SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Anesthesia”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

[Comparison of epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia for patients with bronchial asthma].

We prospectively investigated the incidence of asthmatic attacks in 94 patients (1.5%) who were diagnosed as definite asthma. We separated the patients into three groups: epidural anesthesia (n = 10) including combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (n = 7), combined epidural and general anesthesia (n = 23), and general anesthesia (n = 54). General anesthesia was induced with propofol or midazolam and maintained with N2O and O2 with sevoflurane in adults. Patients who underwent epidural anesthesia and combined spinal and epidural anesthesia showed no asthmatic attacks. The incidence of bronchospasm with combined epidural and general anesthesia was 2/23. The incidence of bronchospasm with general anesthesia was 4/54. Bronchoconstriction occurred after tracheal intubation in 5 patients except in one patient, in whom it occurred after induction of anesthesia with midazolam. All episodes of bronchospasm in the operative period were treated successfully. The frequency of bronchospasm did not depend on the severity of asthmatic symptoms or the chronic use of bronchodilators before operation. These findings suggest that tracheal intubation, not the choice of anesthetic, plays an important role in the pathogenesis of bronchospasm.

Adult↗

PubMed1995

[Comparison of changes in plasma concentrations of ACTH and beta-endorphin in cholecystectomy under general anesthesia and general plus epidural anesthesia].

OBJECTIVE: To study neuroendocrine response during cholecystectomy under general anesthesia with fentanyl and under general anesthesia with nitrous oxide plus thoracic epidural block, by determining plasma levels of ACTH and beta-endorphin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective study of 2 randomly chosen groups of 7 patients each who were undergoing cholecystectomy. One group received general anesthesia with fentanyl at initial doses of 10 micrograms/kg-1 followed by perfusion of 5 micrograms.kg-1.h-1. The other group received general anesthesia with 60% nitrous oxide in oxygen combined with bupivacaine 0.5% for thoracic epidural blockade. Plasma levels of ACTH and beta-endorphin were determined at the following moments: A, upon arrival in the operating theater; B, after anesthetic induction and intubation; C, after incision; D, 30 minutes after start of surgery; E, after surgery but before extubation, and F, after arrival in the recovery room. Also recorded were mean arterial pressure and heart rate. RESULTS: In both groups we found significantly higher levels of beta-endorphin throughout surgery. The increase was greater, however, in the group receiving combined anesthesia at moments D (p = 0.008) and E (p = 0.008). ACTH levels rose significantly during surgery (p = 0.004) in the combined anesthesia group, whereas there was only a slight increase in the group receiving only general anesthesia (p = NS). beta-endorphin levels increased proportionally more than ACTH levels during combined anesthesia. Hemodynamic stability was acceptable in both groups. CONCLUSION: General anesthesia with fentanyl at the dose used in this study was more effective that combined anesthesia in mitigating the release of ACTH and beta-endorphin during cholecystectomy.

