Objective To compare the anesthetic effects of traditional digital block with single-injection digital block in digital injury patients for subcutaneous digital blocks. Methods Patients with one or two digits injured were randomized to the traditional digital block group and single-injection digital block group. All of the blocks were conducted by one investigator. The patients and outcome assessor were blinded to the treatment allocation. Both of the per-protocol-population (PP) analysis and the intention-to-treatment (ITT) analysis were performed to compare the two block techniques in terms of the pain during infiltration, the onset time of anesthesia and the failure rate of anesthesia. Results A total of 93 patients (109 digits) were included with 51 (61 digits) in the traditional block group and 42 (48 digits) in the single-injection block group.Two patients (3 digits) dropped out. Both of the PP analysis and ITT analysis showed that no significant difference between the two groups were detected in terms of the pain during infiltration, the onset time of anesthesia and the failure rate of anesthesia (P﹥0.05). Conclusions The subcutaneous single-injection digital block is as effective as the traditional digital block, but is much easier to perform. This technique is indicated for the digital anesthesia of palmar aspect distal to the proximal digital crease and dorsal aspect of the distal and middle phalanxes.
Objective We aimed to determine the efficacy and complication of sevoflurane maintenance in children. Methods Trials were collected through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EBSCO, OVID, Springer, Foreign Journals Integration System, CNKI, and CMBdisk (from the date of building the database to April 2008). We also checked the bibliographies of retrieved articles. Results A total of 20 trials involving 1 592 patients were included. The Metaanalysis showed: ① Recovery time: sevoflurane was similar with propofol [WMD=0.22, 95%CI (–2.86, 3.30)], but slower than desflurane [WMD=5.01, 95%CI (2.87, 7.16)], and faster than isoflurane [WMD= –0.55, 95%CI (– 0.74, –0.37)]; ② Discharge time: sevoflurane was similar with propofol [WMD= –4.39, 95%CI (–10.02, 1.25)], desflurane[WMD=1.13, 95%CI (–3.25, 5.51)], and isoflurane [WMD= –8.17, 95%CI (–17.94, 1.60)]; ③ Postoperative agitation: sevoflurane was much more obvious than propofol [RR=5.53, 95%CI (2.99, 10.21)], but superior than desflurane [RR=0.55, 95%CI (0.35, 0.88)], and similar with isoflurane [RR=1.24, 95%CI (0.85, 1.800]; ④ Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): sevoflurane was much more severe than propofol [RR=2.17, 95%CI (1.21, 3.90)], and no difference with desflurane [RR=0.88, 95%CI (0.61, 1.25)]; ⑤ Oculocardiac reflex: sevoflurane was less than propofol [RD= – 0.42, 95%CI (–0.56, –0.27)], and no difference with desflurane [RR=0.93, 95%CI (0.61, 1.41)]. Conclusion The limited current evidence shows no difference between sevoflurane and propofol in recovery time, while the effect of sevoflurane is faster than isoflurane and slower than desflurane. There are no differences among sevoflurane, desflurane, isoflurane, and propofol in discharge time. The incidence of postoperative agitation of sevoflurane is higher than that of propofol, but lower than that of other inhaled anesthetics. The incidence of PONV of sevoflurane is higher than that of propofol. The incidence of oculocardiac reflex of sevoflurane is lower than that of propofol and similar with that of desflurane.
ObjectiveTo compare the anesthetic potency and influence on maternal hemodynamics among spinal anesthesia (SA), epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for women undergoing cesarean sections.
MethodsA total of 180 singleton term nulliparous pregnancies of American Sociaty of Anethesiologists physical status Ⅰor Ⅱ for cesarean sections in Guangyuan Central Hospital from January to December 2012 were allocated into three groups using the method of random number table. Patients in group SA received SA (n=60), group EA underwent EA (n=60) and patients in group CSEA accepted CSEA (n=60). Patients wderwent punere all placed in left lateral position. Group EA patients unctures at the L1-2 interspace and the volume of carbonated lidocaine used initially was 12-15 mL. Group SA and CSEA accepted the anesthesia at either L2-3 or L3-4 interspace. The volume for group SA was 0.75% bupivacaine 1.2 mL with 10% glucose solution 1 mL, and for group CSEA was 0.5% bupivacaine 1.4 mL with 10% glucose solution 0.8 mL. A catheter was inserted into the epidural space for 3-4 cm after spinal needle exit so as to add additional epidural medication according to the block level and the level of anesthesia subsidence. The values of the basis of blood pressure and heart rate, the lowest blood pressure and heart rate, umbilical venous blood gas, start effect and induction time of anesthesia and the highest block level of anesthesia were record.
