Evaluation of Emergency Operations and Anesthesia Preferences in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic and Before the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

K. Arslan, Hale ÇETİN ARSLAN, Ayça SULTAN ŞAHİN
{"title":"Evaluation of Emergency Operations and Anesthesia Preferences in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic and Before the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"K. Arslan, Hale ÇETİN ARSLAN, Ayça SULTAN ŞAHİN","doi":"10.5336/anesthe.2022-90780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABS TRACT Objective: During the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, elective surgical operations were postponed, affecting emergency operations. This study aims to compare emergency surgical operations, anesthesia preferences, and patient outcomes in the early pandemic period with the pre-pandemic period and to investigate the effect of the pandemic on emergency operations. Material and Methods: Emergency surgical operations, surgical techniques, anesthesia preferences, and patient outcomes performed in the pandemic period between March 15-April 15, 2020, were compared with the emergency surgeries in the same period of 2019, which is the pre-pandemic period. Results: Demographic data were similar between groups. A 30% decrease was observed in the emergency surgeries performed in the pandemic group (n=236) compared to the pre-pandemic group (n=337). Although the cesarean section was the most common emergency surgery in both periods, a decrease was observed in emergency operations other than cesarean section during the pandemic. While trauma surgery, open surgical technique, spinal anesthesia preference, length of stay in the service, and mortality were high in the pandemic group, the length of stay in the intensive care unit was low. 7.2% of the patients (n=17) in the pandemic group were COVID-19 positive. Trauma surgery was not encountered in these patients, and all surgeries were performed with an open technique. Conclusion: In the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease has been observed in the number of emergency surgical operations and emergency operations other than cesarean section, with the effect of medical treatment and follow-up. However, while more trauma surgery was performed during the pandemic, mortality was higher. While the laparoscopic technique decreased significantly, the preference for spinal anesthesia increased significantly.","PeriodicalId":23442,"journal":{"name":"Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Anesthesiology Reanimation","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Anesthesiology Reanimation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5336/anesthe.2022-90780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABS TRACT Objective: During the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, elective surgical operations were postponed, affecting emergency operations. This study aims to compare emergency surgical operations, anesthesia preferences, and patient outcomes in the early pandemic period with the pre-pandemic period and to investigate the effect of the pandemic on emergency operations. Material and Methods: Emergency surgical operations, surgical techniques, anesthesia preferences, and patient outcomes performed in the pandemic period between March 15-April 15, 2020, were compared with the emergency surgeries in the same period of 2019, which is the pre-pandemic period. Results: Demographic data were similar between groups. A 30% decrease was observed in the emergency surgeries performed in the pandemic group (n=236) compared to the pre-pandemic group (n=337). Although the cesarean section was the most common emergency surgery in both periods, a decrease was observed in emergency operations other than cesarean section during the pandemic. While trauma surgery, open surgical technique, spinal anesthesia preference, length of stay in the service, and mortality were high in the pandemic group, the length of stay in the intensive care unit was low. 7.2% of the patients (n=17) in the pandemic group were COVID-19 positive. Trauma surgery was not encountered in these patients, and all surgeries were performed with an open technique. Conclusion: In the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease has been observed in the number of emergency surgical operations and emergency operations other than cesarean section, with the effect of medical treatment and follow-up. However, while more trauma surgery was performed during the pandemic, mortality was higher. While the laparoscopic technique decreased significantly, the preference for spinal anesthesia increased significantly.
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
COVID-19大流行早期和大流行前急诊手术和麻醉偏好的评估:一项回顾性横断面研究
摘要目的:2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间,外科择期手术推迟,影响急诊手术。本研究旨在比较大流行早期与大流行前的紧急外科手术、麻醉偏好和患者预后,并探讨大流行对紧急手术的影响。材料与方法:将2020年3月15日至4月15日大流行期间的急诊外科手术、手术技术、麻醉偏好和患者结局与2019年同期(大流行前)的急诊手术进行比较。结果:组间人口学数据相似。与大流行前组(n=337)相比,大流行组(n=236)进行的急诊手术减少了30%。虽然在这两个时期,剖宫产是最常见的紧急手术,但在大流行期间,剖宫产以外的紧急手术有所减少。虽然大流行组的创伤手术、开放手术技术、脊柱麻醉偏好、住院时间和死亡率较高,但重症监护病房的住院时间较低。大流行组中有7.2%(17例)的患者呈COVID-19阳性。这些患者没有遇到创伤手术,所有手术均采用开放技术进行。结论:新冠肺炎大流行初期,急诊外科手术及剖宫产以外急诊手术次数有所减少,且药物治疗和随访效果明显。然而,虽然在大流行期间进行了更多的创伤手术,但死亡率更高。虽然腹腔镜技术明显下降,但对脊髓麻醉的偏好明显增加。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of Emergency Operations and Anesthesia Preferences in the Early COVID-19 Pandemic and Before the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Comparison of the LMA Protector and the Baska Mask in Retrograde Ureteroscopic Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study Cross-Sectional Analysis of Dental Treatment Procedures Performed Under General Anesthesia or Sedation A Rare Syndrome After Intracranial Hemorrhage Operation: Ogilvie Syndrome Operating Room Employees and Cardiotoxicity: Traditional Review
×
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