Adrenocorticotropic Hormone↗

PubMed2001

Topical anesthesia with or without propofol sedation versus retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia for cataract extraction: prospective randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the feasibility of intravenous sedation in addition to topical anesthesia during cataract extraction. SETTING: Helsinki University Eye Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. METHODS: Three hundred seventeen eyes of 291 consecutive patients having cataract surgery were prospectively randomized to receive topical (oxybuprocaine 0.4%, n = 96), combined (topical anesthesia and propofol sedation, n = 107), or retrobulbar/peribulbar (prilocaine 1.5%, n = 114) anesthesia. The intraoperative conditions were judged by the surgeon. A numerical scale (0 to 10) was used to assess the degree of pain during surgery. Outcome measures were the number of complications and adverse events registered perioperatively and 1 week postoperatively as well as Snellen visual acuity. RESULTS: The success of posterior chamber intraocular lens (IOL) implantation through a self-sealing clear corneal incision was 97.9%, 96.3%, and 98.2% in the topical, combined, and retrobulbar/peribulbar groups, respectively. There was no difference among the groups in pain during surgery, frequency of complications, or outcome measures. One week postoperatively, visual acuity was 20/40 or better in 81.7%, 78.5%, and 77.5% of eyes in the topical, combined, and retrobulbar/peribulbar groups, respectively. The surgeon reported significantly fewer difficulties in the retrobulbar/peribulbar group (9.8%) than in the topical (26.0%) (P =.004) or combined (21.0%) (P =.036) groups. Additional sedative/analgesic medication given intraoperatively was required significantly more often in the topical (15.6%) than in the retrobulbar/peribulbar group (2.6%) (P =.002). Patients with bilateral surgery preferred combined anesthesia over retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia; however, there was no significant difference in patient acceptance among groups in patients having unilateral surgery. CONCLUSION: Intravenous propofol sedation added to topical anesthesia did not improve the operative conditions or surgical outcome. Retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia ensured the best surgical conditions. Patients in all anesthesia groups reported high satisfaction. However, patients having bilateral surgery seemed to prefer combined anesthesia over retrobulbar/peribulbar anesthesia.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Effect of different cost drivers on cost per anesthesia minute in different anesthesia subspecialties.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about differences in costs to provide anesthesia care for different surgical subspecialties and which factors influence the subspecialty-specific costs. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the authors determined main cost components (preoperative visit, intraoperative personnel costs, material and pharmaceutical costs, and others) for 10,843 consecutive anesthesia cases from a 6-month period in the 10 largest anesthesia subspecialties in their university hospital: ophthalmology; general surgery; obstetrics and gynecology; ear, nose, and throat surgery; oral and facial surgery; neurosurgery; orthopedics; cardiovascular surgery; traumatology; and urology. Using regression analysis, the effect of five presumed cost drivers (anesthesia duration, emergency status, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of III or higher, patient age younger 6 yr, and placement of invasive monitoring) on subspecialty-specific costs per anesthesia minute were analyzed. RESULTS: Both personnel costs for anesthesiologists and total costs calculated per anesthesia minute were inversely correlated with the duration of anesthesia (adjusted R2 = 0.75 and 0.69, respectively), i.e., they were higher for subspecialties with short cases and lower for subspecialties with longer cases. The multiple regression model showed that differences in anesthesia duration alone accounted for the majority of the cost differences, whereas the other presumed cost drivers added only little to explain subspecialty-specific cost differences. CONCLUSIONS: Different anesthesia subspecialties show significant and financially important differences regarding their specific costs. Personnel costs and total costs are highest for subspecialties with the shortest cases. Other analyzed cost drivers had little effect on subspecialty-specific costs. In the light of these cost differences, a detailed cost analysis seems necessary before the profitability of an anesthesia subspecialty can be assessed.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

Priming of anesthesia circuit with xenon for closed circuit anesthesia.

Xenon is an inert gas with a practical anesthetic potency (1 MAC = 71%). Because it is very expensive, the use of closed circuit anesthesia technique is ideal for the conduction of xenon anesthesia. Here we describe our methods of starting closed circuit anesthesia without excessive waste of xenon gas. We induce anesthesia with intravenous agents, and after endotracheal intubation, denitrogenate the patient for approximately 30 min with a high flow of oxygen. This is done to minimize accumulation of nitrogen in the anesthesia circuit during the subsequent closed-circuit anesthesia with xenon. Anesthesia is maintained with an inhalational anesthetic during this period. Then, we discontinue the inhalation agent and start xenon. For this transition, we feel it is unacceptable to simply administer xenon at a high flow until the desired end-tidal concentration is reached because it is too costly. Instead we set up another machine with its circuit filled in advance (i.e., primed) with at least 60% xenon in oxygen and switch the patient to this machine. To prime the circuit, we push xenon using a large syringe into a circuit, which was prefilled with oxygen. Oxygen inside the circuit is pushed out before it is mixed with xenon, and xenon waste will thus be minimized. In this way, we can achieve close to 1 MAC from the beginning of xenon anesthesia, and thereby minimize the risk of light anesthesia and awareness during transition from denitrogenation to closed-circuit xenon anesthesia.

Anesthesia, Closed-Circuit↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Regional anesthesia and chronic pain management in the 1920s and 1930s. The influence of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians in the 1920s and 1930s began to treat patients with chronic pain syndromes using regional anesthetic techniques for both temporary and permanent block of pain pathways. The founding of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia (ASRA) in 1923 provided a unique venue for the dissemination of information concerning regional anesthesia for both surgery and chronic pain management. METHODS: The growth of chronic pain management on a national basis was assessed by using the Quarterly Cumulative Index to the Medical Literature to trace the distribution of information on regional anesthesia. From the Minutes of Meeting of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia, presented papers and the discussion that followed were analyzed. RESULTS: Inquiries into regional anesthesia during the 1920s and 1930s predominantly dealt with technique. For the first time pain papers were listed under the regional anesthesia heading in the Index. The papers presented at ASRA meetings during the period helped develop the use of regional anesthesia for both chronic pain management and surgical anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The ASRA was instrumental in bringing together physicians interested in regional anesthesia and pain management. During the 1930s physician anesthetists came to predominate as the organization's officers and members and helped translate the work of the ASRA into a part of the knowledge required to be a specialist physician in anesthesia.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Are anesthesia residency programs failing regional anesthesia? The past, present, and future.

