Explore the vast range of titles available.

General anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic technique for spinal surgery. This study aimed to compare spinal anesthesia (SA) and GA in patients undergoing spinal surgery, in terms of perioperative outcome and cost effectiveness. The study included 80 patients with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I–II. The patients were randomized to receive SA (n=40) or GA (n=40). Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, and duration in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) were recorded. Postoperative analgesic requirement, nausea and vomiting (PONV), perioperative hemodynamic variables, and anesthetic costs were determined. HR and MABP were significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group at the end of surgery and at PACU admission. Duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, postoperative analgesic requirement, and anesthetic costs were significantly higher in the GA group. Mean blood loss was lower in the SA group than in the GA group, but the difference was not significant. Duration of surgery, duration in the PACU, perioperative hemodynamic variables, and complications were similar in both groups. SA could be considered a reliable alternative to GA in patients undergoing lumber spine surgery, as it is clinically as effective as GA, but more cost effective.

The medical and economic benefits of the transvaginal approach over the abdominal and laparoscopic methods are demonstrated in many studies. Vaginal hysterectomy with bipolar vessel sailing (BiClamp(®)) represents an example of mininvasive surgery and could be a valid and cost-benefit alternative in the surgical treatment of benign gynaecologic disease. BiClamp(®) may be carried out according to Clavè's technique with a good result in postoperative pain. Prospective randomized study (Canadian Task Force classification I). We compared the vaginal hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomies with BiClamp(®) and multimodal anaesthesia (group A 30 patients) with vaginal hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomies and spinal anaesthesia (group B 30 patients). The median operating time was 33.5 min for group A and 54.5 min for group B (p < 0.0001). The median blood loss was 59.25 ml in group A and 81.75 ml in group B. The median hospital stay was 1.6 ± 0.58 days for group A and 2.55 ± 0.66 days for group B. Postoperative pain was statistically different between groups in the immediate postoperatory times, at 2 and at 6 h from the surgery and at 10 p.m. (p < 0.0001). Analyses of cost-effectiveness have stated advantages in terms of costs and indirect-direct benefits but also in earlier resumption of working. BiClamp(®) technique with multimodal anaesthesia has advantages from surgical, anaesthesiology and economic point of view. It is a minimally invasive surgery characterised by lower morbidity, quicker surgery times and reduced costs when compared to classical vaginal hysterectomy. BiClamp(®) technique represents a new border in vaginal surgery.

More stable perioperative hemodynamic conditions, lower costs and a lower perioperative complication rate were reported in young healthy patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA). However, the benefits of SA in high risk patients (ASA≥II suffering from cardiovascular and/or pulmonary pathologies) undergoing this surgery are unclear. Our objective was to analyze whether SA leads to an improved perioperative hemodynamic stability and to a more cost-effective management compared to GA in high risk patients undergoing this surgery. In a retrospective analysis 146 ASA II-III patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery in SA were compared with 292 ASA I-III patients who were operated in GA between 2000 and 2014. Hemodynamic effects, hospitalization times, complications, and costs according to the Swiss billing system were assessed. The data extraction was conducted according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative for cohort studies. The patients in the SA group were older (75years (±9.6) vs 69 (±11.5), p<0.001), had a lower BMI (25.8kg/m2 (±4.8) vs 27.2 (±4.7), p=0.003) and showed a higher ASA score (3 vs 2, p<0.001). However, SA was associated with significantly better perioperative hemodynamic stability with less need for intraoperative vasopressors (15% vs 57%, p<0.001), volume supplementation (1113ml ±458 vs 1589±644, p<0.001) and transfusions (0% vs 4%, p<0.001). Additionally, the number of hypotension episodes was lower in the SA group (15% vs 47%, p<0.001). Furthermore, the SA group showed a significantly shorter duration of surgery (70min (±1.2) vs 91 (±41), p<0.001), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4% vs 28%, p<0.001) and pain in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (visual analogue scale (VAS) 2.3 (±1.1) vs 0.8 (±0.8), p<0.001), whereas pain after 24h did not differ (VAS 0.9 (±1) vs 0.8 (±1.1), p=ns). The postoperative complication (7% vs 5%, p=0.286) and revision rates (4% vs 5%, p=0.626) were similar in both groups. Total costs (United States Dollars (USD) 6377 (±2332) vs 7018 (±4056), p=0.003) and PACU time were significantly lower in the SA group (35min (±12) vs 109 (±173), p<0.001). Lumbar spine surgery in cardiovascular high risk patients with SA is safe, allows good perioperative hemodynamic stability and might lead to lower health care costs. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. •Spinal anesthesia is safe for high risk patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.•Spinal anesthesia allows for better perioperative hemodynamic stability compared to general anesthesia.•Lumbar spine surgery with spinal anesthesia in cardiovascular high risk patients might lead to lower health care costs.

