Patients’ satisfaction with sedoanalgesia versus subarachnoid analgesia in endourology

AbstractObjectiveIn this study the effectiveness and safety of sedoanalgesia technique compared to spinal anesthesia in endourology procedure as well as patients’ satisfaction was assessed.Patients and methodsA prospective randomized study was performed in 80 adult patients, ASA I, II, and III who underwent various endoscopic procedures randomly allocated into two groups 40 patients each: Sedoanalgesia group, received local anesthesia (2% lignocaine gel), i.v. midazolam incremental doses 0.015mg/kg on demand, and i.v. fentanyl 2μg/kg, and 0.5μg/kg on demand interaoperative, and Spinal anesthesia group received 2.5ml heavy bupivacaine 0.5% to achieve around T10 level. We recorded vital parameters, and the number of cases with hemodynamic, respiratory complications, nausea and vomiting, and conversion to general anesthesia (failure). Postoperatively the intensity of pain (VAS 0-100mm), time to first analgesic request (VAS ⩾30), patient satisfaction (complete, partial or not satisfied) and time to readiness for discharge were assessed.ResultsThere was no significant difference in intra, postoperative hemodynamic changes and complications between groups but hypotension was more frequent in Spinal group. Immediate postoperative, there was no significant difference in pain score between groups, but 1 and 2h postoperatively there were higher pain scores in Sedoanalgesia group. Time to first analgesic request and readiness for discharge were significantly less in Sedoanalgesia group, but the difference was not significant as regard satisfaction scores.ConclusionSedoanalgesia is an effective, safe and simple alternative to Spinal anesthesia for endourology, with good patients’ satisfaction and less time to discharge

The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator: development and validation of a tool for identifying African surgical patients at risk of severe postoperative complications

Background: The African Surgical Outcomes Study (ASOS) showed that surgical patients in Africa have a mortality twice the global average. Existing risk assessment tools are not valid for use in this population because the pattern of risk for poor outcomes differs from high-income countries. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a simple, preoperative risk stratification tool to identify African surgical patients at risk for in-hospital postoperative mortality and severe complications. Methods: ASOS was a 7-day prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery in Africa. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator was constructed with a multivariable logistic regression model for the outcome of in-hospital mortality and severe postoperative complications. The following preoperative risk factors were entered into the model; age, sex, smoking status, ASA physical status, preoperative chronic comorbid conditions, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. Results: The model was derived from 8799 patients from 168 African hospitals. The composite outcome of severe postoperative complications and death occurred in 423/8799 (4.8%) patients. The ASOS Surgical Risk Calculator includes the following risk factors: age, ASA physical status, indication for surgery, urgency, severity, and type of surgery. The model showed good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.805 and good calibration with c-statistic corrected for optimism of 0.784. Conclusions: This simple preoperative risk calculator could be used to identify high-risk surgical patients in African hospitals and facilitate increased postoperative surveillance. © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Medical Research Council of South Africa gran