Suppr超能文献

[一种完全植入式静脉通路装置。全身麻醉还是局部麻醉下植入?一项回顾性成本分析]

[A totally implantable venous access device. Implantation in general or local anaesthesia? A retrospective cost analysis].

作者信息

Schuld J, Richter S, Moussavian M R, Kollmar O, Schilling M K

机构信息

Klinik für Allgemeine Chirurgie, Viszeral-, Gefäss- und Kinderchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum des Saarlandes, Homburg/Saar.

出版信息

Zentralbl Chir. 2009 Aug;134(4):345-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1098787. Epub 2009 Aug 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Implantation of venous access port systems can be performed in local or general anesthesia. In spite of the increasing rate of interventionally implanted systems, the surgical cut-down represents a safe alternative. Thus, the question arises whether--in context to the increasing health-economic pressure--open implantation in general anesthesia is still a feasible alternative to implantation in local anesthesia regarding OR efficiency and costs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a retrospective analysis, 993 patients receiving a totally implantable venous access device between 2001 and 2007 were evaluated regarding OR utilization, turnover times, intraoperative data and costs. Implantations in local (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) were compared.

RESULTS

GA was performed in 762 cases (76.6 %), LA was performed in 231 patients (23.3 %). Mean operation time was similar in both groups (LA 47.27 +/- 1.40 min vs. GA 45.41 +/- 0.75 min, p = 0.244). Patients receiving local anesthesia had a significantly shorter stay in the OR unit (LA 95.9 +/- 1.78 min vs. GA 105.92 +/- 0.92 min; p < 0.001). Specifically, the time from arrival in the operating room to surgical cut (LA 39.57 +/- 0.69 min vs. GA 50.46 +/- 0.52 min; p < 0.001) was shorter in the LA group. Personnel and material costs were significantly lower in the LA group compared with the GA group (LA: 400.72 +/- 8.25 euro vs. GA: 482.86 +/- 6.23 euro; p < 0.001) Blood loss as well as duration and dose of radiation were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that implantation of totally implantable venous access port systems in local anesthesia is superior in comparison to the implantation under general anesthesia regarding procedural times in the OR unit and costs. With the same operation duration, but less personnel and material expenditure, implantation in local anesthesia offers a potential economic advantage by permitting faster changing times. Implantation in GA only should be performed at a special request by the patient or in difficult venous conditions.

摘要

背景

静脉输液港系统植入术可在局部麻醉或全身麻醉下进行。尽管介入植入系统的比例不断增加,但外科切开植入仍是一种安全的选择。因此,在卫生经济压力不断增加的背景下,全身麻醉下的开放植入术在手术室效率和成本方面是否仍是局部麻醉植入的可行替代方案,这一问题由此产生。

患者与方法

在一项回顾性分析中,对2001年至2007年间接受完全植入式静脉输液装置的993例患者的手术室利用率、周转时间、术中数据和成本进行了评估。比较了局部麻醉(LA)和全身麻醉(GA)下的植入情况。

结果

762例(76.6%)采用全身麻醉,231例(23.3%)采用局部麻醉。两组的平均手术时间相似(局部麻醉47.27±1.40分钟,全身麻醉45.41±0.75分钟,p = 0.244)。接受局部麻醉的患者在手术室的停留时间明显更短(局部麻醉95.9±1.78分钟,全身麻醉105.92±0.92分钟;p < 0.001)。具体而言,局部麻醉组从进入手术室到手术切开的时间更短(局部麻醉39.57±0.69分钟,全身麻醉50.46±0.52分钟;p < 0.001)。局部麻醉组的人员和材料成本明显低于全身麻醉组(局部麻醉:400.72±8.25欧元,全身麻醉:482.86±6.23欧元;p < 0.001)。两组的失血量以及辐射持续时间和剂量相似。

结论

我们的研究表明,在手术室时间和成本方面,局部麻醉下完全植入式静脉输液港系统的植入优于全身麻醉下的植入。在手术时间相同的情况下,但人员和材料支出更少,局部麻醉植入通过允许更快的更换时间提供了潜在的经济优势。仅在患者特殊要求或静脉条件困难时才应采用全身麻醉植入。

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