Suppr超能文献

一项比较微波子宫内膜切除术局部麻醉与全身麻醉的随机试验。

A randomised trial comparing local versus general anaesthesia for microwave endometrial ablation.

作者信息

Wallage S, Cooper K G, Graham W J, Parkin D E

机构信息

Department of Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, Scotland, UK.

出版信息

BJOG. 2003 Sep;110(9):799-807.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acceptability of microwave endometrial ablation using a local anaesthesia/sedation regime or general anaesthesia. To compare recovery following treatment with each type of anaesthetic.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised controlled trial with follow up of women who declined randomisation.

SETTING

The gynaecology department of a large teaching hospital in the UK.

POPULATION

All women referred for microwave endometrial ablation at the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary between July 1999 and September 2000 without a medical reason to favour one or other type of anaesthetic.

METHODS

191 women were equally randomised to undergo microwave endometrial ablation under general or local anaesthesia. Details were also collected for women not randomised because of an anaesthetic preference. All procedures were undertaken in an operating theatre.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collected by questionnaire including the woman's view of treatment acceptability, operative details and post-operative recovery.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent of eligible women would consider treatment under local anaesthesia. Ninety-one percent of microwave endometrial ablation procedures that started under local anaesthesia were completed without conversion to general anaesthesia. Anaesthetic type and allocation by randomisation or preference made no significant difference to the proportion of women describing treatment as totally or generally acceptable at two weeks. Neither parity nor cavity size predicted acceptability. Women allocated general anaesthesia were more likely to describe the procedure as totally acceptable and to choose the same anaesthetic again. There was no significant difference between anaesthetic groups regarding post-operative pain, nausea or recovery time.

CONCLUSIONS

Microwave endometrial ablation under local anaesthesia was acceptable to the majority of women referred for treatment. There was no recovery advantage from local anaesthesia and almost 1 in 10 women who starting treatment under local anaesthesia needed a general anaesthetic because of discomfort. The incidence of post-operative pain and nausea means that treatment with this local anaesthetic/sedation regime remains a day case rather than an outpatient procedure.

摘要

目的

比较采用局部麻醉/镇静方案或全身麻醉进行微波子宫内膜消融术的可接受性。比较每种麻醉方式治疗后的恢复情况。

设计

前瞻性随机对照试验,对拒绝随机分组的女性进行随访。

地点

英国一家大型教学医院的妇科。

研究对象

1999年7月至2000年9月间转诊至阿伯丁皇家医院接受微波子宫内膜消融术且无医学理由倾向于某种麻醉方式的所有女性。

方法

191名女性被随机分为两组,分别接受全身麻醉或局部麻醉下的微波子宫内膜消融术。还收集了因麻醉偏好未参与随机分组的女性的详细信息。所有手术均在手术室进行。

主要观察指标

通过问卷调查收集的数据,包括女性对治疗可接受性的看法、手术细节和术后恢复情况。

结果

69%符合条件的女性会考虑接受局部麻醉下的治疗。在局部麻醉下开始的微波子宫内膜消融术中,91%在未转为全身麻醉的情况下完成。麻醉类型以及随机分组或偏好分配对两周时将治疗描述为完全或总体可接受的女性比例没有显著差异。产次和宫腔大小均不能预测可接受性。接受全身麻醉的女性更有可能将手术描述为完全可接受,并再次选择相同的麻醉方式。麻醉组在术后疼痛、恶心或恢复时间方面没有显著差异。

结论

对于大多数转诊接受治疗的女性来说,局部麻醉下的微波子宫内膜消融术是可以接受的。局部麻醉在恢复方面没有优势,近十分之一在局部麻醉下开始治疗的女性因不适需要全身麻醉。术后疼痛和恶心的发生率意味着这种局部麻醉/镇静方案的治疗仍然是日间手术而非门诊手术。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验