European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases · 2014
Combined local anesthesia and monitored anesthesia care for cochlear implantation.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Alzahrani M, Martin F, Bobillier C, Robier A, Lescanne E
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Cochlear implantation has become a routine procedure for patients with hearing loss. In some patients, general anesthesia might be contraindicated due to multiple co-morbidities. We describe a successful protocol for cochlear implantation under local anesthesia with light sedation.
CASE REPORT: An 81-year-old patient presented with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Her past medical history revealed ischemic coronaropathy, managed by stenting. After multidisciplinary evaluation and clear adapted information to the patient, surgery was performed under local anesthesia with light sedation and monitored anesthesia care. The procedure lasted 70 min, and was without incident and under good conditions for the surgeon. During the intervention, the patient was comfortable. No nausea or vomiting was noted. The postoperative period was smooth and uneventful.
CONCLUSION: We find local anesthesia with light sedation a good alternative to general anesthesia for patients where general anesthesia is contraindicated. An experienced surgical and anesthesiology team is essential to shorten the duration of the procedure.
CASE REPORT: An 81-year-old patient presented with profound sensorineural hearing loss. Her past medical history revealed ischemic coronaropathy, managed by stenting. After multidisciplinary evaluation and clear adapted information to the patient, surgery was performed under local anesthesia with light sedation and monitored anesthesia care. The procedure lasted 70 min, and was without incident and under good conditions for the surgeon. During the intervention, the patient was comfortable. No nausea or vomiting was noted. The postoperative period was smooth and uneventful.
CONCLUSION: We find local anesthesia with light sedation a good alternative to general anesthesia for patients where general anesthesia is contraindicated. An experienced surgical and anesthesiology team is essential to shorten the duration of the procedure.