To evaluate the cost and time effectiveness for different anesthesia methods when performing knee arthroscopy, this study compared three different anesthesia methods. Four hundred healthy patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were randomized to either local anesthesia (LA) ( n =200), spinal anesthesia (SA) ( n =100) or general anesthesia (GA) ( n =100). The LA arthroscopies were performed in a facility set up in our outpatient department without anesthesia service. The SA and GA arthroscopies were performed in our central operating department with full anesthesia service. Comparisons were made between total hospital stay, anesthesia time, surgery time, recovery time, pharmaceutical and total cost. The total hospital time was 130.4 min (SD 35.14, range 63–383) in the LA group compared to 280.4 min (SD 79.29, range 155–589) in the GA group ( p <0.001). The total hospital time in the GA group was also shorter than that of 350.3 min (SD 65.37, range 198–502) in the SA group ( p <0.001). The time from start of anesthesia to start of surgery was significantly longer in the LA group, 39.2 min (SD 13.13, range 17–87), compared to 20.1 min (SD 4.93, range 11–35) in the SA group and to 17.6 min (SD 4.64, range 9–44) in the GA group. There were no differences in the surgery time for the three groups. The use of LA was shown to save SEK 1011 (Swedish Crowns) per patient compared to SA and GA.

To compare operating conditions, intraoperative adverse events, recovery profiles, postoperative adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and costs of small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia with those of general anesthesia using fentanyl and propofol for elderly outpatient prostate biopsy. Prospective, randomized, blind study. Outpatient anesthesia unit at a municipal hospital. 80 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 65 to 80 years, scheduled for outpatient prostate biopsy. Patients were assigned to receive either spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine (L group, n = 40) or anesthetic induction with fentanyl 1 μg · kg −1 IV and 1.0 mg · kg −1 propofol injected at 90 mg · kg −1 · h −1, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg · kg −1 · h −1 (F/P group, n = 40). Both anesthetic techniques provided acceptable operating conditions for the surgeon. However, a significantly higher frequency of intraoperative hypotension was found in the F/P group than in the L group ( P < 0.05). Time to home readiness was shorter in the F/P group ( P < 0.05). Both techniques had no major postoperative adverse effects and resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total costs were significantly lower in the L group than in the F/P group ( P < 0.01). Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be a more suitable alternative to general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory elderly prostate biopsy in terms of safety and costs.

To evaluate two anesthetic techniques, namely, local anesthesia with sedation, and spinal anesthesia, with respect to recovery times, postoperative side effects, pain scores, patient satisfaction, and hospital costs for ambulatory pilonidal disease surgery. Prospective, randomized study. University Hospital of Pamukkale. 60 consenting patients scheduled for pilonidal disease operation with Limberg flap technique. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 (n = 30) received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 1.5 mL 0.5%, and Group 2 (n = 30) received local infiltration with a 50-mL mixture containing 10 mL bupivacaine 0.5%, 10 mL prilocaine HCl 2%, and 30 mL isotonic solution with 1:200 000 epinephrine in combination with intravenous (IV) midazolam sedation. Perioperative and postoperative side effects, patient satisfaction, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and VAS scores from the fourth hour postoperatively until the seventh day were assessed. Anesthesia, operation, surgery, and total hospital time, and costs (drug, resources, and labor) were recorded. No difference was found between groups in the frequency of side effects. Urinary retention was diagnosed in two patients in the spinal anesthesia group. There was no statistical significant difference seen in satisfaction scores between groups. No statistical significance in VAS pain scores between groups was noted except for the fourth postoperative hour values. The average time spent in the operating room (OR) was greater in the spinal anesthesia group. All Group 2 patients achieved fast-tracking criteria in the OR and were able to bypass the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Total hospital time and total cost were significantly higher in the spinal anesthesia group than local anesthesia-sedation group (p < 0.05). The use of local anesthesia-sedation for ambulatory anorectal surgery resulted in a shorter hospital time, lower hospital costs, and no side effects compared with spinal anesthesia.

To provide a contemporary medicolegal analysis of claims brought against anesthesia providers in the United States related to neuraxial blocks for surgery and obstetrics. In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed closed claims data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database between 2007 and 2016. Closed claims from inpatient and outpatient settings related to neuraxial anesthesia for surgical procedures and obstetrics. Forty-five claims were identified for analysis. These patients underwent a variety of surgical procedures, included both children and adults, and with ages ranging from 6 to 82. Patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia (spinals, epidurals) for surgery or obstetrics. Data collected includes patient demographics, alleged injury type/severity, surgical specialty, likely contributors to the alleged damaging event, and case outcome. Some of the data were drawn directly from coded variables in the CRICO database, and some were gathered from narrative case summaries. Settlement payments were made in 20% of claims. Reported adverse outcomes ranged from temporary minor to permanent major injuries. Most closed claims were classified as permanent minor injuries. The greatest number of claims involved residual weakness and radiculopathy resulting from epidurals. The largest contributing factor to these injuries was noted to be “Technical Knowledge/Performance” of the anesthesia provider followed by “Missing or Documentation Error.” Over half of the claims arose from obstetric patients (31%) and patients undergoing orthopedic surgery (27%). Patients with pre-existing radiculopathy or comorbidities may warrant more thorough informed consent about the increased risk of injury. Additionally, prompt follow-up, monitoring, and documentation of post-operative symptoms, such as weakness or radiculopathy, are crucial for improving patient safety and satisfaction. More timely communication with the patient and the surgical team regarding residual neurologic symptoms is important for earlier diagnosis of injury. •Malpractice claims related to neuraxial anesthesia remain an ongoing challenge in the anesthesia community.•Etiologies for neuraxial anesthesia injuries are multifactorial.•Over half of the closed claims arose from patients undergoing obstetric or orthopedic procedures.•Settlement payments were made in 20% of claims. Most closed claims were classified as permanent minor injuries.•The greatest number of claims involved residual weakness and radiculopathy associated with an epidural.

