Providing Anesthesia Care in Resource-limited Settings

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (3) ◽  
pp. 561-569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Promise Ariyo ◽  
Miguel Trelles ◽  
Rahmatullah Helmand ◽  
Yama Amir ◽  
Ghulam Haidar Hassani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Perioperative Mortality ◽  
Patient Demographics ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
Anesthesia Providers ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Surgical Duration

Abstract Background Anesthesia is integral to improving surgical care in low-resource settings. Anesthesia providers who work in these areas should be familiar with the particularities associated with providing care in these settings, including the types and outcomes of commonly performed anesthetic procedures. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of anesthetic procedures performed at Médecins Sans Frontières facilities from July 2008 to June 2014. The authors collected data on patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and patient outcome. The factors associated with perioperative mortality were analyzed. Results Over the 6-yr period, 75,536 anesthetics were provided to adult patients. The most common anesthesia techniques were spinal anesthesia (45.56%) and general anesthesia without intubation (33.85%). Overall perioperative mortality was 0.25%. Emergent procedures (0.41%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 15.86; 95% CI, 2.14 to 115.58), specialized surgeries (2.74%; AOR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.27 to 11.47), and surgical duration more than 6 h (9.76%; AOR, 4.02; 95% CI, 1.09 to 14.88) were associated with higher odds of mortality than elective surgeries, minor surgeries, and surgical duration less than 1 h, respectively. Compared with general anesthesia with intubation, spinal anesthesia, regional anesthesia, and general anesthesia without intubation were associated with lower perioperative mortality rates of 0.04% (AOR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.18), 0.06% (AOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.92), and 0.14% (AOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.45), respectively. Conclusions A wide range of anesthetics can be carried out safely in resource-limited settings. Providers need to be aware of the potential risks and the outcomes associated with anesthesia administration in these settings.

scholarly journals Comparison of General versus Spinal Anesthesia in Patients undergoing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Prospective Randomized Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Rupak Bhattarai ◽  
Chittarranjan Das ◽  
Bandana Paudel ◽  
Sailoj Jung Dangi
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
P Value ◽  
Recovery Duration ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Surgical Duration

Background Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, widely used procedure by urologists for removing renal stones nowadays. Generally, it is preferred in general anesthesia but here in our study we have compared it with spinal anesthesia to know its safety and efficacy.Material and Methods Sixty patients of either sex, aged between 20-60 years, ASA – Grade I and II, with stones size larger than 15 mm posted for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy were randomly selected. Patient was divided in two groups 30 each, Spinal Anesthesia (S) and General Anesthesia (G). Patient’s stones sizes, numbers & location, Anesthesia duration, Surgical duration, Recovery duration, Blood loss and Blood transfusion, Analgesic demand, post-operative Nausea & Vomiting, Patient satisfaction, Hospital stays and Heart Rate and Mean arterial pressure between two groups were compared.Results There was no significant difference in terms of mean age, weight, stones sizes, and numbers and its location. The p value for Anesthesia duration and surgical duration were 0.144 and 0.22 which was insignificant. Recovery duration (p-value 0.007), Blood loss (p-value 0.004) were significantly lesser in spinal anesthesia group. There was no significant difference in nausea and vomiting, patient satisfaction when compared between two groups. But Analgesic demand, Blood Transfusion and Hospital stays significantly found to be decreased in spinal anesthesia groups (p<0.05). The mean of MAP showed no significant difference except in 10 and 20 minutes.Conclusion Spinal anesthesia tends to be as effective as general anesthesia for PCNL and beneficial in terms of recovery duration, blood loss, analgesic demands, hospital stays, hence decrease the cost of patient. Journal of Nobel Medical CollegeVolume 5, Number 1, Issue 8, January-July 2016, Page: 37-42

scholarly journals PERBANDINGAN NYERI YANG TERJADI 24 JAM PASCA OPERASI PADA PENDERITA YANG DIBERIKAN ANESTESIA UMUM DAN ANESTESIA SPINAL

e-CliniC ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fiska M. Muhammad ◽  
Lucky Kumaat ◽  
Iddo Posangi
Keyword(s):  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Emotional Experience ◽  
P Value ◽  
Inhalation Anesthesia ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anesthesia Spinal