BACKGROUND: A survey of anesthesia training programs in 1980 reported the use of a regional anesthetic technique in 21.3% of cases. Since that time, numerous changes have occurred in anesthesia residency programs. This survey was conducted to assess the impact these changes have had on the use and teaching of regional anesthetic techniques in residency training programs. METHODS: All anesthesia residency program directors were requested to send blinded copies of their residents' 1989-1990 American Board of Anesthesiology Annual Training Report Forms. Data from responding programs were compared to similar data from 1980, and analyzed for factors expected to influence the use of regional anesthesia during training. RESULTS: The use of regional anesthesia in residency training programs has increased from 21.3% in 1980 to 29.8% in 1990, primarily because of a two-fold rise in the use of epidural anesthesia. The use of regional anesthesia is strongly correlated with a resident's exposure to obstetric anesthesia and pain consultations. Wide variability between residency programs remains. CONCLUSION: Some training programs continue to fail to provide adequate regional anesthesia exposure to train residents fully in these techniques, despite the overall increased use of regional anesthesia.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗

PubMed2005

Combined low-dose spinal-epidural anesthesia versus single-shot spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery.

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia balancing low-dose intrathecal bupivacaine/fentanyl and low-dose epidural bupivacaine may be more useful than single-shot spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery in reducing incidences of adverse effects such as hypotension and nausea and in shortening motor recovery. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (n=50) or spinal anesthesia (n=50) was randomly performed in 100 parturients. Intrathecal bupivacaine 6 mg added by fentanyl 20 mug followed after 5 min by 10 mL of 0.25% epidural bupivacaine were used for combined spinal-epidural and intrathecal bupivacaine 9 mg with fentanyl 20 mug for spinal anesthesia. The initial sensory block level was higher in the spinal group (P<0.001), although the maximum levels were the same (T3). Complete surgical anesthesia was achieved and no patient complained of intraoperative pain in either group. Patients in the spinal group had denser motor block in the extremities and a higher incidence of hypotension (P<0.05) and nausea and vomiting (P<0.05). Motor recovery was faster in the combined spinal-epidural group (P<0.001). We concluded that combined spinal-epidural anesthesia using low-dose local anesthetic-opioid spinal anesthesia and routine epidural supplementation before surgery had some potential advantages over single-shot spinal anesthesia in the lower incidences of adverse effects and quicker recovery.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

A randomized trial comparing low-dose combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and conventional epidural anesthesia for cesarean section in severe preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A prospective, randomized study was designed to compare the maternal and neonatal effects of conventional epidural anesthesia and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic patients. Additionally, two strategies in the prophylactic management of hypotension in severe preeclamptic patients were evaluated: fluid preloading or prophylactic ephedrine. METHODS: Thirty nonlaboring women with severe preeclampsia (PET), scheduled for an elective Cesarean section, were randomised into three groups: epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (EA-F), combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic fluid loading (CSE-F), or combined spinal epidural anesthesia with prophylactic ephedrine (CSE-V). Hemodynamic data were recorded prior and after induction of regional anesthesia at five-minute intervals. The total amount of intravenous administered fluid and the total dose of vasopressors were recorded. RESULTS: Hemodynamic data were similar between the three groups. The incidence and duration of hypotension was similar in all three groups. Significantly more ephedrine was used in the CSE-V group as compared to the CSE-F group. More lactated Ringer's solution was used in the CSE-F group as compared to the CSE-V group. There were no hypertensive episodes and none of the patients developed pulmonary edema. The time period from induction until the start of surgery and the duration of surgery were significantly shorter in both CSE-groups. Neonatal outcome was comparable between the three groups. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSE) is a safe alternative to conventional epidural anesthesia in severe preeclamptic women and that the prophylactic use of ephedrine is effective and safe to prevent and treat spinal hypotension after combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for Cesarean section in severe preeclamptic women.

Adult↗

PubMed1996

[Stress hormone response during midazolam/fentanyl anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia for abdominal total hysterectomy].

