scholarly journals Effect of Lidocaine on Patient Satisfaction in Spinal Anesthesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 50-55
Author(s):  
Mohammad Fathi ◽  
Nilofar Massoudi ◽  
Ali Dabbagh ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia

scholarly journals Open Appendicectomy under Spinal Anesthesia—A Valuable Alternative during COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Vol 07 (02) ◽  
pp. e69-e72
Author(s):  
Dinh Van Chi Mai ◽  
Alex Sagar ◽  
Oliver Claydon ◽  
Ji Young Park ◽  
Niteen Tapuria ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Stated Preference ◽  
Case Series ◽  
District General Hospital ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Open Appendicectomy ◽  
Surgical Department ◽  
The United Kingdom

Abstract Introduction Concerns relating to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and general anesthesia (GA) prompted our department to consider that open appendicectomy under spinal anesthesia (SA) avoids aerosolization from intubation and laparoscopy. While common in developing nations, it is unusual in the United Kingdom. We present the first United Kingdom case series and discuss its potential role during and after this pandemic. Methods We prospectively studied patients with appendicitis at a British district general hospital who were unsuitable for conservative management and consequently underwent open appendicectomy under SA. We also reviewed patient satisfaction after 30 days. This ran for 5 weeks from March 25th, 2020 until the surgical department reverted to the laparoscopic appendicectomy as the standard of care. Main outcomes were 30-day complication rates and patient satisfaction. Results None of the included seven patients were COVID positive. The majority (four-sevenths) had complicated appendicitis. There were no major adverse (Clavien-Dindo grade III to V) postoperative events. Two patients suffered minor postoperative complications. Two experienced intraoperative pain. Mean operative time was 44 minutes. Median length of stay and return to activity was 1 and 14 days, respectively. Although four stated preference in hindsight for GA, the majority (five-sevenths) were satisfied with the operative experience under SA. Discussion Although contraindications, risk of pain, and specific complications may be limiting, our series demonstrates open appendicectomy under SA to be safe and feasible in the United Kingdom. The technique could be a valuable contingency for COVID-suspected cases and patients with high-risk respiratory disease.

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 Muscle-splitting mini-incision cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia: cost-effective equitable minimally invasive surgery in laparoscopy era

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-9
Author(s):  
Jay Shah ◽  
Ram Dayal Mandal ◽  
Jenifei Shah ◽  
Jesifei Shah
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Bile Duct ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Open Cholecystectomy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Wound Complications ◽  
Oral Liquid ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Mini Incision

Introduction: Conventional open cholecystectomy has been increasingly replaced by laparoscopy which requires resources for expensive equipment, training, and maintenance. Muscle-splitting mini-incision cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia has comparable outcomes to laparoscopy and requires fewer resources. This study analyzes the feasibility and outcome of muscle-splitting mini-incision cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia. Methods: All consecutive cases of muscle-splitting mini-incision cholecystectomy (MC) performed for symptomatic cholelithiasis during three years ending in December 2019, at a periphery hospital in Janakpur, province-2, Nepal, were included. Complicated cholelithiasis (biliary pancreatitis, jaundice, cholangitis, dilated common bile duct) was excluded. Written informed consents were obtained. The need for general anesthesia, complications during and after surgery, and patient satisfaction were analyzed descriptively. Ethical approval was obtained. Results: Out of 148 MC completed under spinal anesthesia, six (4.1%) required fentanyl for shoulder discomfort. Mild post-operative pain was reported by 124 (83.8%) at six hours and 146 (98.6%) at 12 hours. The intravenous drip was stopped after surgery and oral liquid with analgesics started in two hours in 143 patients (96.6%). Post-operative antibiotic was given in nine, for 2(1.4%) cholecysto-duodenal fistulas, 4(2.7%) diabetics, and 3(2%) mucoceles. The mean hospital stay was one night. Wound complications occurred in 6(2.8%). Overall, 144 (97.3%) were satisfied and would recommend the procedure to others. Histopathology revealed adenocarcinoma in one case. There was no bile-duct injury, re-surgery, or mortality. Conclusion: Muscle-splitting mini-incision open cholecystectomy (MC) under spinal anesthesia is safe and effective with early feeding, short hospital stays, less demand for resources, and good patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals COMPARISON OF NEONATAL APGAR SCORES AND PATIENT SATISFACTION LEVELS IN SPINAL VERSUS GENERAL ANESTHESIA IN ELECTIVE CESAREAN SECTIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 1183-87
Author(s):  
Syed Khurram Naseer ◽  
Aijaz Ali ◽  
Shizan Hamid Feroz ◽  
Dr Danish ◽  
Amir Sohail
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Cesarean Section ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Elective Cesarean Section ◽  
Military Hospital ◽  
P Value ◽  
Apgar Scores ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Elective Cesarean