Abstract: Pain can be described as an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with tissue damage which has already occured or potentially will be occurred. General anesthesia is oftenly perfomed on a wide range of surgical procedures. There are two techniques of general anesthesia: inhalation anesthesia and intravenous anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia is one of the simplest and most reliable of regional anesthesia technique. This study aimed to compare the pain between general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia 24 hours post operative. This was an analytical prospective study. Samples were 24 patients consisting of 12 patients with general anesthesia and 12 patients with spinal anesthesia. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 20-60 years old, duration of operation 1-4 hours, and the operations were caesarean section and hysterectomy. The pain assessment used VAS score as well as blood pressure, pulse, and respiration. Data were statistically analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney test and showed a p-value 0.876. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in 24-hour-post-operative pain using VAS score among patients with general anesthesia and with spinal anesthesia.Keywords: VAS scores, general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia.Abstrak: Nyeri dapat digambarkan sebagai suatu pengalaman sensorik dan emosional yang tidak menyenangkan yang berkaitan dengan kerusakan jaringan yang sudah atau berpotensi terjadi. Anestesia umum sering dilalukan pada berbagai macam prosedur pembedahan dan terbagi atas anestesia inhalasi dan anestesia intravena. Anestesia spinal merupakan salah satu anestesia yang paling sederhana dan paling dapat diandalkan dari tehnik anestesia regional. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui perbandingan nyeri pada pemberian anestesia umum dan anestesia spinal 24 jam pasca operasi. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode analitik prospektif. Terdapat 24 sampel yang terbagi atas 12 penggunaan anestesia umum dan 12 penggunaan anestesia spinal, dengan kriteria rentang umur pasien 20-60 tahun, lama operasi 1-4 jam serta jenis pembedahan seksio sesarea dan histerektomi. Penilaian nyeri menggunakan skor VAS serta tekanan darah, nadi dan respirasi. Data diolah dengan menggunakan program SPSS versi 20. Hasil uji statistik Mann-Whitney mendapatkan nilai p= 0,876 yang menunjukkan tidak terdapat perbedaan bermakna dari skor VAS. 24 jam pasca operasi dengan anestesia umum dan anestesia spinal. Simpulan: Tidak terdapat perbedaan bermakna nyeri 24 jam pasca operaasi dinilai dengan skor VAS pada pemberian anestesia umum dan anestesia spinal.Kata kunci: Skor VAS, anestesia general, anestesia spinal

scholarly journals Perioperative mortality rates in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. e000810 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua S Ng-Kamstra ◽  
Sumedha Arya ◽  
Sarah L M Greenberg ◽  
Meera Kotagal ◽  
Catherine Arsenault ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Perioperative Mortality ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Wide Range

IntroductionThe Lancet Commission on Global Surgery proposed the perioperative mortality rate (POMR) as one of the six key indicators of the strength of a country’s surgical system. Despite its widespread use in high-income settings, few studies have described procedure-specific POMR across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to estimate POMR across a wide range of surgical procedures in LMICs. We also describe how POMR is defined and reported in the LMIC literature to provide recommendations for future monitoring in resource-constrained settings.MethodsWe did a systematic review of studies from LMICs published from 2009 to 2014 reporting POMR for any surgical procedure. We extracted select variables in duplicate from each included study and pooled estimates of POMR by type of procedure using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions and the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilise variances.ResultsWe included 985 studies conducted across 83 LMICs, covering 191 types of surgical procedures performed on 1 020 869 patients. Pooled POMR ranged from less than 0.1% for appendectomy, cholecystectomy and caesarean delivery to 20%–27% for typhoid intestinal perforation, intracranial haemorrhage and operative head injury. We found no consistent associations between procedure-specific POMR and Human Development Index (HDI) or income-group apart from emergency peripartum hysterectomy POMR, which appeared higher in low-income countries. Inpatient mortality was the most commonly used definition, though only 46.2% of studies explicitly defined the time frame during which deaths accrued.ConclusionsEfforts to improve access to surgical care in LMICs should be accompanied by investment in improving the quality and safety of care. To improve the usefulness of POMR as a safety benchmark, standard reporting items should be included with any POMR estimate. Choosing a basket of procedures for which POMR is tracked may offer institutions and countries the standardisation required to meaningfully compare surgical outcomes across contexts and improve population health outcomes.