Stress hormone response was investigated during midazolam/fentanyl/oxygen/air anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia in six patients undergoing abdominal total hysterectomy (group MF). A control group of six patients received nitrous oxide/oxygen/sevoflurane anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia (group C). We evaluated plasma concentrations of ACTH, cortisol, aldosterone and beta-endorphin during the control period, 10 min, 60 min after incision, and in the recovery room. In group C, plasma concentrations of ACTH, cortisol, aldosterone and beta-endorphin increased significantly 60 min after incision compared with control concentrations. But in group MF, they did not increase significantly during anesthesia. In the recovery room there were significant differences compared with preinduction concentrations in both groups. It is concluded that midazolam/fentanyl anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia is more effective than nitrous oxide/oxygen/sevoflurane anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia to control the stress response to surgery.

Adrenocorticotropic Hormone↗

PubMed1996

Control of blood pressure and heart rate in patients randomized to epidural or general anesthesia for lower extremity vascular surgery. Perioperative Ischemia Randomized Anesthesia Trial (PIRAT) Study Group.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the degree of success at maintaining patients randomized to epidural or general anesthesia for peripheral vascular surgery within predetermined blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) limits. To investigate associations between such hemodynamic control and intraoperative myocardial ischemia and postoperative major cardiac morbidity. DESIGN: Prospective randomized clinical trial. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: 100 patients undergoing elective lower extremity revascularization for atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia. Blood pressure and HR limits were determined prior to randomization. Hemodynamic monitoring and management of anesthesia was standardized. Myocardial ischemia and major cardiac morbidity were diagnosed by a blinded cardiologist, based on continuous ambulatory ECG monitoring, cardiac enzymes, and 12 lead ECGs. Intraoperative BP and HR date were analyzed by investigators masked to the type of anesthesia given. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A greater percentage of patients randomized to general anesthesia had intraoperative BPs more above their limit (95% vs 72%, p = 0.002) and/or more rapid changes in HR (75% vs 48%, p = 0.008) or BP (100% vs 93%, p = 0.04) than those randomized to epidural anesthesia. Intraoperative ischemia and major cardiac morbidity were similar in the two anesthesia groups. Patients experiencing intraoperative ischemia, regardless of anesthetic type, more frequently had BPs greater than 10% above their upper limit (90% vs 60% p = 0.04) and/or more rapid HR changes (90% vs 58%, p = 0.03) compared with patients without ischemia. These vital sign abnormalities, however, were not necessarily temporally related to the ischemic episodes. Patients experiencing subsequent major cardiac morbidity were not different from other patients with respect to excursions out of BP on HR limits. CONCLUSIONS: Prevention of elevated intraoperative BP and/on rapid changes in BP or HR may be more successful with epidural than with general anesthesia. Such vital sign abnormalities may occur more frequently in patients who have had intraoperative ischemia or are at risk for having it later in the procedure.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Is local anesthesia an affordable alternative to general anesthesia for minilaparoscopy?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine if minilaparoscopy under local anesthesia is at least as reliable and affordable as that performed under general anesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification I). SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred sixty-four consecutive women evaluated for infertility. INTERVENTION: Diagnostic minilaparoscopy performed after women were randomized to receive general or local anesthesia with conscious sedation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Levels of postoperative pain measured by visual analog scale; volume of CO(2) used; length of procedure, complete pelvic evaluation, and hospitalization; complications; and pathologic diagnosis were evaluated. The groups were comparable in age, years of infertility, and symptoms. For women receiving local anesthesia, 5.5% required general anesthesia to complete the procedure. Women in both groups required postoperative analgesics. The groups had no statistically significant differences in pain level 1 hour after the procedure, number of complications, and pelvic pathology. Patients who had local anesthesia required a smaller volume of CO(2) (p <0.01) and their hospitalization was significantly shorter (p <0.01). However, in 15% of these women pelvic visualization was incomplete, compared with 7.2% in the general anesthesia group. CONCLUSION: Minilaparoscopy performed under local anesthesia was as reliable and affordable as when performed under general anesthesia.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Direct current auditory evoked potentials during wakefulness, anesthesia, and emergence from anesthesia.

