OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the current local anaesthetic practice (general anaesthesia versus regional anaesthesia (RA)) in hip fracture surgery and to analyse their associations with perioperative outcomes.
METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational study of hip fracture patients from April to December 2017 was undertaken. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analysed against the types of anaesthesia using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: One hundred and twelve out of 154 patients (72.7%) had a general anaesthesia. Patients from residential care facilities were more likely to receive general anaesthesia (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.1, 7.4; P = 0.03). There was no significant association between type of anaesthesia and specific postoperative outcomes; however, patients with postoperative delirium and hypotension were more likely to have received general anaesthesia [OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.68, 4.38; P = 0.25] and [OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 0.67, 4.04; P = 0.27] respectively). Subgroup analysis showed increased length of stay with patients who underwent general anaesthesia (OR = 1.26, 95% CI:1.04, 1.54; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSION: Regional anaesthesia may be considered in patients without contraindications in view of increased risk of postoperative delirium and hypotension, and longer length of stay with general anaesthesia. A larger prospective study is needed to confirm these findings.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched from its inception until April 2020.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All randomized control trials and observational studies comparing RA only versus GA in cancer resection surgery were included. Case report, case series and editorials were excluded.
RESULTS: Ten retrospective observational studies (n = 9708; 4567 GA vs 5141 RA) were included for qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis. In comparison to GA, RA was not significantly associated with a lower cancer recurrence rate in cancer resection surgery (odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.53, p = 0.95, certainty of evidence = very low). However, the trial sequential analysis for cancer recurrence rate was inconclusive. Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the RA and GA groups in the overall survival rate (odds ratio 1.51, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.51, p = 0.34, certainty of evidence = very low), time to cancer recurrence (mean difference 1.45 months, 95% CI -8.69 to 11.59, p = 0.78, certainty of evidence = very low), cancer-related mortality (odds ratio 1.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 5.62, p = 0.32, certainty of evidence = very low).
CONCLUSIONS: Given the low level of evidence and underpowered trial sequential analysis, our review neither support nor oppose that the use of RA was associated with lower incidence of cancer recurrence rate than GA in cancer resection surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42020163780.
METHODS: This review aims to identify the labels and associated descriptors used by practitioners to describe DBS techniques, as a first step in developing a shared terminology for DBS techniques. Following registration of a protocol, a scoping review limited to Clinical Practice Guidelines only was undertaken to identify the labels and descriptors used to refer to DBS techniques.
RESULTS: From 5317 screened records, 30 were included, generating a list of 51 distinct DBS techniques. General anaesthesia was the most commonly reported DBS (n = 21). This review also explores what term is given to DBS techniques as a group (Behaviour management was most commonly used (n = 8)) and how these techniques were categorized (mainly distinguishing between pharmacological and non-pharmacological).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first attempt to generate a list of techniques that can be selected for patients and marks an initial step in future efforts at agreeing and categorizing these techniques into an accepted taxonomy, with all the benefits this brings to research, education, practice and patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective cohort study on 79 paediatrics who underwent elective surgery with general anaesthesia. Parameter measures include the incidence of ED, ED risk factors, and the relationship between PAED, Watcha, Cravero score and expert assessment. The ED risk factor was analysed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The relationship between PAED, Watcha, Cravero score, and expert assessment was determined using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
RESULTS: The incidence of ED was 22.8%. All parameters examined in this study showed p < 0.05. Watcha's scoring correlates with the PAED scoring and shows the highest discrimination ability with AUC 0.741 and p < 0.05.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of ED in paediatrics is relatively high. Compared to others, Watcha score are more reliable for ED prediction. However, some demographic and perioperative factors are not the risk factor of ED.
METHODS: A sample of 158 preschool children with ECC awaiting dental treatment under GA was recruited over an 8-month period. Parents self-completed the Malay-ECOHIS before and 4 weeks after their child's dental treatment. At 4 weeks follow-up, parents also responded to a global health transition judgement item. Data were analysed using independent and paired samples t tests, ANOVA and Pearson correlation coefficients.
RESULTS: The response rate was 87.3%. The final sample comprised 76 male (55.1%) and 62 female (44.9%) preschool children with mean age of 4.5 (SD = 1.0) years. Following treatment, there were significant reductions in mean scores for total Malay-ECOHIS, child impact section (CIS), family impact section (FIS) and all domains, respectively (P