Dataset Information

Comparison of pain in patient under going major surgery under general anaesthesia vs general and Epidural anaesthesia

ABSTRACT: Intervention1: General anaesthesia and epidural anesthesia vs only general anaesthesia and periopertive analgesia: 0-3-6-12-24hr Dose of ropivacaine 0.3/cc @4ml/hr acc to pt profile dose will be increased Control Intervention1: General anaesthesia only and periopertive analgesia: 0-3-6-12-24hr Primary outcome(s): Vas score assessment and need for inhalation agent perioperative periodTimepoint: 0-3-6-12-24hr Study Design: Randomized, Parallel Group Trial Method of generating randomization sequence:Computer generated randomization Method of allocation concealment:Sequentially numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes Blinding and masking:Participant and Outcome Assessor Blinded

DISEASE(S): Malignant Neoplasm Of Intestinal Tract, Part Unspecified

PROVIDER: 2715133 | ecrin-mdr-crc |

REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether administration of local anaesthetic at the site of skin incision during open lacrimal drainage surgery under general anaesthesia alters the total dosage of anaesthetic drugs required during total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA), and whether it alters postoperative pain and recovery.Study designMasked comparison of a randomized, two-group interventional study.Patients and methodsPatients undergoing unilateral external dacryocystorhinostomy under total intravenous general anaesthesia were recruited from the lacrimal service at Moorfields Eye Hospital between September 2012 and February 2014. The patients were randomised to receive, after induction and stabilisation of general anaesthesia, infiltration of the ipsilateral paranasal tissues with 2.5 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine with 1:100000 epinephrine ("treatment" group), or a sham injection ("control" group); the infiltration was performed about 7 min prior to the skin incision. The infusion rates for propofol and remifentanil were adjusted to maintain a steady intra-operative mean blood pressure of 55-70 mmHg and BIS score of 40-60%. The time taken for extubation of the patient after cessation of TIVA was recorded, and postoperative pain scores (on a Likert scale from 0-10) were taken at regular intervals after extubation. The average intra-operative mean blood pressures, total drug usage, extubation time and pain scores for each of the two groups were compared using two-tail Student's t-testing and Wilcoxon rank sum testing.ResultsThere were 12 patients (7 female; 58%) in the treatment group and 11 (7 female; 64%) in the control group, with similar average age at surgery (59 years treatment, 53 years control; p = 0.38) The average operative time was 45 min in the treatment group (median 42, range 30-55) and 47 min (median 45; range 37-61) in the control group (p = 0.52). The mean dosage of propofol required to maintain satisfactory GA was significantly less in the "treatment" group (89.8 mcg/kg/min) as compared to the "control" group (mean 126 mcg/kg/min) (p = 0.0007). Likewise, remifentanil dosage was significantly less in the "treatment" group (100 ng/kg/min) as compared to controls (259 ng/kg/min) (p = 0.00007). The mean non-invasive blood pressure was consistently lower during surgery in the "treated" group, and showed less intra-operative variation. After surgery, the patients receiving LA had a significantly shorter extubation time (mean time 6.0 min in "treated" group, 12.1 min in "controls"; P < 0.0002) and also significantly lower pain scores at 10, 30, 60, 120 and 180 min after extubation (p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively).ConclusionsIpsilateral infiltration of local anaesthesia containing epinephrine in the paranasal tissues just prior to open dacryocystorhinostomy under total intravenous anaesthesia is associated with a 28% reduction in mean propofol usage, and a 61% reduction in remifentanil usage. LA usage during GA also produces improved and less variable intra-operative mean blood pressures, a significantly shorter extubation time and significantly lower postoperative pain scores.

Project description:BackgroundArthroscopic excision has currently become popular for the treatment of wrist ganglions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic wrist ganglion excisions under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet versus general anaesthesia.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic ganglionectomy from April 2009 to October 2016 at our institute. They were separated into two groups according to anaesthesia techniques: general anaesthesia and Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet. We compared the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the two groups.ResultsSeventy-four patients were included. Both groups were matched with regard to the demographics and preoperative clinical assessments. We found no significant differences between groups in postoperative visual analog scale, modified Mayo wrist score, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, recurrence, residual pain, or complications. Recurrence was found in five of 74 patients, one (4.3%) in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet group and four (7.8%) in the general anaesthesia group. One extensor tendon injury and four extensor tenosynovitis cases occurred in the general anaesthesia group. Regarding cost effectiveness, the mean operating time in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were 88.7 ± 24.51 and 121.5 ± 25.75 min, respectively (p < 0.001). The average total costs of the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were €487.4 ± 89.15 and €878.7 ± 182.13, respectively (p < 0.001).ConclusionsFor arthroscopic wrist ganglion resections, both anaesthesia techniques were effective and safe regarding recurrence rates, complications, and residual pain. The most important finding of this study was that arthroscopic ganglionectomy under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet was superior to that under general anaesthesia for cost-effectiveness.Level of evidenceLevel III, Retrospective comparative study.

Dataset Information

Comparison of pain in patient under going major surgery under general anaesthesia vs general and Epidural anaesthesia

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets