American journal of otolaryngology · 2021
Quality of recovery and safety of deep intravenous sedation compared to general anesthesia in facial plastic surgery: A prospective cohort study.
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.
Jumaily Jeffrey Saad, Jumaily Mejd, Donnelly Tom, Asaria Jamil
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Facial plastic surgical procedures are performed under either general anesthesia (GA) or sedation. GA is often associated with post-operative nausea and longer recovery, while deep sedation is thought to greatly facilitate perioperative patient comfort and expedite recovery. The objective of this study was to compare these two anesthetic techniques in a relatively healthy patient population undergoing facial plastic surgery and to discuss optimizing patient safety with a deep sedation technique.
METHODS: A non-randomized, prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate patients undergoing facial plastic surgery with a focus on rhinoplasty under either deep intravenous sedation (DIVS) in an ambulatory surgery center or under GA in a community hospital. Patients were between ages 18-65 and agreed to participate in the study and complete a quality of recovery (QoR-40) survey. Two-tailed Student's t-test was done for numerical data and Chi-squared test for categorical data.
RESULTS: Twenty-three patients and 16 patients had surgery under DIVS and GA, respectively. Compared to the GA group, the DIVS group had less post-operative nausea and vomiting (21.7% vs 50%, P = 0.04; 4.3% vs 37.5%; P = 0.004, respectively), shorter emergence time (4 vs 13 min, P < 0.001), and higher QoR-40 scores for almost all the categories except for physical independence. There were no post-operative medical or surgical complications.
CONCLUSION: DIVS appeared to be safe in the office-based setting and provided a higher quality recovery after a predominantly rhinoplasty-based practice compared to the GA group. Vigilant monitoring of the patient is crucial for careful titration of sedation to avoid respiratory depression and possible compromise of the surgical result from having to rescue the airway.
METHODS: A non-randomized, prospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate patients undergoing facial plastic surgery with a focus on rhinoplasty under either deep intravenous sedation (DIVS) in an ambulatory surgery center or under GA in a community hospital. Patients were between ages 18-65 and agreed to participate in the study and complete a quality of recovery (QoR-40) survey. Two-tailed Student's t-test was done for numerical data and Chi-squared test for categorical data.
RESULTS: Twenty-three patients and 16 patients had surgery under DIVS and GA, respectively. Compared to the GA group, the DIVS group had less post-operative nausea and vomiting (21.7% vs 50%, P = 0.04; 4.3% vs 37.5%; P = 0.004, respectively), shorter emergence time (4 vs 13 min, P < 0.001), and higher QoR-40 scores for almost all the categories except for physical independence. There were no post-operative medical or surgical complications.
CONCLUSION: DIVS appeared to be safe in the office-based setting and provided a higher quality recovery after a predominantly rhinoplasty-based practice compared to the GA group. Vigilant monitoring of the patient is crucial for careful titration of sedation to avoid respiratory depression and possible compromise of the surgical result from having to rescue the airway.