Lee Lorri A, Posner Karen L, Cheney Frederick W, Caplan Robert A, Domino Karen B
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;33(5):416-22. doi: 10.1016/j.rapm.2008.01.016.
Concern for block-related injury and liability has dissuaded many anesthesiologists from using regional anesthesia for eye and extremity surgery, despite many studies demonstrating the benefits of regional over general anesthesia. To determine injury patterns and liability associated with eye and peripheral nerve blocks, we re-examined the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Database as part of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine's Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
Claims with eye or peripheral nerve blocks performed perioperatively from 1980 through 2000 were analyzed. The liability profile of anesthesiologists who provided both the eye block and sedation for eye surgery was compared with the profile of anesthesiologists who provided sedation only. The injury patterns associated with peripheral nerve blocks and payment factors were analyzed.
Anesthesiologists who provided both the eye block and sedation for eye surgery (n = 59) had more injuries associated with block placement (P < .001), a higher proportion of claims with permanent injury (P < .05), and a higher proportion of claims with plaintiff payment (P < .05), compared with anesthesiologists who provided sedation only (n = 38). Peripheral nerve blocks (n = 159) were primarily associated with temporary injuries (56%). Local anesthetic toxicity was associated with 7 of 19 claims with death or brain damage.
Performance of eye blocks by anesthesiologists significantly alters their liability profile, primarily related to permanent eye damage from block needle trauma. Though most peripheral nerve block claims are associated with temporary injuries, local anesthetic toxicity is a major cause of death or brain damage in these claims.
尽管许多研究表明区域麻醉相较于全身麻醉具有诸多益处,但由于担心与阻滞相关的损伤及责任问题,许多麻醉医生不愿在眼科和肢体手术中使用区域麻醉。为确定与眼和周围神经阻滞相关的损伤模式及责任,我们重新审视了美国麻醉医师协会的封闭索赔数据库,这是美国区域麻醉与疼痛医学学会关于区域麻醉和疼痛医学神经并发症的实践咨询的一部分。
分析了1980年至2000年围手术期实施眼或周围神经阻滞的索赔案例。将为眼科手术同时实施眼阻滞和镇静的麻醉医生的责任情况,与仅提供镇静的麻醉医生的责任情况进行比较。分析了与周围神经阻滞相关的损伤模式及赔付因素。
与仅提供镇静的麻醉医生(n = 38)相比,为眼科手术同时实施眼阻滞和镇静的麻醉医生(n = 59)与阻滞操作相关的损伤更多(P <.001),永久性损伤索赔的比例更高(P <.05),原告获得赔付的索赔比例更高(P <.05)。周围神经阻滞(n = 159)主要与暂时性损伤相关(56%)。19例死亡或脑损伤索赔中有7例与局部麻醉药毒性有关。
麻醉医生实施眼阻滞会显著改变其责任情况,主要与阻滞针创伤导致的永久性眼损伤有关。尽管大多数周围神经阻滞索赔与暂时性损伤相关,但局部麻醉药毒性是这些索赔中导致死亡或脑损伤的主要原因。