PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Anesthesia, General”

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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Recovery advantages of regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia: adult patients.

The data support but do not conclusively prove, that RA results in a superior recovery compared with GA. However, several questions need to be answered. Even though the patient may leave the hospital or surgicenter sooner after RA, how does the patient treat pain at home once the block has "worn off"? Since short-acting sedatives and opioids are so commonly used with RA, to what extent is recovery due to them and to what extent is recovery due to the RA alone? Many of the studies examining beneficial effects of RA have been poorly conducted, combining RA with GA and producing inconclusive results. Anesthetic techniques need to be carefully compared to determine whether they are equal in quality, efficiency, and cost. Finally, to determine whether RA is cost-effective, future studies involving ambulatory patients with a focus on outcome and well-being need to be conducted.

Adult↗
PubMed1993

[Complications of spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia. A prospective study of 408 consecutive orthopedic patients].

UNLABELLED: In this prospective study the preoperative risk classification and pulmonary status was compared to postoperative mortality and morbidity, following either spinal or general anaesthesia. We studied 408 consecutive orthopaedic patients. Comparing the anaesthetic methods we found no differences in mortality or in frequency of cardiac complications, while the non-cardiac complications were seen more frequently in patients who had undergone spinal anaesthesia (p < 0.05). Patients from the lower risk groups with a preoperative abnormal pulmonary status had a higher frequency of postoperative pulmonary complications following spinal anaesthesia than following general anaesthesia (p = 0.015). IN CONCLUSION: 1) We find no difference in postoperative mortality depending on the anaesthetic method chosen, 2) the predictive value of the Boston Cardiac Risk index is identical for the two anaesthetic methods, and 3) the anaesthetic method of choice for the pulmonary disabled patient has not yet been established.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

[Comparative studies of total extraperitoneal hernioplasty in combined spinal epidural anesthesia versus balanced general anesthesia].

To appraise the clinical impact of combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia (CSE) in patients undergoing total extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair (TEPP), we performed a prospective study in 40 patients. These patients were randomized to receive either CSE (n = 20) or a balanced general anaesthesia (BGA) with controlled ventilation (n = 20). The aim of the study was to determine the impact of the intraoperative gas insufflation on compensatory respiratory reactions during regional anaesthesia. Therefore, blood gas samples were drawn and additional parameters were assessed as follows: noninvasive haemodynamic, lactate and glucose levels, differential blood count, and the patients' level of comfort during the perioperative setting, which was determined by a questionnaire. In our study it was clarified that the respiratory compensation of extraperitoneal gas insufflation is not decreased by regional anaesthesia. The haemodynamic state of the patients was stabilized by early interventions. In addition--there was no evidence that the anaesthesia regime used had any influence on the so called stress-parameters. Most of the patients with regional anaesthesia showed severe agitation often accompanied by chest pain. Hence, regional anaesthesia is not recommended in this setting.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Preemptive analgesia and local anesthesia as a supplement to general anesthesia: a review.

General anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) evolved on separate tracks. Procedures that could not be performed under LA were typically conducted under GA. Decoding of afferent linkage of peripheral noxious stimuli has provided important understanding that may change the way we traditionally treat surgical pain. In the 1980s, animal studies suggested that preemptive peripheral blocking of painful (nociceptive) stimuli to the central nervous system with regional anesthesia or LA and nonsteroidal analgesics could be beneficial in attenuating postoperative pain. Clinical studies based on this knowledge suggest combining LA with GA, and perhaps non-steroidal analgesics with or without narcotics, to reduce the severity of postoperative pain. General anesthetics can be given in lower minimal alveolar concentration when combined with LA, and recovery characteristics are superior. Increasing evidence suggests that the combined use of GA and LA may reduce the afferent barrage of surgery, and that preemptive analgesia may reduce postoperative pain and should be used in patient care. This article reviews the evidence supporting the combined use of LA or analgesics with GA or sedation to provide improved pain management after surgery.

Analgesia↗
PubMed1993

[Influences of anesthetic method on post-cholecystectomy pain--a comparison between epidural and general anesthesia].

This study was designed to compare the influence of epidural anesthesia with that of general anesthesia on postoperative pain state and management. We studied 16 patients who underwent elective laparotomy-cholecystectomy with epidural anesthesia without general anesthesia or with general anesthesia (nitrous oxide-isoflurane). Following bolus epidural injection with 3 micrograms.kg-1 of buprenorphine in 0.25% bupivacaine 4-7 ml at the end of surgery, all patients received continuous epidural buprenorphine administration at the rate of 12 micrograms.h-1 for 48 hours. Pain relief was assessed for 72 hours after surgery using visual analogue scale. Postoperative rest pain of the epidural group remained at a lower state of pain than that of the general anesthesia group not only for 48 hours (P < 0.005) but also until 72 hours (P < 0.005) after surgery. We concluded that the epidural anesthesia produces a greater postoperative pain relief than general anesthesia.