ResultsThere were statistically significant differences in terms of start effect time of anesthesia among the three groups (F=24.642, P<0.001). The start effect time of anesthesia in group SA and CSEA was significantly shorter than that in group EA (t=8.076, 7.996; P<0.05). The induction time of anesthesia in group SA was significantly shorter than those in group EA and CSEA (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA and CSEA were significantly lower than the values of basis (P<0.05). The lowest blood pressure and heart rate in group SA was significantly lower than that in group EA (P<0.05). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in group SA and CSEA was significantly higher than that in group EA (P<0.05). The block level of anesthesia in the three groups were at thoracic 8.12±1.22, 8.36±1.88 and 8.52±1.92 respectively, and there was no significant difference among the three groups (F=0.081, P=0.923).
ConclusionEA and CSEA surpass SA in the choice of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean sections, and 1.73% carbonated lidocaine for EA can improve anesthetic potency and better maintain relatively stable hemodynamic indexes.
Objective To evaluate the influence of combined general and epidural anesthesia on the prognosis of patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods Such database as PubMed, OVID, EBSCO, The Cochrane Library and CNKI were searched, and other relevant journals and references of the included literature were also hand searched from 1986 to 2011. Two evaluators independently screened the studies in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data and assessed the methodology quality. RevMan 5.0 software was used for meta-analyses. Results Seven studies involving 2 513 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the single general anesthesia, the combined general and epidural anesthesia had no significant differences in postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate (OR=0.71, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.17, P=0.18). Based on the following four factors i.e. category of cancer, time of follow-up, having preoperative metastais or not, and patients’ age, the sensitivity analysis showed significant differences in the postoperative recurrence and metastasis rate between the two anesthesia methods were found in the group of patients at or above 64 years old and the group with follow-up equal to or less than two years (OR=1.46, 95%CI 1.00 to 2.14, P=0.05; OR=1.55, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.26, P=0.02; respectively). Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in the groups of patients with colorectal cancer or without preoperative metastasis (OR=1.00, 95%CI 0.62-1.61, P=0.99; OR=1.26, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.86, P=0.23; respectively). Conclusion Compared with single general anesthesia, the combined general and epidural anesthesia cannot reduce the recurrence and metastasis rate for cancer patients, and has no marked improvement in prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer or without preoperative metastasis, but it obviously decreases the probability of forward recurrence and metastasis for the patients at or above 64 years old and the patients with follow-up equal to or less than two years.
Objective To explore the timing of indwelling urinary catheter removal in male patients undergoing orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia by a prospective randomized controlled study. Methods Male patients who underwent orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia in the First People’s Hospital of Shuangliu District between September 2019 and January 2021 were selected prospectively. The patients were randomly assigned to group A (pull out the catheter before anesthesia) and group B (pull out the catheter within 24 hours after anesthesia) at a ratio of 1∶1 by sortition. The age, operation duration, operation site, heart rate when pulling out the catheter, first urination, urinary tract infection, patient comfort score, nursing satisfaction score and patient satisfaction related indicators of the two groups were recorded and analyzed. Results A total of 120 patients were included in the study. All patients successfully completed the trial without dropping out or quitting. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, operation duration and operation site (P>0.05). No urinary tract infection occurred in both groups. There was no significant difference in the first urination between the two groups (P>0.05). The heart rate of patients in group A when pulling out the catheter was slower than that of group B [(74.62 ± 11.38) vs. (84.52 ± 8.98) times/min], and the satisfaction of patients in group A (group A: 46 cases were satisfied, 11 cases were relatively satisfied, 3 cases were dissatisfied; group B: 17 cases were satisfied, 25 cases were relatively satisfied, 18 cases were dissatisfied), comfort score (17.82±2.73 vs. 16.68±2.13), and nursing satisfaction score (19.62±1.59 vs. 16.32±2.05) were better than those in group B (P<0.05). Conclusions For male patients who need catheterization before orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia, pulling out the catheter before waking up after anesthesia can effectively reduce the physiological stress reaction of patients, reduce discomfort, improve patient satisfaction, and reduce the workload of nurses after surgery, which is conducive to early rehabilitation exercise of patients.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ropivacaine in spinal anesthesia. Methods We searched PubMed (1999 to 2008), OVID (1999 to 2008), EBSCO (1999 to 2008), The Cochrane Library (2000 to 2008), and CNKI (1999 to 2008) databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ropivacaine and bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia. The quality of the included RCTs was evaluated by two reviewers independently, and meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Results Six RCTs were included. The methodological quality of them were all poor. Among the six RCTs, 215 patients received ropivacaine and 215 received bupivacaine. The results of meta-analyses showed that the motor-block time to complete block of ropivacaine was significantly shorter than that of bupivacaine (WMD=2.18 min, 95%CI 0.32 to 4.03, P=0.02). The motor-block time to complete recovery of ropivacaine was significantly shorter than that of bupivacaine for cesarean delivery in spinal anesthesia (SMD= – 1.82, 95%CI – 3.05 to – 0.59, P=0.004). The incidence rate of hypotension and bradycardia in spinal anestheisa with ropivacaine was lower than that with bupivacaine (OR=0.49, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.80, P=0.004; OR=0.40, 95%CI 0.03 to 4.99, P=0.47). Conclusion Equivalent doses of ropivacaine and bupivacaine provide similar analgesia in spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. However, haemodynamics in spinal anesthesia with ropivacaine fluctuate lightlier than with bupivacaine. Ropivacaine is suitable for spinal anesthesia in low-abdominal operations.
