Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025
Conscious Monitored Anesthesia Care versus General Anesthesia for Vitreoretinal Surgeries.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Namvar Ehsan, Attar Alireza, Salari Mehrdad, Alamdari Mohammad, Hadipour Maryam
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study compares monitored anesthesia care (MAC) with general anesthesia (GA) for vitreoretinal surgery, aiming to assess safety, efficacy, and patient outcomes.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective non-randomized clinical trial. This trial was conducted during vitreoretinal surgery. Forty Patients were included in this study and divided into MAC and GA groups. The patients were divided in to two groups. In one group, patients who were operated under general anesthesia and in the other group those who were operated with conscious sedation were included. Anesthesia quality, surgical outcomes, anesthesia time, surgery time and recovery time were compared between two groups using standardized criteria and statistical analysis.
RESULTS: MAC provided comparable analgesia, immobilization, and hemodynamic stability to GA, with no reported complications. All patients in both groups had successful surgery. Anesthesiologist favored MAC for its hemodynamic control, while surgeons showed no preference. MAC exhibited shorter anesthesia time than GA with lower anesthetics. These findings support the use of MAC in vitreoretinal surgery, especially for patients at risk of complications from GA.
CONCLUSION: Moderate sedation with MAC offers a safe and effective alternative to GA for vitreoretinal surgery, with similar outcomes, reduced anesthesia time, and lower drug doses. Further research with larger cohorts is warranted to validate these results and refine anesthesia protocols.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective non-randomized clinical trial. This trial was conducted during vitreoretinal surgery. Forty Patients were included in this study and divided into MAC and GA groups. The patients were divided in to two groups. In one group, patients who were operated under general anesthesia and in the other group those who were operated with conscious sedation were included. Anesthesia quality, surgical outcomes, anesthesia time, surgery time and recovery time were compared between two groups using standardized criteria and statistical analysis.
RESULTS: MAC provided comparable analgesia, immobilization, and hemodynamic stability to GA, with no reported complications. All patients in both groups had successful surgery. Anesthesiologist favored MAC for its hemodynamic control, while surgeons showed no preference. MAC exhibited shorter anesthesia time than GA with lower anesthetics. These findings support the use of MAC in vitreoretinal surgery, especially for patients at risk of complications from GA.
CONCLUSION: Moderate sedation with MAC offers a safe and effective alternative to GA for vitreoretinal surgery, with similar outcomes, reduced anesthesia time, and lower drug doses. Further research with larger cohorts is warranted to validate these results and refine anesthesia protocols.