Yok
Aim: In this study, we aimed to discuss the local anesthesia + sedo-analgesia (LA-SA) and spinal anesthesia methods applied during Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) by retrospectively comparing the patients' data
Materials and Methods: Our study was carried out by retrospectively evaluating the data of 36 patients who underwent endovascular surgery for aortic aneurysm between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018. Three cases who were applied general anesthesia were not included in the study. The patients included in the study were divided into two groups according to the anesthesia method as LA-SA group (Group 1, n = 19) and spinal anesthesia group (Group 2, n = 14).. This study was planned as a retrospective observational controlled study. Demographic data, comorbidities, American Anesthesiologists Association (ASA) risk classification scores, mortality rates, duration of anesthesia and surgery, length of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit, and laboratory values were analyzed.
Results: In our study, the mean age of 33 patients who underwent EVAR procedure was 69.04 ± 13 (32-86). Local anesthesia + sedo-analgesia was applied to 19 (52.7%) patients and spinal anesthesia was applied to 14 (38.8%) patients. No significant difference was found between demographic data, comorbidities and smoking rates in both groups. (Table 1). ). The length of stay in the hospital and the intensive care unit and the rates of death before discharge were similar in both groups (P = 0.22) (. (P = 0.15). (P = 0.73), while the duration of anesthesia and operation The durations were statistically shorter in the localanesthesia + sedo-analgesia group, respectively (P = 0.001) and (P = 0.004). Laboratory examinations of both groups were similar.
Conclusion: For arterial stents requiring percutaneous implantation, LA-SA provides a safe anesthesia method with stable hemodynamics, less invasive intervention and shorter operation times than neuraxial anesthesia.
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Subjects | Health Care Administration |
Journal Section | Research Articles |
Authors | |
Publication Date | April 24, 2021 |
Published in Issue | Year 2021 Volume: 3 Issue: 2 |
TR DİZİN ULAKBİM and International Indexes (1b)
Interuniversity Board (UAK) Equivalency: Article published in Ulakbim TR Index journal [10 POINTS], and Article published in other (excuding 1a, b, c) international indexed journal (1d) [5 POINTS]
Note: Our journal is not WOS indexed and therefore is not classified as Q.
You can download Council of Higher Education (CoHG) [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (YÖK)] Criteria) decisions about predatory/questionable journals and the author's clarification text and journal charge policy from your browser. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/journal/3449/file/4924/show
Journal Indexes and Platforms:
TR Dizin ULAKBİM, Google Scholar, Crossref, Worldcat (OCLC), DRJI, EuroPub, OpenAIRE, Turkiye Citation Index, Turk Medline, ROAD, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, ASOS Index, General Impact Factor, Scilit.The indexes of the journal's are;
The platforms of the journal's are;
The indexes/platforms of the journal are;
TR Dizin Ulakbim, Crossref (DOI), Google Scholar, EuroPub, Directory of Research Journal İndexing (DRJI), Worldcat (OCLC), OpenAIRE, ASOS Index, ROAD, Turkiye Citation Index, ICI World of Journal's, Index Copernicus, Turk Medline, General Impact Factor, Scilit
EBSCO, DOAJ, OAJI is under evaluation.
Journal articles are evaluated as "Double-Blind Peer Review"