Study design: Prospective, open label, cross-over-designed clinical study. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of an instillation of lidocaine into the bladder with versus without electromotive drug administration (EMDA) to anesthetize the bladder before botulinum-A toxin injections. Setting: Neurourology, Swiss Paraplegic Center, Balgrist University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland. Methods: In all, 28 patients with severe neurogenic detrusor overactivity but preserved bladder sensibility were treated with botulinum-A toxin injections into the detrusor muscle. A measure of 300 u of botulinum-A toxin (Botox ® ) was injected at 30 sites sparing the trigone. Prior to the injection, the bladder was anesthesized with conventional lidocaine instillation in a group of 10 patients and with lidocaine instillation enhanced by EMDA in 28 patients. The patients scored the injection pain on a 10-point rating scale. Pain rating scores with versus without EMDA enhancement of the lidocaine instillation were analyzed and the costs of the EMDA procedure were compared to general/spinal anesthesia. Results: The mean pain score of the 10 patients who underwent the injections of Botox ® after conventional lidocaine instillation was 4.0 (SD 1.6). Following EMDA enhanced lidocaine instillation slight even or no pain occurred during the injections of Botox ® , and the mean pain score was 0.5 (SD 0.2). Compared to spinal or general anesthesia, the local anesthesia saved around 15% of the costs. Conclusions: EMDA enhanced instillation of lidocaine enables a sufficient anesthesia of the bladder wall that ensures a painless application of the botulinum-A toxin injections into the detrusor muscle. This method may avoid general or spinal anesthesia in patients with preserved bladder sensibility. It ensures considerable cost reduction, avoids anesthesia-related risks and complications and enables the procedure on an outpatient basis.

The study aims to compare the effectiveness, safety and costs of two different anesthesia methods in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) operations. In our study, data was retrospectively examined of 1657 patients who underwent PCNL due to renal calculi between 2009 and 2017. Patients were separated into two groups according to the type of anesthesia; as those who underwent PCNL by general anesthesia (GA) (n = 572) and those under spinal anesthe-sia(SA) (n = 1085). Standard PCNL technique was used in both groups. Gender, age, operation duration, period of hospitalization, stone-free ratio, post-operative narcotic analgesic need and complications were compared between these two groups. A total of 1657 patients consisting of 1064 (64.2%) male patients and 593 (35.8%) female patients were included in the study. The average age of the all patients was 33.2 ± 12.4 (range 16-74) years. The two groups were similar in terms of mean age, gender, stone size, stone location and body mass index. Mean operation time was sig-nificantly shorter in the SA group than in the GA group (81.8 ± 33.9 minute vs. 118.2 ± -42.9 minute respectively, P < .001). Mean period of hospitalization was remarkable shorter in the SA group than in the GA group (30.0 ± 9.9 hours vs. 38.4 ± 11.2 hours respectively, P < .001). Post-operative narcotic analgesic need rate was significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group (33.4% vs. 10.9%, respectively, P < .001). Anesthesia cost was found significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group (USD 21.3±2.8 vs. USD 83.6 ± 9.5, respectively, P < .001). Significant difference was not observed between both groups in terms of stone-free ratio, amount of bleed-ing, fluoroscopy time, pre-operative and post-operative complications. Compared to those performed with GA, PCNL performed with SA is a safe, effective and low-cost method.

Cost containment is a critical factor in today's healthcare industry, so finding ways to decrease length of stay is essential in anesthesia practice. We rely on rapid induction, recovery, and discharge to control cost in outpatient surgery. Subarachnoid block (SAB) is an acceptable anesthetic choice for many outpatient procedures. It is often underused because it may result in delayed discharge. The purpose of this study was to determine if orientation of the spinal needle during administration of SAB affects the time required to meet discharge criteria in a same-day surgical unit. Patients undergoing surgical procedures deemed appropriate for short-acting lidocaine spinal anesthetic were recruited for this randomized, posttest, prospective study. All patients received a hyperbaric lidocaine spinal administered using a 25-gauge Whitacre needle. The needle was oriented in a cephalad (group A) or a lateral (group B) direction. Time to discharge was determined by calculating time elapsed between administration of the SAB and the time when the patient met discharge criteria. The statistical analysis included 50 patients (group A, n = 30; group B, n = 20). Demographics (except weight) were not statistically different between the groups. Total hospital time did not differ between the groups. Regardless of needle orientation, patients in both study groups achieved discharge criteria in similar amounts of time.