全麻与脊髓麻醉对伊朗西北部最大的妇女疾病医院选择性腹部子宫切除术患者康复质量的比较

Pub Date : 2020-09-10 DOI:10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06
M. Mortazavi, M. Parish, A. Dorosti, H. Mohammadipour Anvari
{"title":"全麻与脊髓麻醉对伊朗西北部最大的妇女疾病医院选择性腹部子宫切除术患者康复质量的比较","authors":"M. Mortazavi, M. Parish, A. Dorosti, H. Mohammadipour Anvari","doi":"10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The quality of recovery can affect the results of abdominal hysterectomy although this effect is unknown in different methods of anesthesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) methods on the quality of the recovery of patients with selective abdominal hysterectomy in patients visiting the largest women’s disease hospital in Northwestern Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with the participation of 350 patients with abdominal hysterectomy, who were selected by convenience sampling in Al-Zahra hospital, Tabriz, Iran in 2019. Demographic data, visual pain scale, hemodynamic status, and Aldrete-Kroulik index were recorded for each patient. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, t-test, multivariate regression, and Kolmogorov-Simonov tests in SPSS 20, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the hemodynamic status, it was found that the SA group was more stable than the GA group but this difference was not significant (P>0.05). Regarding the need for pethidine, the results revealed that the mean (± standard deviation) of the GA group was significantly higher (35.14 ± 10.14) than that of the SA group (20.15 ± 05.25, P=0.039) while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the use of the antiemetic drug (P=0.203). Finally, the evaluations of the quality of recovery showed that the mean±) SD) of the quality of recovery in SA patients was significantly higher compared to GA patients (P=0.015). Conclusions: In general, the quality of recovery was higher in the SA compared to the GA regarding abdominal hysterectomy.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of General Anesthesia With Spinal Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery of Patients With Selective Abdominal Hysterectomy in Patients Vising the Largest Women’s Disease Hospital in Northwestern Iran\",\"authors\":\"M. Mortazavi, M. Parish, A. Dorosti, H. Mohammadipour Anvari\",\"doi\":\"10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: The quality of recovery can affect the results of abdominal hysterectomy although this effect is unknown in different methods of anesthesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) methods on the quality of the recovery of patients with selective abdominal hysterectomy in patients visiting the largest women’s disease hospital in Northwestern Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with the participation of 350 patients with abdominal hysterectomy, who were selected by convenience sampling in Al-Zahra hospital, Tabriz, Iran in 2019. Demographic data, visual pain scale, hemodynamic status, and Aldrete-Kroulik index were recorded for each patient. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, t-test, multivariate regression, and Kolmogorov-Simonov tests in SPSS 20, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the hemodynamic status, it was found that the SA group was more stable than the GA group but this difference was not significant (P>0.05). Regarding the need for pethidine, the results revealed that the mean (± standard deviation) of the GA group was significantly higher (35.14 ± 10.14) than that of the SA group (20.15 ± 05.25, P=0.039) while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the use of the antiemetic drug (P=0.203). Finally, the evaluations of the quality of recovery showed that the mean±) SD) of the quality of recovery in SA patients was significantly higher compared to GA patients (P=0.015). Conclusions: In general, the quality of recovery was higher in the SA compared to the GA regarding abdominal hysterectomy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2022.06","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

目的:恢复质量会影响腹式子宫切除术的效果,但不同麻醉方式对恢复质量的影响尚不清楚。因此,本研究比较了全身麻醉(GA)和脊髓麻醉(SA)两种麻醉方式对伊朗西北部最大的妇女疾病医院选择性腹式子宫切除术患者康复质量的影响。材料与方法:本横断面描述性研究选取2019年在伊朗大不里兹Al-Zahra医院进行的350例腹性子宫切除术患者。记录每位患者的人口学数据、视觉疼痛量表、血流动力学状态和Aldrete-Kroulik指数。数据分析采用SPSS 20的Mann-Whitney检验、t检验、多元回归和Kolmogorov-Simonov检验,P0.05)。在哌替啶需用方面,GA组的平均值(±标准差)(35.14±10.14)显著高于SA组(20.15±05.25,P=0.039),而两组止吐药物的使用差异无统计学意义(P=0.203)。最后,对恢复质量的评价显示,SA患者的恢复质量的平均值(±)SD)明显高于GA患者(P=0.015)。结论:总的来说,在腹部子宫切除术中,SA组的恢复质量高于GA组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
Comparison of General Anesthesia With Spinal Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery of Patients With Selective Abdominal Hysterectomy in Patients Vising the Largest Women’s Disease Hospital in Northwestern Iran
Objectives: The quality of recovery can affect the results of abdominal hysterectomy although this effect is unknown in different methods of anesthesia. Therefore, the present study was conducted to compare general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) methods on the quality of the recovery of patients with selective abdominal hysterectomy in patients visiting the largest women’s disease hospital in Northwestern Iran. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted with the participation of 350 patients with abdominal hysterectomy, who were selected by convenience sampling in Al-Zahra hospital, Tabriz, Iran in 2019. Demographic data, visual pain scale, hemodynamic status, and Aldrete-Kroulik index were recorded for each patient. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney, t-test, multivariate regression, and Kolmogorov-Simonov tests in SPSS 20, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: In the hemodynamic status, it was found that the SA group was more stable than the GA group but this difference was not significant (P>0.05). Regarding the need for pethidine, the results revealed that the mean (± standard deviation) of the GA group was significantly higher (35.14 ± 10.14) than that of the SA group (20.15 ± 05.25, P=0.039) while there were no significant differences between the two groups in the use of the antiemetic drug (P=0.203). Finally, the evaluations of the quality of recovery showed that the mean±) SD) of the quality of recovery in SA patients was significantly higher compared to GA patients (P=0.015). Conclusions: In general, the quality of recovery was higher in the SA compared to the GA regarding abdominal hysterectomy.
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
×
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