World neurosurgery · 2021
Chronic Subdural Hematoma Drainage Under Local Anesthesia with Sedation versus General Anesthesia and Its Outcome.
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.
Wong Hui Mei, Woo Xiang Ling, Goh Chin Hwee, Chee Peter Hui Chang, Adenan Aishah Haji, Tan Peter Chee Seong, Wong Albert Sii Hieng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Burr hole drainage is the criterion standard treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH), a common neurosurgical condition. However, apart from the surgical technique, the method of anesthesia also has a significant impact on postoperative patient outcome. Currently, there are limited studies comparing the use of local anesthesia with sedation (LA sedation) versus general anesthesia (GA) in the drainage of CSDH. The objective of this study was to compare the morbidity and mortality outcomes of using LA sedation versus GA in CSDH burr hole drainage.
METHODS: This retrospective study presents a total of 257 operations in 243 patients from 2 hospitals. A total of 130 cases were operated under LA sedation in hospital 1 and 127 cases under GA in hospital 2. Patient demographics and presenting features were similar at baseline.
RESULTS: Values are shown as LA sedation versus GA. Postoperatively, most patients recovered well in both groups with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 4-5 (96.2% vs. 88.2%, respectively). The postoperative morbidity was significantly increased by an odds ratio of 5.44 in the GA group compared with the LA sedation group (P = 0.005). The mortality was also significantly higher in the GA group (n = 5, 3.9%) than the LA sedation group (n = 0, 0.0%; P = 0.028). The CSDH recurrence rate was 4.6% in the LA sedation group versus 6.3% in the GA group. No intraoperative conversion from LA sedation to GA was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that CSDH drainage under LA sedation is safe and efficacious, with a significantly lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with GA.
METHODS: This retrospective study presents a total of 257 operations in 243 patients from 2 hospitals. A total of 130 cases were operated under LA sedation in hospital 1 and 127 cases under GA in hospital 2. Patient demographics and presenting features were similar at baseline.
RESULTS: Values are shown as LA sedation versus GA. Postoperatively, most patients recovered well in both groups with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 4-5 (96.2% vs. 88.2%, respectively). The postoperative morbidity was significantly increased by an odds ratio of 5.44 in the GA group compared with the LA sedation group (P = 0.005). The mortality was also significantly higher in the GA group (n = 5, 3.9%) than the LA sedation group (n = 0, 0.0%; P = 0.028). The CSDH recurrence rate was 4.6% in the LA sedation group versus 6.3% in the GA group. No intraoperative conversion from LA sedation to GA was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that CSDH drainage under LA sedation is safe and efficacious, with a significantly lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with GA.