We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Spinal anaesthesia with chloroprocaine 1% versus total intravenous anaesthesia for outpatient knee arthroscopy: A randomised controlled trial.
European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2018 October
BACKGROUND: Both general and spinal anaesthesia with short-acting local anaesthetics are suitable and reliable for knee arthroscopy as an ambulatory procedure. Chloroprocaine (CP) 1% seems to be the ideal spinal local anaesthetic for this indication.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare spinal anaesthesia using CP 1% with general for outpatient knee arthroscopy with regard to procedure times, occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction and recovery, and also costs.
DESIGN: A randomised controlled single-centre trial.
SETTING: University Medical Centre Mannheim, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, Mannheim, Germany. April 2014 to August 2015.
PATIENTS: A total of 50 patients (women/men, 18 to 80 years old, ASA I to III) undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy were included. A contra-indication to an allocated anaesthetic technique or an allergy to medication required in the protocol led to exclusion.
INTERVENTIONS: Either general anaesthesia with sufentanil, propofol and a laryngeal mask for airway-management or spinal with 40-mg CP 1% were used. We noted procedure times, patient satisfaction/recovery and conducted a 7-day follow-up.
MAIN OUTOMES: Primary outcome was duration of stay in the day-surgery centre. Secondary outcomes were first occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction, quality of recovery and adverse effects. In addition, we analysed treatment costs.
RESULTS: Spinal had faster recovery than general anaesthesia with patients reaching discharge criteria significantly earlier [117 min (66 to 167) versus 142 min (82 to 228), P = 0.0047]. Pain occurred significantly earlier in the general anaesthesia group (P = 0.0072). Costs were less with spinal anaesthesia (cost ratio spinal: general 0.57). Patients felt significantly more uncomfortable after general anaesthesia (P = 0.0096).
CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia with 40-mg CP 1% leads to a significantly earlier discharge and is cheaper compared with general.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, www.drks.de, identifier: DRKS00005989.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare spinal anaesthesia using CP 1% with general for outpatient knee arthroscopy with regard to procedure times, occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction and recovery, and also costs.
DESIGN: A randomised controlled single-centre trial.
SETTING: University Medical Centre Mannheim, Department of Anaesthesiology and Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, Mannheim, Germany. April 2014 to August 2015.
PATIENTS: A total of 50 patients (women/men, 18 to 80 years old, ASA I to III) undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy were included. A contra-indication to an allocated anaesthetic technique or an allergy to medication required in the protocol led to exclusion.
INTERVENTIONS: Either general anaesthesia with sufentanil, propofol and a laryngeal mask for airway-management or spinal with 40-mg CP 1% were used. We noted procedure times, patient satisfaction/recovery and conducted a 7-day follow-up.
MAIN OUTOMES: Primary outcome was duration of stay in the day-surgery centre. Secondary outcomes were first occurrence of pain, patient satisfaction, quality of recovery and adverse effects. In addition, we analysed treatment costs.
RESULTS: Spinal had faster recovery than general anaesthesia with patients reaching discharge criteria significantly earlier [117 min (66 to 167) versus 142 min (82 to 228), P = 0.0047]. Pain occurred significantly earlier in the general anaesthesia group (P = 0.0072). Costs were less with spinal anaesthesia (cost ratio spinal: general 0.57). Patients felt significantly more uncomfortable after general anaesthesia (P = 0.0096).
CONCLUSION: Spinal anaesthesia with 40-mg CP 1% leads to a significantly earlier discharge and is cheaper compared with general.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, www.drks.de, identifier: DRKS00005989.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app