查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- Comparison of the Surgical Results of Hemorrhoidectomy under Intravenous General Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia
- Comparison of Surgical Results of Hemorrhoidectomy under Intravenous General Anesthesia and Heavy Sedation
- 使用自動吻合器環狀切除痔瘡之術後併發症
- Short Term Result with High Satisfaction of Stapled Hemorrhoidopexy for Grade III and IV Hemorrhoids: A Five Year Single-center Experience from 501 Cases
- A Comparative Analysis of the Postoperative Complications of LigaSure Haemorrhoidectomy and the Procedure for Prolapsing Haemorrhoids
- 門診病患對醫院滿意度與重視度之調查以臺灣地區區域醫院為例
- 影響人力資源資訊系統成功因素之實証探討:五大產業為例
- 醒吾商專體育課興趣選項分組教學選項電腦作業結果分析
- Clinical Study of Failure in Continuous Spinal Anesthesia with Bupivacaine
- 原住民對廣電媒體使用與滿足之調查分析
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | Comparison of the Surgical Results of Hemorrhoidectomy under Intravenous General Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia=比較痔瘡切除術在靜脈全身麻醉與脊椎麻醉下之手術結果 |
---|---|
作 者 | 陳莊偉; 陳宗明; 蕭光宏; | 書刊名 | 中華民國大腸直腸外科醫學會雜誌 |
卷 期 | 25:3 2014.09[民103.09] |
頁 次 | 頁85-91 |
分類號 | 416.245 |
關鍵詞 | 痔瘡切除術; 靜脈全身麻醉; 脊椎麻醉; 併發症; 滿意度; Hemorrhoidectomy; Intravenous general anesthesia; Spinal anesthesia; Complication; Satisfaction; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 目的 這個研究的目的是要評估兩種常使用於痔瘡切除手術的麻醉方式,分析其優劣及手術結果之間有無差異。方法 我們前瞻性地收集連續八十一位診斷為第三、四度脫垂痔瘡的病患在我們醫院接受組織凝集器(LigaSure)痔瘡切除手術的資料。這些病人中,四十位接受靜脈全身麻醉合併局部肛門注射麻醉(Group 1),四十一位接受脊椎麻醉(Group 2)。我們比較這兩組病人之基本資料、手術時間、手術室內所需花費的時間、術後疼痛指數、止痛劑使用量、併發症、住院天數、手術結果及病人滿意度。結果 所有病人均能在趴臥傑克式剪刀(prone jackknife position)的姿勢下完成痔瘡切除手術且沒有術中麻醉相關併發症。這兩組病患在年齡(age 44.1 vs. 42.6 years, p = 0.587)、性別(male:female;19/21 vs. 20/21, p = 0.908)、ASA分級(33 ASA I and 7 ASA II in group 1 vs. 33 ASA I and 8 ASA II in group 2, p = 0.816)、術前血色素值(13.7 vs. 13.9 g/dl, p = 0.561)、手術時間(23.8 vs. 22.7 min, p = 0.642)、平均住院天數(2.2 vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.576)、平均術後第一天的疼痛指數(4.5 vs. 4.6, p = 0.729)、平均術後止痛劑的使用劑量(1.4 vs. 1.5 times per person, p = 0.743)、早期及晚期手術併發症(3/40 in group 1 vs. 5/41 in group 2, p = 0.712)、平均術後追蹤時間(6.9 vs. 7.1 months, p = 0.566)及病患對整體手術的滿意度(satisfied or very satisfied: 34/40 in group 1 vs. 33/41 in group 2, p = 0.770)上均沒有統計上的顯著差別。然而,Group 2的病患平均在手術室內所需花費的時間明顯比Group 1病患來的長(45.5 vs. 60.1 min, respectively, p < 0.05)。在追蹤期間內,兩組病人均無排便失禁、肛門狹窄或復發症狀。結論 這兩種麻醉方式對於痔瘡切除術均是安全有效的,並且在手術結果、止痛劑使用量、術後併發症及病患滿意度上均無顯著差別。然而,病患於脊椎麻醉下進行痔瘡手術比在靜脈全身麻醉下需要明顯較長的時間於手術室內。 |
英文摘要 | Background. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the pros and cons of the two common anesthetic methods used for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods. We prospectively collected a database of 81 consecutive patients whose symptomatic hemorrhoids were managed by LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy at our hospital. Among these patients, 40 received intravenous general anesthesia with perianal anesthetic infiltration (group 1) and 41 patients received spinal anesthesia (group 2). The groups were compared with respect to demographic data, operative time, total time in the operating room, postoperative pain score, narcotic consumption, complications, length of hospital stay, operative outcomes, and satisfaction level. Results. All patients tolerated the whole course of the operation in the prone jackknife position without anesthetic or anesthetic-associated complications. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to patient age, gender, ASA grade, preoperative hemoglobin level, operative time, duration of hospital stay, pain score of the first postoperative day, postoperative narcotic consumption, early or late complications, duration of follow-up, and patient satisfaction level. However, the mean time spent in the operating room was significant longer in group 2 than in group 1 (45.5 vs. 60.1 min, respectively, p < 0.05). At the completion of follow-up, all patients in both groups were fully continent and no instances of anal stricture or recurrent symptoms occurred. Conclusion. Both anesthetic methods are safe and effective for hemorrhoidectomy without significant difference in operative outcomes, analgesic requirements, complications, and patient satisfaction. However, spinal anesthesia is associated with a longer time in the operating room. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。