The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Ornek, Dilsen
Data de Publicação: 2010
Outros Autores: Metin, Seyhan, Deren, Serpil, Un, Canan, Metin, Mustafa, Dikmen, Bayazit, Gogus, Nermin
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18511
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare selective spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia with regard to postoperative recovery and fast-track eligibility in day surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty geriatric outpatient cases, with ASA II-III physical status and requiring shortduration transurethral intervention, were enrolled in the study. The cases were split into 2 groups: as general anesthesia (Group GA) and selective spinal anesthesia (Group SSA). Group GA (n = 30) received propofol 2 mg kg-1 (until loss of eyelash reflex), remifentanil induction 0.5-1 µg kg-1, and laryngeal mask. Maintenance was achieved by 4-6% desflurane in 60% N2O and 40% O2 along with remifentanil infusion at 0.05 µg /kg-1 /min-1. Drugs were discontinued after the withdrawal of the ureteroscope, and extubation was carried out with 100% O2. Group SSA (n = 30) received 0.5% spinal anesthesia via L4-5 space by 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg. Anesthesia preparation time, time to surgical anesthesia level, postoperative fast-tracking, and time to White-Song recovery score of 12, were noted. In the operating room, we evaluated hemodynamics, nausea/vomiting, surgeon and patient satisfaction with anesthesia, perioperative midazolam-fentanyl administration, postoperative pain, and discharge time. RESULTS: Anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, anesthesia-related time in the operating room, time to sit, and time to walk were significantly low in Group GA (p < 0.05), whereas time to fast-track eligibility, length of stay in the PACU, discharge time, and other parameters were similar in both of the groups. CONCLUSION: While anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, start time of surgery, time to sit, and time to walk were shorter in the General Anesthesia group, time to fast-track eligibility, phase 1 recovery time, and discharge time were similar among patients subjected to selective spinal anesthesia.
id USP-19_53120b6b26e557ba1f62452eded7d839
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/18511
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients Selective spinal anesthesiaGeneral anesthesiaPostoperative recoveryFast-trackGeriatri OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare selective spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia with regard to postoperative recovery and fast-track eligibility in day surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty geriatric outpatient cases, with ASA II-III physical status and requiring shortduration transurethral intervention, were enrolled in the study. The cases were split into 2 groups: as general anesthesia (Group GA) and selective spinal anesthesia (Group SSA). Group GA (n = 30) received propofol 2 mg kg-1 (until loss of eyelash reflex), remifentanil induction 0.5-1 µg kg-1, and laryngeal mask. Maintenance was achieved by 4-6% desflurane in 60% N2O and 40% O2 along with remifentanil infusion at 0.05 µg /kg-1 /min-1. Drugs were discontinued after the withdrawal of the ureteroscope, and extubation was carried out with 100% O2. Group SSA (n = 30) received 0.5% spinal anesthesia via L4-5 space by 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg. Anesthesia preparation time, time to surgical anesthesia level, postoperative fast-tracking, and time to White-Song recovery score of 12, were noted. In the operating room, we evaluated hemodynamics, nausea/vomiting, surgeon and patient satisfaction with anesthesia, perioperative midazolam-fentanyl administration, postoperative pain, and discharge time. RESULTS: Anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, anesthesia-related time in the operating room, time to sit, and time to walk were significantly low in Group GA (p < 0.05), whereas time to fast-track eligibility, length of stay in the PACU, discharge time, and other parameters were similar in both of the groups. CONCLUSION: While anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, start time of surgery, time to sit, and time to walk were shorter in the General Anesthesia group, time to fast-track eligibility, phase 1 recovery time, and discharge time were similar among patients subjected to selective spinal anesthesia. Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2010-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/1851110.1590/S1807-59322010001000003Clinics; Vol. 65 No. 10 (2010); 941-946 Clinics; v. 65 n. 10 (2010); 941-946 Clinics; Vol. 65 Núm. 10 (2010); 941-946 1980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18511/20574Ornek, DilsenMetin, SeyhanDeren, SerpilUn, CananMetin, MustafaDikmen, BayazitGogus, Nermininfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2012-05-23T11:28:31Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/18511Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2012-05-23T11:28:31Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
title The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
spellingShingle The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
Ornek, Dilsen
Selective spinal anesthesia
General anesthesia
Postoperative recovery
Fast-track
Geriatri
title_short The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
title_full The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
title_fullStr The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
title_full_unstemmed The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
title_sort The influence of various anesthesia techniques on postoperative recovery and discharge criteria among geriatric patients
author Ornek, Dilsen
author_facet Ornek, Dilsen
Metin, Seyhan
Deren, Serpil
Un, Canan
Metin, Mustafa
Dikmen, Bayazit
Gogus, Nermin
author_role author
author2 Metin, Seyhan
Deren, Serpil
Un, Canan
Metin, Mustafa
Dikmen, Bayazit
Gogus, Nermin
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Ornek, Dilsen
Metin, Seyhan
Deren, Serpil
Un, Canan
Metin, Mustafa
Dikmen, Bayazit
Gogus, Nermin
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Selective spinal anesthesia
General anesthesia
Postoperative recovery
Fast-track
Geriatri
topic Selective spinal anesthesia
General anesthesia
Postoperative recovery
Fast-track
Geriatri
description OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare selective spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia with regard to postoperative recovery and fast-track eligibility in day surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty geriatric outpatient cases, with ASA II-III physical status and requiring shortduration transurethral intervention, were enrolled in the study. The cases were split into 2 groups: as general anesthesia (Group GA) and selective spinal anesthesia (Group SSA). Group GA (n = 30) received propofol 2 mg kg-1 (until loss of eyelash reflex), remifentanil induction 0.5-1 µg kg-1, and laryngeal mask. Maintenance was achieved by 4-6% desflurane in 60% N2O and 40% O2 along with remifentanil infusion at 0.05 µg /kg-1 /min-1. Drugs were discontinued after the withdrawal of the ureteroscope, and extubation was carried out with 100% O2. Group SSA (n = 30) received 0.5% spinal anesthesia via L4-5 space by 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 5 mg. Anesthesia preparation time, time to surgical anesthesia level, postoperative fast-tracking, and time to White-Song recovery score of 12, were noted. In the operating room, we evaluated hemodynamics, nausea/vomiting, surgeon and patient satisfaction with anesthesia, perioperative midazolam-fentanyl administration, postoperative pain, and discharge time. RESULTS: Anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, anesthesia-related time in the operating room, time to sit, and time to walk were significantly low in Group GA (p < 0.05), whereas time to fast-track eligibility, length of stay in the PACU, discharge time, and other parameters were similar in both of the groups. CONCLUSION: While anesthesia preparation time, length of surgery, start time of surgery, time to sit, and time to walk were shorter in the General Anesthesia group, time to fast-track eligibility, phase 1 recovery time, and discharge time were similar among patients subjected to selective spinal anesthesia.
publishDate 2010
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2010-01-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18511
10.1590/S1807-59322010001000003
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18511
identifier_str_mv 10.1590/S1807-59322010001000003
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/18511/20574
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 65 No. 10 (2010); 941-946
Clinics; v. 65 n. 10 (2010); 941-946
Clinics; Vol. 65 Núm. 10 (2010); 941-946
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222755699818496