Objective: To compare patients undergoing cesarean section under spinal and general anesthesia in terms of neonatal APGAR scores and patient satisfaction. Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Departments of Anesthesia and Gynecology and Obstetrics, Combined Military Hospital Peshawar, for six months from Mar to Aug 2019. Methodology: In this study, 120 females with a singleton pregnancy of 36-40 weeks, and requiring a non-emergency elective cesarean section were enrolled through consecutive sampling in the study. The patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups of 60 women each through random table numbers. Group A received spinal anesthesia and group B general anesthesia. APGAR score was assessed at 5 minutes after delivery, and score of ≥7 was taken as satisfactory. Patient's satisfaction level regarding anesthesia was recorded on a visual analogue scale of 0 (extremely unsatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied), and score of ≥7 was taken as satisfactory. Results: Women receiving general anesthesia were more satisfied as compared to receiving spinal anesthesia (95% vs. 78.3%; p-value 0.007). There was no significant difference in terms of APGAR scores in general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia (83.33% versus 90%; p-value 0.283). Conclusion: After an elective caesarean section, more mothers were satisfied after receiving general anesthesia as compared to spinal anesthesia. However, both types of anaesthesia were found to be equally safe for babies born in terms of APGAR scores at 5 minutes.

scholarly journals Patient Satisfaction and Complications after Spinal Anesthesia-Direct Interview at Postanesthetic Clinic-

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 182-187
Author(s):  
Kazuyoshi NAKAHASHI ◽  
Yasunori MATSUNARI ◽  
Noriko YONEMOTO ◽  
Katsuji HIRAI ◽  
Katsuyasu KITAGUCHI ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia

scholarly journals General, regional and combination anesthesia in knee arthroplasty: A multicenter cohort-study of 15326 cases analyzing patient satisfaction and perioperative pain management

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (6_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0024
Author(s):  
Felix Greimel ◽  
Günther Maderbach ◽  
Clemens Baier ◽  
Armin Keshmiri ◽  
Timo Schwarz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Anesthetic Techniques ◽  
Perioperative Pain ◽  
Positive Tendency ◽  
Perioperative Pain Management

Aims and Objectives: In recent years, a steadily increasing number of total knee arthroplasty implants have been reported. After having ameliorated operation techniques and material, pain management and anesthetic methods have come into focus. Various anesthesia procedures for the surgical procedure itself as well as pain management programs have been developed. One of the main goals is to reduce postoperative pain and enable better and faster mobilization in the postoperative period. The present study aims to compare the use of general and regional anesthesia and their combination in terms of perioperative pain management and patient satisfaction. Materials and Methods: In the present cohort study, 15.326 patients were examined in 46 orthopedic departments after knee replacement surgery from 2009-2015. The parameters were analyzed on the first postoperative day as part of the project “QUIPS - Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management”, an initiative to compare the outcome parameters in participating hospitals. Primary outcome values were pain levels (activity, minimum and maximum pain, and pain management satisfaction) on a NRS scale. Pain medication necessity was analyzed using the WHO pain ladder classification. Parameters were compared between the types of anesthesia used: general, regional and combination anesthesia. Results: Pain scores and pain management satisfaction were significantly better in the groups of either spinal or peripheral anesthesia combined with general anesthesia (p0.001, respectively). Patients who received the combination of general and spinal anesthesia were associated with the lowest need for opioids (p0.001). Conclusion: The use of a combined general and spinal anesthesia as well as using a combination of general and peripheral anesthesia in knee arthroplasty was associated with a highly significant advantage to other anesthetic techniques regarding perioperative pain management in daily clinical practice, but maybe below clinical relevance. Furthermore they were associated with positive tendency considering side effects and subjective well-being parameters.

