MedElevator
Войти в исследования Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2016
A multi-institutional, propensity-score-matched comparison of post-operative outcomes between general anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care with intravenous sedation in umbilical hernia repair.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Vu M M, Galiano R D, Souza J M, Du Qin C, Kim J Y S
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Monitored anesthesia care with intravenous sedation (MAC/IV), recently proposed as a good choice for hernia repair, has faster recovery and better patient satisfaction than general anesthesia; however the possibility of oversedation and respiratory distress is a widespread concern. There is a paucity of the literature examining umbilical hernia repairs (UHR) and optimal anesthesia choice, despite its importance in determining clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of anesthesia type in UHR was performed in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005-2013 database. General anesthesia and MAC/IV groups were propensity-score-matched (PSM) to reduce treatment selection bias. Surgical complications, medical complications, and post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day were the primary outcomes of interest. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between the two anesthesia groups using univariate and multivariate statistics.
RESULTS: PSM removed all observed differences between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all tracked pre-operative characteristics). MAC/IV cases required fewer post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day (3.5 vs 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that overall complication rate did not differ (1.7 vs 1.8 %, p = 0.569), however MAC/IV cases resulted in fewer incidences of septic shock (<0.1 vs 0.1 %, p = 0.016). After multivariate logistic regression, MAC/IV was revealed to yield significantly lower chances of overall medical complications (OR = 0.654, p = 0.046).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: UHR under MAC/IV causes fewer medical complications and reduces post-operative hospital stays compared to general anesthesia. The implications for surgeons and patients are broad, including improved surgical safety, cost-effective care, and patient satisfaction.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of anesthesia type in UHR was performed in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005-2013 database. General anesthesia and MAC/IV groups were propensity-score-matched (PSM) to reduce treatment selection bias. Surgical complications, medical complications, and post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day were the primary outcomes of interest. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between the two anesthesia groups using univariate and multivariate statistics.
RESULTS: PSM removed all observed differences between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all tracked pre-operative characteristics). MAC/IV cases required fewer post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day (3.5 vs 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that overall complication rate did not differ (1.7 vs 1.8 %, p = 0.569), however MAC/IV cases resulted in fewer incidences of septic shock (<0.1 vs 0.1 %, p = 0.016). After multivariate logistic regression, MAC/IV was revealed to yield significantly lower chances of overall medical complications (OR = 0.654, p = 0.046).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: UHR under MAC/IV causes fewer medical complications and reduces post-operative hospital stays compared to general anesthesia. The implications for surgeons and patients are broad, including improved surgical safety, cost-effective care, and patient satisfaction.