Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology · 2008
[Efficacy of spinal anesthesia with small-dose lidocaine in ambulatory prostate biopsy procedures for elderly patients : comparison with propofol anesthesia].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Yoshida Shinichiro, Nishikawa Kohki, Shimodate Yuki, Igarashi Motohiko, Namiki Akiyoshi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Opinions differ as to what is more appropriate anesthetic technique for elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia with small-dose lidocaine and those of propofol general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing ambulatory prostate biopsy.
METHODS: Eighty ASA physical status I x II patients aged older than 65 year were randomized to receive either spinal anesthesia with 1% hyperbaric lidocaine 1 ml (10 mg) (group L) or general anesthesia with 1.0 mg x kg(-1) of propofol injected at 180 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) followed by continuous infusion at 8 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) (group P).
RESULTS: Significantly higher incidences of intraoperative hypotension and respiratory depression were found in the group P compared with the group L (P < 0.05). There were no major postoperative side effects, including transient neurologic symptoms and delirious sate, in either group. Both anesthetic techniques resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total perioperative costs were significantly lower in the group L compared with the group P (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be more preferable to propofol anesthesia in elderly patiens undergoing ambulatory prostate biopsy, with respect to safety and costs.
METHODS: Eighty ASA physical status I x II patients aged older than 65 year were randomized to receive either spinal anesthesia with 1% hyperbaric lidocaine 1 ml (10 mg) (group L) or general anesthesia with 1.0 mg x kg(-1) of propofol injected at 180 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) followed by continuous infusion at 8 mg x kg(-1) x hr(-1) (group P).
RESULTS: Significantly higher incidences of intraoperative hypotension and respiratory depression were found in the group P compared with the group L (P < 0.05). There were no major postoperative side effects, including transient neurologic symptoms and delirious sate, in either group. Both anesthetic techniques resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total perioperative costs were significantly lower in the group L compared with the group P (P < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be more preferable to propofol anesthesia in elderly patiens undergoing ambulatory prostate biopsy, with respect to safety and costs.