Chloroprocaine versus prilocaine for spinal anesthesia in ambulatory knee arthroscopy: a double-blind randomized trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (10) ◽  
pp. 944-949
Author(s):  
Elsbeth Wesselink ◽  
Godelief Janssen-van den Hurk ◽  
Rien van der Vegt ◽  
Cornelis Slagt ◽  
Jan van der Aa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Knee Arthroscopy ◽  
Sensory Block ◽  
Complete Recovery ◽  
Rapid Onset ◽  
Motor Blockade ◽  
Urine Retention ◽  
Double Blind

BackgroundIn ambulatory lower limb surgery, spinal anesthesia with rapid onset and a short duration of block is preferable. We hypothesized that the use of 2-chloroprocaine would be associated with a faster motor block recovery compared with prilocaine in knee arthroscopy. A difference of 15 min was considered clinically relevant.Methods150 patients were randomly allocated to receive intrathecally either 40 mg of 2-chloroprocaine or 40 mg of prilocaine. The primary outcome was the time to complete recovery from motor blockade. Secondary outcomes included time to full regression of sensory block, peak sensory block level, urine retention needing catheterization, time until hospital discharge, incidence of transient neurologic symptoms and patient satisfaction.ResultsTime to complete recovery from motor blockade was 15 min shorter for 2-chloroprocaine (median: 60 min; IQR: 60–82.5) than for prilocaine (median: 75 min; IQR: 60–90; p=0.004). 2-Chloroprocaine also resulted in faster full regression of sensory block (median: 120 min; IQR: 90–135 compared with median: 165 min; IQR: 135–190, p<0.001) and faster time to hospital discharge (mean difference: 57 min; 95% CI 38 to 77, p<0.001). Peak sensory block was higher in the 2-chloroprocaine group (median: T9; IQR: T6–T12 compared with median: T10; IQR: T8–T12, p<0.008). Patient satisfaction and urine retention needing catheterization were equal in both groups.ConclusionsIn knee arthroscopy, spinal anesthesia with 2-chloroprocaine results in a faster recovery of motor and sensory block, leading to quicker hospital discharge compared with prilocaine.Trial registration numberNTR6796.

scholarly journals Spine surgery under awake spinal anesthesia: an Egyptian experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (6) ◽  
pp. E6
Author(s):  
Mohamed Fawzy M. Khattab ◽  
David A. W. Sykes ◽  
Muhammad M. Abd-El-Barr ◽  
Romaric Waguia ◽  
Amr Montaser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Assistive Device ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Spinal Diseases ◽  
Perioperative Morbidity ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

OBJECTIVE Despite tremendous advancements in biomedical science and surgical technique, spine surgeries are still associated with considerable rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Multiple novel techniques have been employed in recent years to adequately treat spinal diseases while mitigating the perioperative morbidity associated with traditional spinal surgery. Some of these techniques include minimally invasive methods and novel anesthetic and analgesic methods. In recent years, awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia has gained attention as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). In this study, the authors retrospectively reviewed a single-institution Egyptian experience with awake spine surgery using spinal anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS Overall, 149 patients who were admitted to As-Salam International Hospital in Cairo for lumbar and lower thoracic spine surgeries, between 2019 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected and analyzed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed at different time intervals including preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was queried through a questionnaire assessing patient preference for traditional anesthesia or spinal anesthesia. RESULTS Of the 149 patients who successfully received spine surgery with spinal anesthesia, there were 49 males and 100 females. The cohort age ranged from 22 to 85 years with a mean of 47.5 years. The operative time ranged from 45 to 300 minutes with a mean estimated blood loss (EBL) of 385 ± 156 mL. No major cardiopulmonary or intraoperative complications occurred, and patients were able to eat immediately after surgery. Patients were able to ambulate without an assistive device 6 to 8 hours after surgery. Decompression and fusion patients were discharged on postoperative days 2 and 3, respectively. VAS and ODI scores demonstrated excellent pain relief, which was maintained at the 1-year postoperative follow-up. No 30- or 90-day readmissions were recorded. Of 149 patients, 124 were satisfied with spinal anesthesia and would recommend spinal anesthesia to other patients. The remaining patients were not satisfied with spinal anesthesia but reported being pleased with their postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. One patient was converted to GA due to the duration of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS Patients who received spinal anesthesia for awake spine surgery experienced short stays in the hospital, no readmissions, patient satisfaction, and well-controlled pain. The results of this study have validated the growing body of literature that demonstrates that awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia is safe and associated with superior outcomes compared with traditional GA. Additionally, the ability to address chronic debilitating conditions, such as spinal conditions, with minimal use of valuable resources, such as ventilators, proved useful during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be a model should other stressors on healthcare systems arise, especially in developing areas of the world.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document