Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Coronary Thrombosis , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Coronary Vessels/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Vessels/surgery , Coronary Thrombosis/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Thrombosis/etiology , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Stents/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosisABSTRACT
PURPOSE: A relatively high expense with any procedure is total operative time; two components being the time spent anesthetizing the patient and time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room (OR). Both times can be affected by the anesthetic method used. This study compares different operative time intervals for both spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA), in patients undergoing a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective anesthetic method. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution for primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed in the year 2019. Primary THAs without complications performed by three orthopedic surgeons were selected. Anesthesia records for 200 patients were used to compare perioperative time intervals; 100 consecutive patients that received SA and 100 consecutive patients that received GA. RESULTS: The time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room was 8 min for GA and 5 min for SA (p < 0.001). Total operative time for GA was 90 min and 87 min for SA (p = 0.3330). Total pre-operative time averaged 26 min in SA compared to 25 min in GA (p = 0.5874). Non-operative total time (all time components of patient interaction excluding surgery start to surgery finish) was significantly shorter in SA with an average of 52 compared to 56 in GA (p = 0.0151). CONCLUSION: Time to transfer patient out of the OR and total non-operative time was significantly shorter in patients who received spinal anesthesia. These results and the complications of both general and spinal anesthesia should be taken into consideration when anesthetizing patients undergoing primary THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Spinal , Anesthetics , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Anesthesia, GeneralABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current review was to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise trials that examine concussion prevention via equipment, educational programmes and training programmes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EBSCO host (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The electronic databases PubMed and EBSCO were searched using the phrases: concussion prevention equipment, concussion prevention training and concussion prevention education. Included studies utilised a prospective study design to evaluate the preventative effect of: (1) equipment, (2) training or (3) educational programmes on the incidence of concussions in comparison to a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: Demographic data and intervention methods were recorded. Intervention and control group concussion rates and superficial head injury rates were extracted and combined using random-effects relative risk meta-analysis. RESULTS: 14 studies evaluated interventions of novel protective equipment. One prospective investigation evaluated an educational programme. The relative risk of concussion for participants enrolled in the interventional arms of trials was not significantly different from that in standard practice arms (RR=0.78, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.11, χ2=1.8, p=0.17; I2=85.3%, 95% CI 71.5% to 90.8%). The relative risk of concussion for participants wearing protective equipment (ie, headgear, full face shields) relative to their counterparts wearing standard or no equipment, calculated from seven available reports, showed no effect of intervention (RR=0.82, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.20, χ2=1.06, p=0.30; I2=86.7%, 95% CI 73.3% to 91.8%). The relative risk of superficial head injury for participants wearing protective equipment relative to their counterparts, calculated from three reports, showed a significant risk reduction (RR=0.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.56, χ2=34.13, p<0.0001; I2=53.1%, 95% CI 0% to 85.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective controlled studies indicate that certain protective equipment may prevent superficial head injury, but these items are suboptimal for concussion prevention in sport.
