Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease , Age of Onset , Aged , Alzheimer Disease/diagnosis , Alzheimer Disease/therapy , Humans , Male , Organizations, NonprofitABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed by the use of a general anaesthetic in children; however, use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review was to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia (GA) for provision of dental treatment to children and adolescents younger than 18 years. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2015. OBJECTIVES: We will evaluate morbidity and effectiveness of sedation versus GA for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years. If data become available, we will analyse the cost-effectiveness of different interventions. If data are not available, we will obtain crude estimates of cost.Morbidity can be defined as 'an undesired result or complication'. For the purposes of this review, 'postoperative morbidity' refers to undesired results or complications such as nausea following a procedure, once the patient had been restored to consciousness and could breathe unaided. 'Intraoperative morbidity' refers to any complications that occur during the procedure that may necessitate action by the anaesthetist or the sedationist, such as respiratory arrest. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7); MEDLINE Ovid SP (1950 to July 2015); EMBASE Ovid SP (1974 to July 2015); System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October July 2012); Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2015); and Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (1945 to July 2015).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2015. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials that compared sedative agents versus general anaesthesia in children and adolescents up to 18 years of age undergoing dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to objectives and outcome measures by using a specially designed 'data extraction form'. We will employ the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) approach to interpret findings. MAIN RESULTS: In our original review, we identified 16 studies for potential inclusion after searching available databases and screening titles and abstracts. After retrieving full-text studies, we found none to be eligible. We identified no additional studies in the updated search of July 2012. We identified two studies for possible inclusion in the updated search of July 2015; again we found these to be ineligible. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing use of dental general anaesthesia versus sedation are needed to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Dental/methods , Anesthesia, General/methods , Dental Care for Children/methods , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Child , HumansSubject(s)
Medical Staff/psychology , Military Personnel , Afghan Campaign 2001- , Female , Humans , Iraq War, 2003-2011 , Male , Middle Aged , New Jersey , Private Practice , United States , WarfareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed in children by the use of a general anaesthetic, however use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review is to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for children and adolescents aged under 18 years.This review was originally published in 2009 and updated in 2012. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the intra- and postoperative morbidity, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for under 18 year olds. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to July 2012); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to July 2012); System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October 2008), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to July 2012), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2008). The searches were updated to July 2012. The original search was performed in October 2008.We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals to July 2012. We imposed no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomized controlled clinical trials of sedative agents compared to general anaesthesia in children and adolescents aged up to 18 years having dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to the objectives and outcome measures in a specially designed 'data extraction form'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies for potential inclusion after searching the available databases and screening the titles and abstracts. We identified a further study through personal contacts. Following full text retrieval of the studies, we found none to be eligible for inclusion in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies are required comparing the use of dental general anaesthesia with sedation to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Dental/methods , Anesthesia, General/methods , Dental Care for Children/methods , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Child , HumansSubject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Delivery of Health Care/economics , Physician Executives/economics , Physicians/economics , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/trends , History, 21st Century , Humans , Physician Executives/organization & administration , Physician Executives/trends , Physicians/organization & administration , Physicians/trends , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children have caries requiring restorations or extractions, and some of these children will not accept this treatment under local anaesthetic. Historically this has been managed in children by use of a general anaesthetic; however use of sedation may lead to reduced morbidity and cost. The aim of this review is to compare the efficiency of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for children and adolescents under 18 years. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the intra- and post-operative morbidity, effectiveness and cost effectiveness of sedation versus general anaesthesia for the provision of dental treatment for under 18 year olds. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library; Issue 4, 2008); MEDLINE (OVID) (1950 to October Week 2, 2008); EMBASE (OVID) (1974 to Week 42, 2008); System for information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (1980 to October 2008), Latin American & Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to October 2008), ISI Web of Science (1945 to October 2008).We also carried out handsearching of relevant journals. There was no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled clinical trials of sedative agents compared to general anaesthesia in children and adolescents aged up to 18 years having dental treatment. We excluded complex surgical procedures and pseudo-randomized trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. We recorded information relevant to the objectives and outcome measures into a specially designed 'data extraction form'. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 15 studies for potential inclusion after searching the available databases and screening the titles and abstracts. We identified a further study through personal contacts. Following full text retrieval of the studies, we found none to be eligible AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Randomized controlled studies comparing the use of dental general anaesthesia with sedation to quantify differences such as morbidity and cost are required.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Dental/methods , Anesthesia, General/methods , Dental Care for Children/methods , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Adolescent , Child , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A helpless patient was administered 1 GBq of I to ablate thyroid remnants post-thyroidectomy. The patient was quadriplegic, doubly incontinent and unable to swallow. Published data suggest that nursing staff may receive a total effective dose of 3400 microSv when dealing with such a patient for one 8 h shift per day for 7 days post-treatment. AIM: To quantify the effective doses received by nursing staff on dealing with a helpless patient undergoing radioiodine ablation therapy. METHODS: After intravenous administration of 131I, the whole-body doses received by nursing staff were measured using electronic personal dosemeters for 7 days. The nursing staff recorded the times spent in contact with the patient and the activities performed during these times. RESULTS: The total effective dose received by nursing staff over 7 days was 148 microSv. A nurse working alone for one 8 h shift per day for 7 days could receive an effective dose of 91 microSv. The nursing staff spent an average of 23 min (standard deviation, 15 min) per 8 h shift dealing with the patient. Nursing duties were performed at a contact distance of approximately 0.5 m from the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The nursing contact times required for the management of a helpless patient post-radioiodine therapy are lower than previously estimated. It is possible to successfully treat such a patient whilst keeping the effective doses to nursing staff within appropriate constraints. The measured nursing contact times provide an up-to-date summary of current nursing practice and will be a useful aid in the planning of future treatments.
