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":"30 1","pages":"446-454"},"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\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"446-454\"},\"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。
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.