Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 19(14)2022 Jul 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1938806

ABSTRACT

Ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks performed on the anterior and lateral thoracic wall have become an important adjuvant method to general anesthesia and an independent method of local anesthesia and pain management. These procedures diminish the harmful effects of anesthesia on respiratory function and reduce the risk of phrenic nerve paralysis or iatrogenic pneumothorax. In postoperative pain management, interfascial plane blocks decrease the dosage of intravenous drugs, including opioids. They can also eliminate the complications associated with general anesthesia when used as the sole method of anesthesia for surgical procedures. The following procedures are classified as interfascial plane blocks of the anterior and lateral thoracic wall: pectoral nerve plane block (PECS), serratus anterior plane block (SAP), transversus thoracic muscle plane block (TTP), pectoral interfascial plane block (PIF), and intercostal nerve block (ICNB). These blocks are widely used in emergency medicine, oncologic surgery, general surgery, thoracic surgery, cardiac surgery, orthopedics, cardiology, nephrology, oncology, palliative medicine, and pain medicine. Regional blocks are effective for analgesic treatment, both as an anesthesia procedure for surgery on the anterior and lateral thoracic wall and as an analgesic therapy after trauma or other conditions that induce pain in this area. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, ultrasound-guided interfascial plane blocks are safe alternatives for anesthesia in patients with symptoms of respiratory distress related to SARS-CoV-2 and appear to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection among medical personnel.


Subject(s)
Analgesia , COVID-19 , Cardiac Surgical Procedures , Nerve Block , Thoracic Nerves , Thoracic Wall , Analgesia/adverse effects , Humans , Nerve Block/adverse effects , Nerve Block/methods , Pain Management , Pain, Postoperative , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Thoracic Wall/surgery , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods
3.
Neurologia (Engl Ed) ; 35(5): 291-294, 2020 Jun.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1386382

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to the need for changes in clinical practice, with new strategies to enable integrated care for patients with headache and neuralgia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Given the high spreadability of SARS-CoV-2, new safety measures are required in such procedures as onabotulinumtoxinA infiltration and nerve blocks. RESULTS: We present a series of recommendations based on the measures implemented to prevent infection in our healthcare system. We differentiate between measures related to patients and physicians, to technique, to infrastructure (waiting room and consultation), and to healthcare management.


Subject(s)
Botulinum Toxins, Type A/therapeutic use , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Headache/drug therapy , Humans , Migraine Disorders/drug therapy , Nerve Block/methods , Neuralgia/drug therapy , Occupational Health , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 225(5): 556.e1-556.e10, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1377644

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pelvic reconstructive surgery may cause significant postoperative pain, especially with posterior colporrhaphy, contributing to a longer hospital stay and increased pain medication utilization. Regional blocks are being increasingly utilized in gynecologic surgery to improve postoperative pain and decrease opioid usage, yet preoperative pudendal blocks have not been used routinely during posterior colporrhaphy. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effect of preoperative regional pudendal nerve block using a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine vs 0.25% plain bupivacaine alone on vaginal pain after posterior colporrhaphy on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. We hypothesized that there would be a reduction in vaginal pain scores for the study group vs the control group over the first 72 hours. STUDY DESIGN: This was a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial that included patients undergoing a posterior colporrhaphy, either independently or in conjunction with other vaginal or abdominal reconstructive procedures. Patients were block randomized to receive 20 mL of either a combination of 1.3% liposomal and 0.25% plain bupivacaine (study) or 20 mL of 0.25% plain bupivacaine (control) in a regional pudendal block before the start of surgery. Double blinding was achieved by covering four 5-mL syringes containing the randomized local anesthetic. After induction of anesthesia, a pudendal nerve block was performed per standard technique (5 mL superiorly and 5 mL inferiorly each ischial spine) using a pudendal kit. The primary outcome was to evaluate postoperative vaginal pain using a visual analog scale on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3. Secondary outcomes included total analgesic medication usage through postoperative day 3, postoperative voiding and defecatory dysfunction, and impact of vaginal pain on quality of life factors. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled (60 in each group). There were no significant differences in demographic data, including baseline vaginal pain (P=.88). Postoperative vaginal pain scores were significantly lower in the combined liposomal and bupivacaine group at all time points vs the plain bupivacaine group. Median pain scores for the study and control groups, respectively, were 0 (0-2) and 2 (0-4) for postoperative day 1 (P=.03), 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 2 (P=.05), and 2 (1-4) and 3 (2-5) for postoperative day 3 (P=.02). Vaginal pain scores increased from postoperative day 1 to postoperative days 2 and 3 in both groups. There was a significant decrease in ibuprofen (P=.01) and acetaminophen (P=.03) usage in the study group; however, there was no difference between groups in total opioid consumption through postoperative day 3 (P=.82). There was no difference in successful voiding trials (study 72%, control 82%, P=.30), return of bowel function (P>.99), or quality of life factors (sleep, stress, mood, and activity). CONCLUSION: Preoperative regional pudendal block with a combination of liposomal and plain bupivacaine provided more effective vaginal pain control than plain bupivacaine alone for reconstructive surgery that included posterior colporrhaphy. Given the statistically significant decrease in vaginal pain in the study group, this block may be considered as a potential adjunct for multimodal pain reduction in this patient population.


