Blake Douglas R
Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Aesthet Surg J. 2008 Sep-Oct;28(5):564-70; discussion 571-2. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2008.07.012.
Running parallel with-and perhaps driven by-the huge increase in demand for cosmetic surgery, office-based anesthesia (OBA) is the fastest growing segment of anesthesia practice. Despite this, only 2% of anesthesiology residencies provide exposure to OBA, and many practicing anesthesiologists are not convinced that OBA techniques provide safe, reliable, and effective anesthesia care.
To examine OBA techniques and safety records while addressing some of the commonly held beliefs among anesthesiologists regarding OBA.
A review of 4800 patients undergoing 5264 cosmetic surgical procedures performed between 1997 and 2007 at Dudley Street Operatory (licensed in Rhode Island as a Physician Office Setting Providing Surgical Treatment and certified by the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities) was conducted. The primary anesthetic technique was deep sedation with a propofol ketamine infusion, combined with local anesthetic injection. Intercostal nerve blocks were performed before surgery in patients who had breast surgery and/or abdominoplasty. Endotracheal or laryngeal mask airway techniques were not used, nor were paralyzing agents, anesthetic gases, or vapors.
There were 16 unanticipated postoperative admissions in 10 years, all but 3 from surgical complications (hematoma, infection, and pneumothorax during dissection for breast implants). One patient had an acute reaction to a small volume of local anesthetic injected into the nasal septum, one patient with a history of panic attacks had an acute anxiety attack manifested as chest pain, and one patient refused discharge from the operatory to home after a face lift, despite meeting postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria, and was admitted overnight to the hospital. There were no hospital admissions because of pain, nausea, or excessive sedation.
In experienced hands, OBA techniques deliver an anesthetic for office-based cosmetic surgery superior to the usual general anesthesia performed in hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers. These techniques are safe, do not require expensive equipment other than an infusion pump and vital signs monitor, avoid sore throats and nausea, provide postoperative analgesia, and are well received by patients and surgeons. OBA presents an opportunity for anesthesiologists and aesthetic surgeons to partner for greater patient satisfaction.
随着整容手术需求的大幅增长,且可能受其推动,门诊麻醉(OBA)是麻醉业务中增长最快的领域。尽管如此,只有2%的麻醉住院医师接触过门诊麻醉,而且许多执业麻醉医师并不确信门诊麻醉技术能提供安全、可靠且有效的麻醉护理。
检查门诊麻醉技术和安全记录,同时解决麻醉医师中一些关于门诊麻醉的普遍看法。
对1997年至2007年在达德利街手术室进行的4800例患者的5264例整容手术进行回顾(该手术室在罗德岛州作为提供手术治疗的医师办公室环境获得许可,并经美国门诊手术设施认证协会认证)。主要麻醉技术是异丙酚 - 氯胺酮输注深度镇静,联合局部麻醉注射。对接受乳房手术和/或腹部整形手术的患者在手术前进行肋间神经阻滞。未使用气管内插管或喉罩气道技术,也未使用肌松剂、麻醉气体或蒸汽。
10年间有16例意外术后住院,除3例因手术并发症(乳房植入物剥离过程中的血肿、感染和气胸)外。1例患者对注入鼻中隔的少量局部麻醉药有急性反应,1例有惊恐发作史的患者出现以胸痛为表现的急性焦虑发作,1例患者在面部提升术后尽管符合麻醉后护理单元出院标准,但拒绝从手术室出院回家,住院过夜。没有因疼痛、恶心或过度镇静而住院的情况。
在经验丰富的人员操作下,门诊麻醉技术为门诊整容手术提供的麻醉效果优于医院和门诊手术中心通常进行的全身麻醉。这些技术安全,除了输液泵和生命体征监测仪外不需要昂贵设备,可避免喉咙痛和恶心,提供术后镇痛,且受到患者和外科医生的好评。门诊麻醉为麻醉医师和美容外科医生合作提高患者满意度提供了机会。