醉技术标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of High-Volume Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Irrigation for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Bupivacaine Irrigation for Analgesia. Association Between MRI Findings of Facet Arthropathy and Synovitis With Health-Related Outcome and Pain Scores Following Therapeutic Lumbar Facet Injections. Use of a Nasal Cannula as a Preoxygenation Adjunct: A Randomized Crossover Study. Weight-Based Standardized Sugammadex Dosing in Pediatrics: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Compliance with Dosing Guidelines and Reduce Waste and Cost. The Effect of Preoperative Anxiety on Motor and Sensory Block Duration and Effectiveness in Spinal Anesthesia.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1