Direct current auditory evoked potentials (DC-AEPs) are a sensitive indicator of depth of anesthesia in animals. However, they have never been investigated in humans. To assess the potential usefulness of DC-AEPs as an indicator of anesthesia in humans, we performed an explorative study in which DC-AEPs were recorded during propofol and methohexital anesthesia in humans. DC-AEPs were recorded via 22 scalp electrodes in 19 volunteers randomly assigned to receive either propofol or methohexital. DC-AEPs were evoked by binaurally presented 2-s, 60-dB, 800-Hz tones; measurements were taken during awake baseline, anesthesia, and emergence. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and discriminant analysis of data acquired during these three conditions. About 500 ms after stimulus presentation, DC-AEPs could be observed. These potentials were present only during baseline and emergence-not during anesthesia. Statistically significant differences were found between baseline and anesthesia and between anesthesia and emergence. In conclusion, similar effects, as reported in animal studies of anesthetics on the DC-AEPs, could be observed in anesthetized humans. These results demonstrate that DC-AEPs are potentially useful in the assessment of cortical function during anesthesia and might qualify the method for monitoring anesthesia in humans.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

A prospective evaluation of anesthesia for posterior lumbar spine fusion: the effectiveness of preoperative epidural anesthesia with morphine.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare the anesthesia for posterior lumbar spinal fusion between the age- and gender-matched groups with and without preoperative epidural anesthesia with morphine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To reduce the blood loss, hypotensive anesthesia is frequently used in the spinal fusion. However, in spite of administration of the hypotensive agents, inadequate analgesia during operation often causes unfavorable and unexpected elevation of blood pressure resulting in excessive bleeding. As well, intractable wound pain sometimes occurs after spinal fusion due to inadequate analgesia during surgery. METHODS: Forty cases of posterior lumbar spinal fusion were investigated prospectively. Twenty patients underwent preoperative epidural anesthesia with morphine and sedation by continuous intravenous administration of propofol but without administration of any kind of anesthetics, including intraoperative and/or postoperative epidural anesthesia (Group E). Another 20 patients underwent inhalation general anesthesia with sevoflurane and intermittent intravenous administration of fentanyl without any regional block (Group F). In these groups, dynamics and average mean blood pressure during surgery, blood loss during surgery, postoperative requirement of analgesics, the visual analogue scale, and accuracy of neurologic evaluation immediately after surgery were analyzed. RESULTS: The average mean blood pressure during surgery was significantly lower in Group E than Group F: 57.1 mm Hg and 72.8 mm Hg, respectively. In addition, the dynamics of blood pressure were more stable in Group E than Group F. The blood loss during surgery was significantly less in Group E than in Group F: 546 g and 631 g, respectively. The patients of Group E required analgesics after surgery less frequently, and the rating on the visual analogue scale was significantly lower in Group F on the first, second, and third days after surgery. It was difficult to evaluate the neurologic status accurately in 5 patients of Group F because of the inadequate emergence immediately after surgery. There were no patients in Group E whose neurologic status was unclear because of the paralysis caused by epidural anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: To combine preoperative epidural anesthesia with other anesthetic procedure for spinal fusion contributes to maintain more stable hypotension during surgery. As a result, it will be possible to lessen the bleeding during surgery. In addition, the postoperative pain was easily controlled with administration of fewer analgesic agents in patients who underwent the epidural anesthesia. The effectiveness of pre-emptive analgesia should be emphasized to diminish the postoperative pain.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Comparison of the cardiopulmonary effects of anesthesia maintained by continuous infusion of ketamine and propofol with anesthesia maintained by inhalation of sevoflurane in goats undergoing magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cardiopulmonary effects of anesthesia maintained by continuous infusion of ketamine and propofol with anesthesia maintained by inhalation of sevoflurane in goats undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. ANIMALS: 8 Saanen goats. PROCEDURES: Goats were anesthetized twice (1-month interval) following sedation with midazolam (0.4 mg/kg, IV). Anesthesia was induced via IV administration of ketamine (3 mg/kg) and propofol (1 mg/kg) and maintained with an IV infusion of ketamine (0.03 mg/kg/min) and propofol (0.3 mg/kg/min) and 100% inspired oxygen (K-P treatment) or induced via IV administration of propofol (4 mg/kg) and maintained via inhalation of sevoflurane in oxygen (end-expired concentration, 2.3%; 1X minimum alveolar concentration; SEVO treatment). Cardiopulmonary and blood gas variables were assessed at intervals after induction of anesthesia. RESULTS: Mean +/- SD end-expired sevoflurane was 2.24 +/- 0.2%; ketamine and propofol were infused at rates of 0.03 +/- 0.002 mg/kg/min and 0.29 +/- 0.02 mg/kg/min, respectively. Overall, administration of ketamine and propofol for total IV anesthesia was associated with a degree of immobility and effects on cardiopulmonary parameters that were comparable to those associated with anesthesia maintained by inhalation of sevoflurane. Compared with the K-P treatment group, mean and diastolic blood pressure values in the SEVO treatment group were significantly lower at most or all time points after induction of anesthesia. After both treatments, recovery from anesthesia was good or excellent. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggest that ketamine-propofol total IV anesthesia in goats breathing 100% oxygen is practical and safe for performance of magnetic resonance imaging procedures.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed1998

[Ophthalmic surgery with local anesthesia or intubation anesthesia at the Leipzig University Ophthalmology Clinic].

