Fast-track anesthesia (FTA) is difficult to achieve in neonates due to immature organ function and high rates of perioperative events. As a high-risk population, neonates require prolonged postoperative mechanical ventilation, which may lead to contradictions in cases where neonatal intensive care unit resources and ventilator facilities are limited. The choice of anesthesia strategy and anesthetic can help achieve rapid postoperative rehabilitation and save hospitalization costs. The authors describe their experience with maintaining spontaneous breathing in neonates undergoing anoplasty without opioids or muscle relaxants.This retrospective chart review included neonates who underwent anoplasty in the authors’ institution. Twelve neonates who underwent the procedure with atomized 5% lidocaine topical anesthesia around the glottis, combined with sevoflurane sedation and caudal anesthesia facilitating tracheal intubation without opioid and muscle relaxant comprised the FTA group. Ten neonates who underwent the intervention with routine anesthesia techniques in the same period comprised the control group (group C).The surgical success rate in the FTA group was 91.7%. There were no severe complications related to lidocaine administered around the glottis. Extubation time was significantly shorter in the FTA group than in group C (4 [2.5, 5.2] vs 81.5 [60.6, 96.8], respectively; P < .01). The duration of stay in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) was longer in group C than in the FTA group (2 [2.0, 2.6] vs 1 [0.9, 2.0], respectively; P = .006,). A statistically significant lower rate of extubation-cough was noted after endotracheal tube removal in the FTA group compared with group C (18% vs 90%, respectively; P < .001). There was no difference in the duration of anesthesia or hospitalization costs between the 2 groups. No neonates required re-intubation after extubation.On-table extubation via 5% atomized lidocaine topical anesthesia around the glottis for tracheal intubation combined with sevoflurane sedation and caudal anesthesia without opioid and muscle relaxant was feasible in neonates undergoing anoplasty. This reduced time to extubation, length of SICU stay and saved resources. A similar trend in cost savings was also found; nevertheless, more studies are needed to confirm these results.
Introduction With the widespread use of one-lung ventilation (OLV) in thoracic surgery, it is unclear whether maintenance anesthetics such as propofol and inhaled anesthetics are associated with postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of propofol and inhaled anesthetics on postoperative complications in OLV patients. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials until 09/2021. All randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of propofol versus inhaled anesthetics on postoperative complications in OLV patients were included. All randomized controlled trials comparing:(a) major complications (b) postoperative pulmonary complications (c) postoperative cognitive function (MMSE score) (d) length of hospital stay (e) 30-day mortality, were included. Results Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 2522 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, there was no significant difference in major postoperative complications between the inhaled anesthetic and propofol groups (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13, p = 0.19; I2 = 0%). However, more PPCs were detected in the propofol group compared to the inhalation anesthesia group (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.87, p = 0.005; I2 = 37%). Both postoperative MMSE score (SMD -1.94, 95%CI -4.87 to 0.99, p = 0.19; I2 = 100%) and hospital stay (SMD 0.05, 95%CI -0.29 to 0.39, p = 0.76; I2 = 73%) were similar between the two groups. The 30-day mortality rate was also not significantly different between groups (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.03 to 18, p = 0.88; I2 = 63%). Conclusions In patients undergoing OLV, general anesthesia with inhaled anesthetics reduced PPC compared to propofol, but did not provide clear benefits on other major complications, cognitive function, length of hospital stay, or mortality.
Introduction? With the widely used technique of One Lung Ventilation (OLV) in patients throughout thoracic surgery, it’s unclear whether inhaled or intravenous anesthetics were associated with postoperative complications. The purpose of the current study is to compare the effects of intravenous and inhaled anesthetics on the postoperative complications within the patients suffering OLV. Methods? We searched the related randomized controlled trials in PubMed\EMBASE\Medline and the Cochrane library up to 09\2021.Inclusive criteria were as follows: We included all the randomized controlled trials which compared the effects of intravenous and inhaled anesthetics on the postoperative complications[listed as: (a) major complications; (b)postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs); (c) postoperative cognitive function (MMSE score); (d) length of hospital stay; (e) 30-days mortality] for the patients undergoing one lung ventilation. Results? Thirteen randomized controlled trials with 2522 patients were included for analysis. Overall, there were no significant differences in the postoperative major complications between inhaled and intravenous anesthetics groups (OR 0.78, 95%CI 0.54 to 1.13, p =0.19; I 2 =0%). However, more PPCs were detected in intravenous groups when compared to inhaled groups (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.44 to 0.87, p =0.005; I 2 =37%). Both the postoperative MMSE scores (SMD -1.94, 95%CI -4.87 to 0.99, p =0.19; I 2 =100%) and the length of hospital stay (SMD 0.05, 95%CI -0.29 to 0.39, p =0.76; I 2 =73%) were comparable between two groups. Besides, the 30-day mortality didn’t differ significantly across groups either (OR 0.79, 95%CI 0.03 to 18, p =0.88; I 2 =63%). Conclusions? In patients undergoing OLV, generous anesthesia with inhaled anesthetics could reduce PPCs compared with intravenous anesthetics, but no evident advantages were provided over other major complications, cognitive function, hospital stay or mortality.
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.