Anesthesia, Epidural↗
PubMed1999

Locoregional versus general anesthesia in carotid surgery: is there an impact on perioperative myocardial ischemia? Results of a prospective monocentric randomized trial.

PURPOSE: The incidence of cardiac morbidity and mortality in patients who undergo carotid surgery ranges from 0.7% to 7.1%, but it still represents almost 50% of all perioperative complications. Because no data are available in literature about the impact of the anesthetic technique on such complications, a prospective randomized monocentric study was undertaken to evaluate the role of local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) on cardiac outcome. METHODS: From November 1995 to February 1998, 107 patients were classified by the cardiologist as cardiac patients (IHD; history of myocardial infarction, previous myocardial revascularization procedures, or myocardial ischemia documented by means of positive electrocardiogram [ECG] stress test results) or noncardiac patients (NIHD; no history of chest pain or negative results for an ECG stress test). The patients were operated on after the randomization for the type of anesthesia (general or local). Continuous computerized 12-lead ECG was performed during the operative procedure and 24 hours postoperatively. The end points of the study were ECG modifications (upsloping or downsloping more than 2 mm) of the sinus tachycardia (ST) segment. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were classified as IHD, and 52 were classified as NIHD. Twenty-seven of the 55 IHD patients (49%) and 24 of 52 NIHD patients (46%) were operated on under GA. Thirty-six episodes of myocardial ischemia occurred in 22 patients (20.5%). Episodes were slightly more frequent (58%) and longer in the postoperative period (intraoperative, 10 +/- 5 min; postoperative, 60 +/- 45 min; P <. 001). As expected, the prevalence of myocardial ischemia was higher in the group of cardiac patients than in noncardiac group (15 of 55 patients [27%] vs 7 of 52 patients [13%]; P <.02). By comparing the two anesthetic techniques in the overall population, we found a similar prevalence of patients who had myocardial ischemia (GA, 12 of 52 [23%]; LA, 10 of 55 [18%]; P = not significant) and a similar number of ischemic episodes per patient (GA, 1.5 +/- 0.4; LA, 1.8 +/- 0.6; P = not significant). Episodes of myocardial ischemia were similarly distributed in intraoperative and postoperative periods in both groups. It is relevant that under GA, IHD patients represent most of the population who suffered myocardial ischemia (83%). On the contrary, in the group of patients operated on under LA, the prevalence was equally distributed in the two subpopulations. CONCLUSION: The results confirm the different hemodynamic impact of the two anesthetic techniques. Patients who received LA had a rate of myocardial ischemia that was half that of patients who had GA. The small number of cardiac complications do not permit us to make any definitive conclusion on the impact of the two anesthetic techniques on early cardiac morbidity, but the relationship between perioperative ischemic burden and major cardiac events suggests that LA can be used safely, even in high-risk patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy.

Aged↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Reversal of the central effects of midazolam by intravenous flumazenil after general anesthesia in outpatients premedicated with an opioid and a muscle relaxant: report of a multicenter double-blind clinical study. The Flumazenil in General Anesthesia in Outpatients Study Group II.

Flumazenil was studied in a double-blind multicenter trial to confirm its efficacy and safety in antagonizing the central effects of benzodiazepines after general anesthesia (midazolam, short-acting narcotic, nitrous oxide) with muscle relaxants and selected potent volatile anesthetics as needed. One hundred seventy-two outpatients were randomly assigned to receive either flumazenil or placebo titrated to the point of reversal of sedation or a maximum dose of 1 mg of flumazenil or 10 ml of placebo. The test drug was given intravenously (0.2 mg flumazenil or 2 ml placebo) at 1-minute intervals. Tests of alertness, psychomotor function, and memory were conducted prestudy and at baseline before the administration of flumazenil and at 5-, 15-, 30-, 60-, 120-, and 180-minute intervals after administration. The changes from prestudy or baseline scores were analyzed to compare differences between treatment groups. Seventy-five percent of the 105 flumazenil-treated patients and 14% of the 55 placebo-treated patients who met the qualifications for efficacy evaluations obtained a criterion level of response as measured by the Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale. Most (76%) patients who were alert at 5 minutes maintained their level of wakefulness throughout the 180-minute observation period. All 172 patients were included in evaluations of safety. Fifty percent of 113 flumazenil-treated patients and 31% of 59 placebo-treated patients reported one or more adverse experiences. The most frequently reported were nausea, vomiting, and dizziness. Only 6 adverse effects in the flumazenil group and 1 in the placebo group were considered severe; the remainder were mild or moderate. None were considered serious or potentially serious. Postoperative administration of flumazenil (mean dose, 0.85 mg) safely provided a prompt, controlled reversal of the sedative and psychomotor effects of midazolam in most patients.

Adult↗