IntroductionThe proportion of women electing for cesarean delivery has increased in both developed and developing countries. Cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) refers to a primary cesarean delivery performed because the mother requests this method of delivery in the absence of standard medical/obstetrical indications.Several studies compared anesthesia modalities in cesarean section regarding clinical outcomes such as maternal mortality, post-operative pain and bleeding, but only a few compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women undergoing general anesthesia versus spinal anesthesia. The aim of this study was to determine whether pregnant women who undergo general anesthesia (GA) for cesarean delivery compared with spinal anesthesia (SA) differ regarding their perceived HRQoL.MethodologyWe enrolled 160 pregnant women with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class II, scheduled for CDMR with GA or SA. Anesthesia modality was based on patient’s preference. Participants assessed their state of health with the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) self-administered questionnaire at four time points: six hours before cesarean delivery, 24 hours after cesarean delivery, one week and one month after cesarean delivery. Patients also rated their health on the EQ visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) from 100 mm “best imaginable health state” to 0 mm “worst imaginable health state”.ResultsMore women who underwent spinal anesthesia reported “no problem” with regards to “mobility’ (64% vs. 30%, p = 0.00), “usual activities” (90% vs. 38%, p = 0.00), and “pain/discomfort” (20% vs. 5%, p = 0.007). Repeated measurement analysis showed that the two groups started off with the same EQ-VAS score, however, both decreased over time with different slope resulting in different scores at 24 hours after CS. Then the scores increased in both groups over time and ended up being rather close at one month after CS.DiscussionUnless there is a contraindication, neuraxial anesthesia is the anesthetic technique of choice for cesarean delivery in all parturient in general. This concept is based on more mortality and morbidity that have been seen with general anesthesia in this particular population. Our study demonstrated significant advantages of spinal anesthesia compared to general anesthesia in cesarean section regarding postoperatively perceived HRQoL. We showed that more pregnant women who chose spinal anesthesia as their anesthesia modality reported “no problem” with respect to “mobility” and “Self-care” 24 hours after cesarean section. On the top of that, more women in this group had “no problem” in their “usual activities” at one week and one month after cesarean delivery time points. Moreover, EQ-5D general health score was higher 24 hours after cesarean delivery with regional anesthesia comparing to general anesthesia.ConclusionWe determined that compared to general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is the technique of choice for cesarean section because not only it avoids a general anesthetic and the risk of failed...
Objective Breast cancer is a worldwide health concern, and surgical removal has remained the preferred therapeutic option in most patients. Furthermore, the current study was designed to investigate the disease-free survival and overall survival in breast cancer patients, who receive either propofol or isoflurane during operation. Method This retrospective study was conducted on 994 patients (IV group, n = 530; volatile/inhalational group, n = 464) who underwent breast cancer operation from January 2006 to December 2016 at Faghihi Hospital, Shiraz, Iran. All studied patients were followed up till 2020. Patients are classified into two groups, IV and volatile/inhalational, according to the received anesthesia. For statistical analysis, The Cox regression test was conducted to investigate the association between factors affecting the recurrence of the disease and the Log Rank test was utilized to assess the patients’ survival. Finally, to reduce the effect of confounding factors, all patients were matched according to age, tumor size and tumor grade. Results Based on results from the log-rank test, the volatile/inhalational group had a better recurrence-free survival (P = 0.039) compared to the total IV group. However, the overall survival was not considerably different (P = 0.520). Conclusion The current study showed that although 2-year disease-free survival is higher in the volatile/inhalational group, there is no meaningful association between the 5-year overall survival and anesthesia technique.
One of the most severe pain that a woman experiences in her lifetime is labor pain which leads to increase their desire to perform caesarean section. In the present study we assessed the attitudes and awareness of obstetricians and midwives by raising their knowledge and skills, to increase the rate of vaginal delivery and reduce the cesarean. Methods: Study Design: Qualitative study. Setting: Obstetricians and Midwives from throughout the Shiraz City, South of Iran, were participated by completing the questionnaire. Period: 6 months in 2015. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS software, version 20.0. The results were presented as frequency (percentage). Results: 118 individuals including 25 (21%) Obstetricians and 93 (79%) Midwives were participated in the current study. Both obstetricians and midwives preferred normal vaginal delivery (NVD) (83.9%). 91% of subjects believed that the reason of preference of NVD is the safety of mother and child. 34.7% of individuals was fully aware of painless labor. 21.2% had average information. Most of the subjects was agreed with the painless labor method (92.4%) and 4.2% was disagreed. Lack of pain and calmness during labor (62.2%) and reduction of fear of natural childbirth (50.5%) were the main reasons of agreements. 85.2% of obstetrics and midwives believed that the number of painless labor in Iran in comparison to international standards is less than desired. Conclusions: Although the majority of obstetricians and midwives were agreed with the painless labor in hospitals, almost half of them were aware of the painless delivery. Raising the knowledge of health care providers about painless delivery can influence on awareness and attitude of them and parturient toward normal vaginal delivery.
Background. Rhinocerebral mucormycosis is a serious invasive fungal infection that is one of the most aggressive and lethal of invasive mycoses. The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been linked to immune dysregulation, and patients with COVID-19 have been reported to be at risk for developing invasive fungal infections. This study is conducted to evaluate the concurrence of mucormycosis among COVID-19 patients. Methods. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, hospital records of patients with mucormycosis, as well as COVID-19 admitted to Khalili Hospital, as the major referral center for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) in southern Iran, were collected. Demographic and clinical information was extracted and subsequently analyzed. Results. Among 59 mucormycosis patients undergoing FESS, 41 (69.5%) were during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 18 (30.5%) were during one year before the COVID-19 pandemic. The average age was 49.33 ± 20.52, and 64.4% had diabetes mellitus, while 62.7% had COVID-19. The most common presentation was periorbital edema (56.9%), followed by necrotic tissue (48.3%). Although the total number of cases increased during the COVID-19 period compared to the case before the pandemic, the overall pattern and features of the patients had no significant difference, except regarding a significant increase in the presentation of necrotic tissue and also the use of corticosteroids. Most cases developed mucormycosis two weeks after COVID-19. The overall mortality was 36.8%, which is not statistically associated with COVID-19. Conclusion. Even in the absence of comorbidities, physicians should be aware of the risk of secondary fungal infections in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with corticosteroids.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.