Neuraxial Anesthesia and Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity

2018 ◽  
pp. 225-229
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Postoperative Morbidity ◽  
Postoperative Mortality ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Neuraxial Blockade ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Wide Range

This case focuses on the effects of neuraxial blockade on postoperative mortality and morbidity by asking the question: What are the effects of neuraxial blockade with epidural or spinal anesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality? This systematic review examined all trials with randomization to intraoperative neuraxial blockade (with epidural or spinal anesthesia) or no neuraxial blockade for which data were available before January 1, 1997. The study included 9,559 patients over 141 included trials. Study results demonstrated that neuraxial blockade reduces morbidity and postoperative complications in a wide range of patients, independent of surgery type, choice of neuraxial technique, or use of general anesthesia.

scholarly journals Using Network and Complexity Theories to Understand the Functionality of Referral Systems for Surgical Patients in Resource-Limited Settings, the Case of Malawi

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Pittalis ◽  
Ruairí Brugha ◽  
Leon Bijlmakers ◽  
Frances Cunningham ◽  
Gerald Mwapasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Complex Adaptive Systems ◽  
Adaptive Systems ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Referral System ◽  
Network Member ◽  
Resource Limited Settings ◽  
Resource Limited ◽  
Referral Systems

Background: A functionally effective referral system that links district level hospitals (DLHs) with referral hospitals (RHs) facilitates surgical patients getting timely access to specialist surgical expertise not available locally. Most published studies from low- and middle-income countries have examined only selected aspects of such referral systems, which are often fragmented. Inadequate understanding of their functionality leads to missed opportunities for improvements. This research aimed to investigate the functionality of the referral system for surgical patients in Malawi, a low-income country. Methods: This study, conducted in 2017-2019, integrated principles from two theories. We used network theory to explore interprofessional relationships between DLHs and RHs at referral network, member (hospital) and community levels; and used principles from complex adaptive systems theory to unpack the mechanisms of network dynamics. The study employed mixed-methods, specifically surveys (n=22 DLHs), interviews with clinicians (n=20), and a database of incoming referrals at two sentinel RHs over a six-month period. Results: Obstacles to referral system functionality in Malawi included weaknesses in formal coordination structures, notably: unclear scope of practice of district surgical teams; lack of referral protocols; lack of referral communication standards; and misaligned organisational practices. Deficiencies in informal relationships included mistrust and uncollaborative operating environments, undermining coordination between DLHs and RHs. Poor system functionality adversely impacted the quality, efficiency and safety of patient referral-related care. Respondents identified aspects of the district-referral hospital relationships, which could be leveraged to build more collaborative and productive inter-professional relationships in the future. Conclusion: Multi-level interventions are needed to address failures at both ends of the referral pathway. This study captured new insights into longstanding problems in referral systems in resource-limited settings, contributing to a better understanding of how to build more functional systems to optimise the continuum and quality of surgical care for rural populations in similar settings.

Scenario of General Anesthesia for Cesarean Section in Rural Tertiary Care Center in High Altitude Karnali Academy of Health Sciences

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramesh Bhattarai ◽  
Rajiv Shah ◽  
Sita Dhakal ◽  
Pragya Malla ◽  
Srijana Sapkota
Keyword(s):  
Cesarean Section ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
High Altitude ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Neonatal Outcome ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Tertiary Care Center ◽  
Cord Prolapse

Background: General anesthesia for cesarean section is being less popular for cesarean section in present days but sometime general anesthesia is inevitable. The aim of the study is to assess the trends of general anesthesia, indications, clinical outcome in mother and fetus in high altitude setting of tertiary care center of Nepal. Methods: We conducted descriptive cross-sectional study all cases of cesarean section in Karnali Academy of health Sciences (KAHS) located at high altitude over three years period   in our institute. Data were retrieved from the hospital records during three fiscal year (Jan 1st 2017 to Jan Dec 31st 2019). The record of all the patients who underwent cesarean section under general anesthesia was reviewed for demographic details, indication of general anesthesia, trends for general and spinal anesthesia and maternal and neonatal outcome. Results: Out of total deliveries 2175, 309 (14.2%) cases account for cesarean section. Among them, 52 (17%) required general anesthesia . Eclampsia 19(36%) remain the major indication for General Anesthesia in cesarean section followed by failure of spinal anesthesia number 14 (26%) , cord prolapse six (12%), antepartam haemorrhage five (10%), spinal site infection four (8%), Khiphoscoliosis two(4%), Patients request  two (4%). Use for general anesthesia technique was consistent for three years with slow rise in use of spinal anesthesia . There was no any anesthesia related maternal mortality and nine intraoperative neonatal   Conclusions:  General anesthesia practices are consistently required in rural high-altitude setup. Eclampsia is the commonest indication followed by failure of spinal anesthesia and cord prolapse. Neonatal outcome is still not good.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document