Objective To investigate the effective dose of remimazolam benzenesulfonate to suppress cardiovascular responses to laryngeal mask placement in elderly patients. Methods Elderly patients undergoing laryngeal mask anesthesia between March and June 2023 were selected. Combined with sulfentanil 0.2 μg/kg, remimazolam was used as induction hypnotic. The first patient was given remizolam benzenesulfonate 0.16 mg/kg infused by pump for 1 min. The dose of remimazolam for the next patient was determined by the biased coin up-and-down method based on the patient’s response to the laryngeal mask placement. The score of Modified Observer’s Assessment of Alert/Sedation, vital signs and anesthesia depth index (AI) were recorded during induction. Probit analysis was used to calculate the half effective dose (ED50), 95% effective dose (ED95) and half effective AI (AI50). According to the statistical requirements, at least 45 negative patients were required. Results A total of 53 elderly patients were enrolled in the study until the end of the trial. The ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam benzenesulfonate for inhibiting cardiovascular responses to laryngeal mask insertion were 0.154 mg/kg [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.034, 0.170) mg/kg] and 0.207 mg/kg [95%CI (0.190, 0.614) mg/kg], respectively. AI decreased during induction, with an AI50 of 64.119 [95%CI (60.609, 69.984)]. Conclusion When combined with 0.2 μg/kg sufentanil, infusing 0.2 mg/kg remimazolam benzenesulfonate for 1 min is effective and safe for laryngeal mask anesthesia induction in elderly patients.
The strategies of individualized enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are particularly important in the anesthesia management of same-day surgery. This review focuses on the perioperative management of day surgeries following the experiences of Day Surgery Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and different surgeries’ guidelines of ERAS, including anesthesia evaluation, preoperative education and optimization, comorbidity management, airway management, choice of technologies and drugs during anesthesia, intraoperative monitor and anesthesia management, postoperative analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting prevention, and postoperative management, which is significant to ensure the discharge of the patient in time for same-day surgeries.
Objective
To explore the effect of the feed-forward control on safety nursing of ophthalmologic day surgery patients under general anesthesia.
Methods
A total of 623 ophthalmologic day surgery patients under general anesthesia were retrospectively selected into the control group, who adapted the routine nursing in the Ophthalmic Day Surgery Center from January to December 2015; a total of 1 210 ophthalmologic day surgery patients under general anesthesia were retrospectively selected into the observation group, who received the feed-forward control of nursing safety management on the basis of routine nursing care from January to December 2016. The incidence rate of the adverse events and potential safety hazards and satisfaction rate were compared between the two groups.
Results
The incidence rate of the adverse events and potential safety hazards in the observation group (0.83%, 10/1 210) was lower than that in the control group (3.37%, 21/623), the satisfaction rate in the observation group (98.67%) was higher than that in the control group (97.11%), and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).
Conclusion
The application of feed-forward control in the safety care of patients during the ophthalmologic day surgery under general anesthesia can effectively reduce the incidence of adverse events and potential safety hazards, and ensure the safety of medical care.
Day surgery dates back to 1909, when it was first performed by British paediatricians. Anesthesia management for day surgery requires quick onset, early recovery, rapid recovery, and few perioperative adverse reactions. Ensuring the medical safety of patients is the primary condition for the gradual implementation of day surgery. With the continuous development of medical level, the applicable field of day surgery has gradually expanded, and new concepts and progress have also emerged in anesthesia management. This article summarizes the relevant research at home and abroad, and reviews the new progress of anesthesia for day surgery from three aspects: preparation before anesthesia, selection of anesthesia methods, and recovery after anesthesia, in order to provide a reference for anesthesia management of day surgery.