Subject(s)
Bupivacaine/administration & dosage , Nerve Block/methods , Pain, Postoperative/prevention & control , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/methods , Vagina/surgery , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Liposomes , Middle Aged , Pelvis/surgery
5.
Braz J Anesthesiol ; 71(5): 572-575, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1293602

ABSTRACT

The anesthesia method to be administered during emergency surgical procedures for COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pneumonia patients carries great importance for both patient and surgical team. Regional blocks are generally used to ensure postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. In this case, involving a patient receiving anticoagulant treatment due to COVID-19 pneumonia with planned emergency operation, the aim was to present the anesthesia management with rectus sheath and transversus abdominis plane block combination for the ileostomy operation. Due to the administered blocks, the patient was not given general anesthesia. Hence, transmission was reduced by minimizing aerosol formation in terms of protecting health personnel and worsening of the patient's pneumonia was prevented. The case is discussed in terms of regional anesthesia techniques offering a good alternative in appropriate cases for both employee and patient safety in the present day, when the whole world is affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Ileostomy/methods , Nerve Block/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Abdominal Wall , Aged , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Emergencies , Humans , Male , Pneumonia, Viral/virology
7.
Medwave ; 20(6): e7950, 2020 Jul 02.
Article in Spanish, English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-696250

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this article is to review the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2, the clinical-epidemiological aspects of COVID-19, and the implications anesthesiologists when performing aerosol-generating procedures. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, SciELO, and Web of Science databases was performed until April 9, 2020, using the words: "COVID-19 or COVID19 or SARS-CoV-2 and anesthesiology or anesthesia". Forty-eight articles with information on the management of the patient in the perioperative period or the intensive care unit when suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. In general, the postponement of elective surgeries for no more than 6 to 8 weeks, depending on the clinical condition of the patients is recommended. In the case of urgent or emergency surgeries, we review the use of personal protection gear, as well as the recommended strategies for carrying out the procedure.


El objetivo de este artículo es revisar las características del SARS-CoV-2, los aspectos clínico-epidemiológicos de COVID-19 y las implicaciones que tienen para los anestesiólogos al realizar procedimientos generadores de aerosoles. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos PubMed, Scopus, SciELO y Web of Science hasta el 9 de abril de 2020, utilizando las palabras: “COVID-19 or COVID19 or SARS-CoV-2 and anesthesiology or anesthesia”. Se incluyeron 48 artículos con información sobre el manejo del paciente en el perioperatorio o en la unidad de cuidados intensivos ante la sospecha o confirmación de infección por SARS-CoV-2. En general, se recomienda el aplazamiento de las cirugías electivas por no más de seis a ocho semanas, de acuerdo a las condiciones clínicas de los pacientes. En el caso de cirugías de urgencia o emergencia, se revisan tópicos del sistema de protección personal así como las estrategias recomendadas para la realización de los procedimientos.


Subject(s)
Anesthesiology/standards , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Aerosols , Anesthesia, Conduction/methods , Anesthesia, Epidural/methods , Anesthesia, General/methods , Anesthesia, Spinal/methods , Anesthesiology/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus/genetics , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Intubation, Intratracheal/methods , Intubation, Intratracheal/standards , Nerve Block/methods , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiration, Artificial/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Symptom Assessment/methods
10.
Anaesthesia ; 75(10): 1350-1363, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-133570

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has had a significant impact on global healthcare services. In an attempt to limit the spread of infection and to preserve healthcare resources, one commonly used strategy has been to postpone elective surgery, whilst maintaining the provision of anaesthetic care for urgent and emergency surgery. General anaesthesia with airway intervention leads to aerosol generation, which increases the risk of COVID-19 contamination in operating rooms and significantly exposes the healthcare teams to COVID-19 infection during both tracheal intubation and extubation. Therefore, the provision of regional anaesthesia may be key during this pandemic, as it may reduce the need for general anaesthesia and the associated risk from aerosol-generating procedures. However, guidelines on the safe performance of regional anaesthesia in light of the COVID-19 pandemic are limited. The goal of this review is to provide up-to-date, evidence-based recommendations or expert opinion when evidence is limited, for performing regional anaesthesia procedures in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. These recommendations focus on seven specific domains including: planning of resources and staffing; modifying the clinical environment; preparing equipment, supplies and drugs; selecting appropriate personal protective equipment; providing adequate oxygen therapy; assessing for and safely performing regional anaesthesia procedures; and monitoring during the conduct of anaesthesia and post-anaesthetic care. Implicit in these recommendations is preserving patient safety whilst protecting healthcare providers from possible exposure.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Conduction/methods , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , COVID-19 , Humans , Nerve Block/methods , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL