Casati A, Cappelleri G, Aldegheri G, Marchetti C, Messina M, De Ponti A
Department of Anesthesiology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita et Salute University, Milan, Italy.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2004 Jun;70(6):493-502.
The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, efficiency and surgeon's satisfaction of total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil with those of spinal or peripheral nerve blocks for outpatient knee arthroscopy.
One hundred and twenty patients undergoing elective outpatient knee arthroscopy were randomly allocated to receive total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil (40), combined sciatic-femoral nerve block (40), or spinal anesthesia (40). Preparation times, surgeon's satisfaction, and discharge times with the 3 anesthesia techniques were measured. Anesthesia-related costs were also compared based on costs of drugs, disposable materials, and anesthesia and nurse staff.
Preparation time was 13 min (8-22 min) with general anesthesia, 15 min (5-30 min) with spinal anesthesia and 15 min (5-25 min) with sciatic-femoral blocks (p=0.006). Surgeon's satisfaction was similar in the 3 groups, but 17 patients receiving peripheral nerve block (42%) and 12 receiving spinal anesthesia (30%) by-passed the postanesthesia care unit after surgery as compared with only 2 general anesthesia patients (5%) (p=0.01). Discharge from the postanesthesia care unit required 5 min (5-20 min) after peripheral block as compared with 15 min (5-25 min) with spinal and 15 min (5-80 min) with general anesthesia (p=0.005); however, stay in the Day-Surgery Unit was shorter after general anesthesia [170 (100-400) min] than peripheral [265 (110-485) min] or spinal blocks [230 (95-800) min] (p=0.026). Urinary retention was reported in 3 spinal patients only (8%) (p=0.03).
Regional anesthesia techniques reduce the rate of admission and the duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit as compared with general anesthesia. Peripheral rather than spinal nerve blocks should be preferred to minimise the risk for urinary retention.
本研究旨在比较丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼全静脉麻醉与脊髓或外周神经阻滞用于门诊膝关节镜检查时的疗效、效率及外科医生满意度。
120例行择期门诊膝关节镜检查的患者被随机分配接受丙泊酚与瑞芬太尼全静脉麻醉(40例)、坐骨-股神经联合阻滞(40例)或脊髓麻醉(40例)。测量3种麻醉技术的准备时间、外科医生满意度及出院时间。还基于药物、一次性材料以及麻醉和护理人员的费用比较了麻醉相关成本。
全身麻醉的准备时间为13分钟(8 - 22分钟),脊髓麻醉为15分钟(5 - 30分钟),坐骨-股神经阻滞为15分钟(5 - 25分钟)(p = 0.006)。3组外科医生满意度相似,但与仅2例全身麻醉患者(5%)相比,17例接受外周神经阻滞的患者(42%)和12例接受脊髓麻醉的患者(30%)术后绕过麻醉后护理单元(p = 0.01)。外周阻滞后从麻醉后护理单元出院需要5分钟(5 - 20分钟),脊髓麻醉为15分钟(5 - 25分钟),全身麻醉为15分钟(5 - 80分钟)(p = 0.005);然而,全身麻醉后在日间手术单元的停留时间[170(100 - 400)分钟]比外周阻滞[265(110 - 485)分钟]或脊髓阻滞[230(95 - 800)分钟]短(p = 0.026)。仅3例脊髓麻醉患者(8%)报告有尿潴留(p = 0.03)。
与全身麻醉相比,区域麻醉技术可降低入住率及在麻醉后护理单元的停留时间。应首选外周而非脊髓神经阻滞以将尿潴留风险降至最低。