Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2021 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 11

Comparison of popliteal anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in patients with the diabetic foot: Our clinical series

Pages
1952–1956
Publication Date
2022-10-12
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)

Conclusion: In conclusion, we believe that ultrasound-guided popliteal block provides more reliable and efficient analgesia than spinal anesthesia in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Surgery is of great importance in the treatment of diabetic foot.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: In this study, we included 54 patients diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcers in our hospital between September 2010 and December 2012.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: In conclusion, we believe that ultrasound-guided popliteal block provides more reliable and efficient analgesia than spinal anesthesia in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: Surgery is of great importance in the treatment of diabetic foot. We aimed to compare unilateral spinal anesthesia and ultrasound-guided popliteal block procedures in patients diagnosed with a diabetic foot ulcer. Materials and Methods: In this study, we included 54 patients diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcers in our hospital between September 2010 and December 2012. The patients were randomly divided into two groups of 27 patients each: Group I (Spinal group) and Group II (Popliteal group). Spinal anesthesia was performed in Group I, whereas ultrasound-guided popliteal block was performed in Group II. During and after the anesthesia, the total isotonic fluid given, average patient and surgeon satisfaction score, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Results: In Group I, the average length of hospital stay was 6.07 ± 1.2 days, the total isotonic fluid given was 1832.2 ± 280.7 ml, and the average patient and surgeon satisfaction score was 2.44 ± 0.5. In Group II, the average length of hospital stay was 6.5 ± 1.04 days, the total isotonic fluid given was 731.11 ± 130.2 ml, and the average patient and surgeon satisfaction score were 3. In addition, in Group I, 9 patients had bradycardia and 12 patients had hypotension and nausea. The findings of the study indicate a statistically significant difference in terms of the total isotonic fluid given and average patient and surgeon satisfaction scores (p 0.05). Conclusion: In conclusion, we believe that ultrasound-guided popliteal block provides more reliable and efficient analgesia than spinal anesthesia in patients with diabetic foot ulcers.

🔖

Cite This Article

Tatar, B. E., Akdemir, O., Erdem, M., Kostekci, H. (2022). Comparison of popliteal anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in patients with the diabetic foot: Our clinical series. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 11, 1952–1956. https://ajindex.com/articles/445818

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Zhang P, Lu J, Jing Y, et al. Global epidemiology of diabetic foot ulceration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Med 2017;49:106-16
  2. Apelqvist J, Bakker K, Van Houtum WH, et al. International consensus and practical guidelines on the management and the prevention of the diabetic foot. International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2000;16:S84-92
  3. Mayfield JA, Reiber GE, Sanders LJ, et al. Preventive foot care in diabetes. Diabetes Care 2004;27:S63-4
  4. Driver VR, Fabbi M, Lavery LA, et al. The costs of diabetic foot: the economic case for the limb salvage team. J Vasc Surg 2010;52:17S-22S
  5. Chun DI, Kim S, Kim J, et al. Epidemiology and burden of diabetic foot ulcer and peripheral arterial disease in Korea. J Clin Med 2019;8:748
  6. Klaastad Ø, Smith HJ, Smedby O, et al. A novel infraclavicular brachial plexus block: the lateral and sagittal technique, developed by magnetic resonance imaging studies. Anesth Analg 2004;98:252-6
  7. Katsilambros NL, Tsapogas PC, Arvanitis MP, et al. Risk factors for lower extremity arterial disease in non-insulin-dependent diabetic persons. Diabet Med 1996;13:243-6
  8. Gurkan Y, Acar S, Solak M, et al. Comparison of nerve stimulation vs. ultrasound-guided lateral sagittal infraclavicular block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008;52:851-5
  9. Ozturk I, Kilic B, Demiroglu M, et al. Effect of diabetes mellitus on spinal anesthesia failure. Acta Medica Mediterranea 2017;33:417
  10. El Hossary ZI, El Attar HA, Amin OA, et al. A comparison of spinal anesthesia versus lateral approach of popliteal nerve block for diabetic foot surgeries. Med J Cairo Univ 2015;83:463-72
  11. Donner B, Tryba M, Sokolew J, et al. Does the mixture of bupivacaine and prilocaine as opposed to bupivacaine afford a clinical advantage in epidural anesthesia? Anaesthesist 1993;42:295-9
  12. Barnett SF, Alagar RK, Grocott MP, et al. Patientsatisfaction measures in anesthesia: qualitative systematic review. Anesthesiology 2013;119:452-78
  13. Donati A, Mercuri G, Iuorio S, et al. Haemodynamic modifications after unilateral subarachnoid anaesthesia evaluated with transthoracic echocardiography. Minerva Anestesiol 2005;71:75- 81
  14. Gautam A, Baluch A, Kaye AD, et al. Modern strategies for the anesthetic management of the patient with diabetes. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 2009;20:187-97. Kadoi Y. Anesthetic considerations in diabetic patients. Part I: preoperative considerations of patients with diabetes mellitus. J Anest