Suppr超能文献

腹股沟疝修补术中的局部、区域或全身麻醉:多中心随机试验。

Local, regional, or general anaesthesia in groin hernia repair: multicentre randomised trial.

作者信息

Nordin Pär, Zetterström Henrik, Gunnarsson Ulf, Nilsson Erik

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Ostersund Hospital, Ostersund, Sweden.

出版信息

Lancet. 2003 Sep 13;362(9387):853-8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14339-5.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In specialised centres, local anaesthesia is almost always used in groin hernia surgery; whereas in routine surgical practice, regional or general anaesthesia are the methods of choice. In this three-arm multicentre randomised trial, we aimed to compare the three methods of anaesthesia and to determine the extent to which general surgeons can reproduce the excellent results obtained with local anaesthesia in specialised hernia centres.

METHODS

Between January, 1999, and December, 2001, 616 patients at ten hospitals, were randomly assigned to have either local, regional, or general anaesthesia. Primary endpoints were early and late postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints were duration of surgery and anaesthesia, length of postoperative hospital stay, and time to normal activity. Analysis was by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

Intraoperative tolerance for local anaesthesia was high. In the early postoperative period, local anaesthesia was superior to the other two types with respect to almost all endpoints. At 8 days' and 30 days' follow-up, there were no significant differences between the three groups. Although the mean duration of surgery was longer, the total anaesthesia time-ie, time from the start of anaesthesia until the patient left the operating room-was significantly shorter than it was for regional or general anaesthesia.

INTERPRETATION

Local anaesthesia has substantial advantages compared with regional or general anaesthesia, such as shorter duration of admission, less postoperative pain, and fewer micturition difficulties. The favourable results obtained with local anaesthesia in specialised hernia centres can, to a great extent, be reproduced by general surgeons in routine surgical practice.

摘要

背景

在专业中心,腹股沟疝手术几乎总是采用局部麻醉;而在常规外科手术中,区域麻醉或全身麻醉是首选方法。在这项三臂多中心随机试验中,我们旨在比较这三种麻醉方法,并确定普通外科医生在多大程度上能够重现专业疝中心采用局部麻醉所取得的优异效果。

方法

1999年1月至2001年12月期间,十家医院的616例患者被随机分配接受局部、区域或全身麻醉。主要终点是术后早期和晚期并发症。次要终点是手术和麻醉持续时间、术后住院时间以及恢复正常活动的时间。分析采用意向性分析。

结果

局部麻醉的术中耐受性较高。在术后早期,就几乎所有终点而言,局部麻醉优于其他两种麻醉方式。在8天和30天的随访中,三组之间无显著差异。虽然平均手术时间较长,但总的麻醉时间(即从麻醉开始到患者离开手术室的时间)明显短于区域麻醉或全身麻醉。

解读

与区域麻醉或全身麻醉相比,局部麻醉具有显著优势,如住院时间较短、术后疼痛较轻以及排尿困难较少。普通外科医生在常规手术中能够在很大程度上重现专业疝中心采用局部麻醉所取得的良好效果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验