Comparison of efficiency, recovery profile and perioperative costs of regional anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia for outpatient upper extremity surgery

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 557-559 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Horn ◽  
C. Swide ◽  
B. A. Gaebel ◽  
R. L. Cross
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Sven Grauman ◽  
Jakob Boethius ◽  
Joakim Johansson

Introduction. For surgery on the upper extremity, the anaesthetist often has a choice between regional anaesthesia (RA) and general anaesthesia (GA). We sought to investigate the possible differences between RA and GA after upper extremity surgery with regard to postoperative patient comfort. Methods. This is a retrospective observational study that was performed at an acute care secondary referral centre. One hundred and eighty-seven procedures involving orthopaedic surgery on the upper extremity were included. The different groups (RA and GA) were compared regarding the primary outcome variable, length of stay in Postanaesthesia Unit, and secondary outcome variables, opioid consumption and nausea treatment. Results. RA was associated with significantly shorter median length of stay (99 versus 171 minutes). In the GA group, 32% of the patients received opioid analgesics and 21% received antiemetics. In the RA group, none received opioid analgesics and 3% received antiemetics. Conclusion. In this observational study, RA was superior to GA for surgery of the upper extremity regarding Postanaesthesia Care Unit length of stay, number of doses of analgesic, and number of doses of antiemetic administered.


Clinical Risk ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 224-228
Author(s):  
Nicholas Goddard ◽  
Stuart Batistich ◽  
Zoë Smith ◽  
Jim Turner ◽  
Peter Tomlinson

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 ◽  
pp. 1-3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Somers ◽  
Yves Jacquemyn ◽  
Luc Sermeus ◽  
Marcel Vercauteren

We describe a patient with severe scoliosis for which corrective surgery was performed at the age of 12. During a previous caesarean section under general anaesthesia pseudocholinesterase deficiency was discovered. Ultrasound guided spinal anaesthesia was performed enabling a second caesarean section under loco-regional anaesthesia.


Albert Einstein once said, “in the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity.” There’s no question that we’re in the midst of a global crisis. There’s no doubt that a crisis creates problems, lots of them, but it also creates opportunities. Something that every anaesthetist does day in day out safely, intubation of trachea, is now become a risk factor for spread of the disease. So where is the opportunity in this crisis? In the west, regional anaesthesia is often used as an adjunct rather than as sole anaesthetic technique, as part of multimodal analgesia in patients who are being operated under general anaesthesia. Unfortunately, general anaesthesia requires airway manipulation that is associated with aerosol generation and risks transmission of corona virus. This is a risk that can be averted with use of regional anaesthesia techniques for procedures that can be done with patient awake rather than asleep. At the beginning of the pandemic with surge of patients requiring endotracheal intubation and ventilation, increased intensive care admissions affected anaesthesia services in many ways. The increased number of patients needing critical care increased the demand for drugs used in both anaesthesia and critical care and this demand led to shortage of anaesthesia drugs and led the Association of Anaesthetists (AOA) and the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA), working closely with the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer at NHS England to produce a guidance which summarised potential mitigations to be used in the management of such demand. Direct alternative drugs and techniques were offered (1). The options identified in the guidelines were not exhaustive but give a way of thinking about this situation we all have landed up in. We were unsure of how long this demand would continue and how we would manage the situation. This is where the opportunity to use regional anaesthesia for procedures that could be done purely under neuraxial or peripheral nerve blocks became


Author(s):  
Pratibha Deshmukh ◽  
Parag Sable ◽  
Priyanka Deshmukh ◽  
Vivek Chakole

Currently we are at the peak of the second wave of pandemic.  Availability of beds & oxygen is at nadir. The patients coming to us for surgery are the ones where surgery cannot wait. Mainly the load is obstetric. As a matter of COVID pandemic policy we are using regional anaesthesia unless contraindicated or the surgery demands general anaesthesia. The aim is to avoid/reduce aerosolization which is part & parcel of GA, despite the efforts to minimise it. The policy is to protect the anaesthesiologists, surgeons, OT staff & other patients as well. The present manuscript is to review the role of regional anaesthesia & its safe performance.


2021 ◽  
pp. 175045892110640
Author(s):  
Benjamin Thomas Vincent Gowers ◽  
Michael Sean Greenhalgh ◽  
Kathryn Dyson ◽  
Karthikeyan P Iyengar ◽  
Vijay K Jain ◽  
...  

Background: Hip fractures are common presentations to orthopaedic departments, and their surgical management often results in blood transfusions. Compared with general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia reduces the need for transfusions and mortality in the wider surgical population. Aims: In hip fracture patients, our primary outcome measure was to examine any relationship between anaesthetic modality and transfusion rates. The secondary outcome measure was to assess the relationship between anaesthetic modality and one-year mortality. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 280 patients was carried out in 2017 and 2018. Data were collected from patient records, local transfusion laboratory and the national hip fracture database. Results: A total of 59.6% had regional and 40.4% general anaesthesia. Regional anaesthesia patients were younger with fewer comorbidities (p < .05). About 19.8% regional and 34.5% general anaesthesia patients received transfusions (odds ratio (OR) = 0.47, p < .05); 13.6% were taking anticoagulants and were less likely to receive a regional anaesthetic (31.6% versus 64%, OR = 0.26, p < .05). One-year mortality was 27% for regional and 37% for general anaesthetic patients (OR = 0.64, p = .09). Conclusion: Regional anaesthesia halved the risk of blood transfusion. Anticoagulated patients were 74% less likely to receive regional anaesthetics, but had no additional transfusion risk. With optimisation, a larger proportion of patients could have regional anaesthesia.


2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Mastan Saheb Shaik ◽  
Venkata Rama Rao M ◽  
Sailaja K

Context: There are limited studies indicating the incideance of post operative morbidity and mortality in high risk patients. Urological procedures constitute a major portion of geriatric surgeries where a cardiac obligation is almost inevitable and selected for this study purpose.Aims: To compare the incidence of post operative cardiovascular complications during regional and general anesthetic techniques in patients with known cardiac risk undergoing urological surgeriesSettings and Design: Prospective randomized double blind study.Methods and Material: 40 patients aged above 50 years posted for elective urological surgeries were enrolled in the study after obtaining approval from hospital ethics committee and written informed consent from the patients. Patients were divided into two groups A& B. Group A (n=20) received general and group B (n=20) received regional anaesthesia (spinal/ Epidural). All the patients received standard premedication and their basal vitals( BP, HR, ECG pattern) were recorded. The same parameters were monitored in the post operative period at regular intervals.Statistical analysis used: Student T test is used to test the significance of stastical difference in the variables between the two groups.Results: The mean heart rate and the mean arterial blood pressure were increased (P<0.01) in the general anaesthesia group. Group A showed 10% incidence of ECG changes and group B showed 35% incidence of ECG changes. But the changes in the hemodynamics were not significant.Conclusions: There is no difference between regional anaesthesia and general anaesthesia regarding the post operative outcome after urological procedures with respective hemodynamic changes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document