Ing Caleb, Sun Lena S, Friend Alexander F, Roh Arthur, Lei Susan, Andrews Howard, Li Guohua, Williams Robert K
From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and †Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; ‡Department of Anesthesiology, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT; §Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; and ∥Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY; and ¶Department of Pediatrics, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT.
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016 Jul-Aug;41(4):532-7. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000421.
Interest in spinal anesthesia (SA) is increasing because of concern about the long-term effects of intravenous (IV) and inhaled anesthetics in young children. This study compared SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in infants undergoing pyloromyotomy.
Between 2000 to 2013, the University of Vermont Medical Center almost exclusively used SA for infant pyloromyotomy surgery, whereas Columbia University Medical Center relied on GA. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs) within 48 hours of surgery, operating room (OR) time, and postoperative length of stay (LOS). Regression was used to evaluate the association between anesthesia technique and outcomes, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates.
We studied 218 infants with SA at the University of Vermont Medical Center and 206 infants with GA at Columbia University Medical Center. In the SA group, 96.3% of infants had adequate initial analgesic levels, but 35.8% required supplemental IV or inhaled anesthetic agents. Compared with GA, the risk of AEs in SA (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-1.36) did not significantly differ, but SA was associated with shorter OR times (17.5 minutes faster; 95% CI, 13.5-21.4 minutes) and shorter postoperative LOS (GA is 1.19 times longer; 95% CI, 1.01-1.40).
Infants undergoing pyloromyotomy with SA had shorter OR times and postoperative LOS, no significant differences in AE rates, and decreased exposure to IV and inhaled anesthetics, although SA infants often still required supplemental anesthetics. Whether these differences result in any long-term benefit is unclear; further studies are needed to determine the risk of rare AEs, such as aspiration.
由于担心静脉注射(IV)和吸入性麻醉剂对幼儿的长期影响,人们对脊髓麻醉(SA)的兴趣日益增加。本研究比较了在接受幽门肌切开术的婴儿中SA与全身麻醉(GA)的效果。
在2000年至2013年期间,佛蒙特大学医学中心几乎完全使用SA进行婴儿幽门肌切开术,而哥伦比亚大学医学中心则依赖GA。结果包括手术后48小时内的不良事件(AE)、手术室(OR)时间和术后住院时间(LOS)。采用回归分析评估麻醉技术与结果之间的关联,并考虑人口统计学和临床协变量。
我们研究了佛蒙特大学医学中心的218例接受SA的婴儿和哥伦比亚大学医学中心的206例接受GA的婴儿。在SA组中,96.3%的婴儿初始镇痛水平充足,但35.8%的婴儿需要补充静脉或吸入麻醉剂。与GA相比,SA中AE的风险(调整后的优势比,0.60;95%置信区间[CI],0.27-1.36)没有显著差异,但SA与较短的OR时间(快17.5分钟;95%CI,13.5-21.4分钟)和较短的术后LOS相关(GA长1.19倍;95%CI,1.01-1.40)。
接受SA进行幽门肌切开术的婴儿手术时间和术后住院时间较短,AE发生率无显著差异,且减少了静脉和吸入麻醉剂的暴露,尽管接受SA的婴儿通常仍需要补充麻醉剂。这些差异是否会带来任何长期益处尚不清楚;需要进一步研究以确定罕见AE(如误吸)的风险。