Journals / Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation / 2017 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1

Acil Sezaryen Operasyonlarında Genel ve Spinal Anestezinin Hasta Memnuniyeti Yönünden Karşılaştırılması

Comparison of Patient Satisfaction Between General and Spinal Anaesthesia in Emergency Caesarean Deliveries

Pages
41–46
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Spinal anaesthesia speeds up the recovery time and enables the mother to return to normal life earlier, while general anaesthesia has a short initiation time and does not affect patient satisfaction.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Obstetric anaesthesia aims to deliver a healthy baby as well as render a comfortable operation for the mother.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In total, 100 patients were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, cross-sectional clinical study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Spinal anaesthesia speeds up the recovery time and enables the mother to return to normal life earlier, while general anaesthesia has a short initiation time and does not affect patient satisfaction.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Obstetric anaesthesia aims to deliver a healthy baby as well as render a comfortable operation for the mother. This study compared general and spinal anaesthesia in terms of the quality of recovery and patient satisfaction in women undergoing emergency caesarean deliveries. Methods: In total, 100 patients were enrolled in this prospective, single-blind, cross-sectional clinical study. Patients were divided into spinal (n=50) and general (n=50) anaesthesia groups. The recovery score, pain and satisfaction were evaluated by Quality of Recovery Score (QoR-40), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at 24 hours postoperatively. Results: The total QoR-40 scores were significantly higher and the total operation time was longer in the spinal anaesthesia group (median score: 194.5 vs. 179.0, p<0.001 and mean±SD: 69.0±13.3 vs. 62.7±13.4 minutes, p=0.02, respectively). There was no significant difference in VAS and NRS scores between the groups. Conclusion: Both spinal anaesthesia and general anaesthesia have advantages and disadvantages in terms of emergency caesarean deliveries. Spinal anaesthesia speeds up the recovery time and enables the mother to return to normal life earlier, while general anaesthesia has a short initiation time and does not affect patient satisfaction.

Özet

Amaç: Obstetrik anestezi, sağlıklı bebek doğumunu sağlamak yanında anne için rahat bir cerrahi işlem sağlanmasını amaçlar. Bu araştırma, acil sezeryan geçiren kadınlarda derlenme kalitesi ve hasta memnuniyeti açısından spinal ve genel anestezinin karşılaş- tırılmasını amaçlamaktadır. Yöntemler: Bu prospektif, tek-kör, kesitsel klinik çalışmaya top- lam 100 hasta dahil edildi. Hastalar spinal (n=50) ve genel (n=50) anestezi gruplarına ayrıldı. Derlenme skoru, ağrı ve memnuniyet sırasıyla, postoperatif 24. saatte derlenme kalitesi skoru (QoR-40), vizüel analog skalası (VAS) ve nümerik derecelendirme skalası (NRS) ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Spinal anestezi grubunda toplam QoR-40 skorları an- lamlı yüksek ve cerrahi süresi anlamlı olarak daha uzundu (med- yan skorlar: 194,5'e 179,0; p<0,001 ve ortalama±SS 69,0±13,3'e 62,7±13,4 dakika; p=0,02). Gruplar arasında VAS ve NRS skorla- rı arasında istatistiksel anlamlı fark yoktu. Sonuç: Acil sezeryan doğumlarda hem spinal hem de genel anes- tezinin avantaj ve dezavantajları bulunmaktadır. Spinal anestezi derlenme süresini hızlandırır ve annenin normal yaşamına daha erken dönebilmesini sağlarken, genel anestezinin kısa başlangıç süresi vardır. Hasta memnuniyeti açısından bu iki yöntem için fark bulunmamaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

AÇIKEL, A., ÖZTÜRK, T., GÖKER, A., HAYRAN, G. G., KELEŞ, G. T. (2017). Acil Sezaryen Operasyonlarında Genel ve Spinal Anestezinin Hasta Memnuniyeti Yönünden Karşılaştırılması. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 1, 41–46. https://ajindex.com/articles/370270

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Dahl V, Spreng UJ. Anaesthesia for urgent (grade 1) caesarean section. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2009
  2. [CrossRef] 2. Gulur P, Nishimori M, Ballantyne JC. Regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia, morbidity and mortality. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2006
  3. [CrossRef] 3. Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ 2000
  4. [CrossRef] 4. Lai HY, Tsai PS, Fan YC, Huang CJ. Anesthetic practice for Caesarean section and factors influencing anesthesiologists’ choice of anesthesia: a population-based study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2014
  5. [CrossRef] 5. Hawkins JL. ASA Practice Guidelines for obstetric anesthesia Int J Obstet Anesth 2007
  6. Kinsella SM. A prospective audit of regional anaesthesia failure in 5080 Caesarean sections. Anaesthesia 2008
  7. [CrossRef] 7. Practice Guidelines for Obstetric Anesthesia An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Obstetric Anesthesia and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology. Anesthesiology 2016
  8. [CrossRef] 8. Dresner MR, Freeman JM. Anaesthesia for caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2001
  9. [CrossRef] 9. McIntosh S, Adams J. Anxiety and quality of recovery in day surgery: A questionnaire study using Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Quality of Recovery Score. Int J Nurs Pract 2011
  10. [CrossRef] 10. Caumo W, Schmidt AP, Schneider CN, Bergmann J, Iwamoto CW, Bandeira D, et al. Risk factors for preoperative anxiety in adults. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001
  11. [CrossRef] 11. Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 2000
  12. [CrossRef] 12. Karaman S, Arici S, Dogru S, Karaman T, Tapar H, Kaya Z, et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2014
  13. [CrossRef] 13. Popham P, Buettner A, Mendola M. Anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section, 2000-2004, at the Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007
  14. Levy DM. Emergency Caesarean section: best practice. Anaesthesia 2006
  15. [CrossRef] 15. Kinsella SM, Walton B, Sashidharan R, Draycott T. Category-1 caesarean