BACKGROUND: Different opinions about the reliability and serious complications after regional anesthesia have been reported. The paper describes our experiences in deciding about regional or general anesthesia for ophthalmic surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this report we analyzed retrospectively our protocols of all operations performed in 1995. Eight categories of procedures were developed to give an insight in our way of decision for local or general anesthesia. We imagine the applied technique of peribulbaranesthesia. RESULTS: 3184 patients were operated on in 1995, in the regional anesthesia group the age ranges from 17 to 96 years, in the general anesthesia group from 3 months to 85 years. In 69.9% of all patients we performed a local anesthesia and in 30.1% we chose general anesthesia. The spread of cases and the surgical procedure corresponding to one of these eight classes below are described in this survey. CONCLUSIONS: Almost 70% of our patients who underwent an ophthalmosurgical procedure were operated on under regional anesthesia. No serious complications have occurred and no procedure had do be stopped off due to an insufficient analgesia or akinesia. We demonstrate some observations concerning the duration of pain after the injection and our indications for general anesthesia in ophthalmic surgery.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Major complications of regional anesthesia in France: The SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline Service.

BACKGROUND: Several previous surveys have estimated the rate of major complications that occur after regional anesthesia. However, because of the increase in the use of regional anesthesia in recent years and because of the introduction of new techniques, reappraisal of the incidence and the characteristics of major complications is useful. METHODS: All French anesthesiologists were invited to participate in this 10-month prospective survey based on (1) voluntary reporting of major complications related to regional anesthesia occurring during the study period using a telephone hotline service available 24 h a day and managed by three experts, and (2) voluntary reporting of the number and type of regional anesthesia procedures performed using pocket booklets. The service was free of charge for participants. RESULTS: The participants (n = 487) reported 56 major complications in 158,083 regional anesthesia procedures performed (3.5/10,000). Four deaths were reported. Cardiac arrest occurred after spinal anesthesia (n = 10; 2.7/10,000) and posterior lumbar plexus block (n = 1; 80/10,000). Systemic local anesthetic toxicity consisted of seizures only, without cardiac toxicity. Lidocaine spinal anesthesia was associated with more neurologic complications than bupivacaine spinal anesthesia (14.4/10,000 vs. 2.2/10,000). Most neurologic complications were transient. Among 12 that occurred after peripheral nerve blocks, 9 occurred in patients in whom a nerve stimulator had been used. CONCLUSION: This prospective survey based on a free hotline permanent telephone service allowed us to estimate the incidence of major complications related to regional anesthesia and to provide a detailed analysis of these complications.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2004

Introduction of anesthesia resident trainees to the operating room does not lead to changes in anesthesia-controlled times for efficiency measures.

BACKGROUND: Operating room efficiency is an important concern in most hospitals today. Little work has been reported to evaluate the contribution of anesthesia residents to changes in anesthesia-controlled time-related efficiencies in the operating room. The goal of this study was to measure the impact of the initiation of new residents to the operating room on anesthesia-related time measures of operating room efficiency. METHODS: Using the computerized operating room information systems, specific data regarding anesthesia-controlled times were extracted over three distinct 2-week periods over the course of 1 academic year. These included the first 2 weeks of July, when most of the operating rooms were staffed by attending physicians working alone; 2 weeks in September when new anesthesia residents were working in a 2:1 ratio with staff; and 2 weeks in May. The induction times, emergence times, and room turnover times were compared over these three periods for first-year anesthesia residents. Standard descriptive statistics were computed. Analysis of variance testing was then conducted comparing each of these time periods. Significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 3,004 surgical procedures were performed during the 2-week study periods in July, September, and May, respectively. For the July, September, and May groups, the mean anesthesia induction times were 17.3, 19.0, and 20.8 min (P = 0.047); the emergence times were 8.7, 9.7, and 10.0 min, (P = 0.024); and the corresponding mean room turnover times were 47.6, 48.5, and 48.6 min (P = 0.907), respectively. CONCLUSION: Although statistically significant time differences were found, these data strongly suggest that the initiation of anesthesia trainees to the operating room has no clinically or economically meaningful adverse effect on the anesthesia-controlled time component of operating room efficiency.

Anesthesia↗