Assessment of surgical patients’ knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist in a tertiary care teaching institute-a survey

Background: Anaesthesia is a speciality, playing a crucial role in the perioperative care of patients. Complex surgeries are facilitated due to the anaesthesiologists catering to the ever-advancing surgical field requirements. Although an important speciality, patients are unaware of the speciality of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. Patients are subjecting themselves for surgical procedures without having adequate knowledge of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. Hence, the survey was designed with the aim to assess the patients’ knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist in surgical patients.Methods: A cross sectional study conducted on four hundred surgical inpatients using predesigned questionnaire containing questions related to the knowledge of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. The results were expressed as percentages. Chi-square/ Fisher Exact test was used to find the significance of study parameters.Results: Anaesthesiologists were considered as “doctors” by 60.5% of patients; Thirty three percent of the survey population had “no idea” of Anaesthesia. The survey populations’ knowledge about complications was 32.25%. Awareness about separate consent for anaesthesia was 49%. Anaesthesiologists’ work place was not known to 77.5% of survey population. Anaesthesiologists’ role in operation theatre was known only in 59.5% and remaining 40.5% were unaware of Anaesthesiologists’ role. None of the patients preferred to meet the Anaesthesiologists before surgery.Conclusions: Surgical inpatients in tertiary care hospital have a poor understanding of anaesthesia and poor recognition of the role of anaesthesiologist. The knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist is not known in general population. Hence, anaesthesiologists must work towards getting recognition for the speciality of anaesthesiology and the anaesthesiologists

Assessment of surgical patients’ knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist in a tertiary care teaching institute-a survey

Background: Anaesthesia is a speciality, playing a crucial role in the perioperative care of patients. Complex surgeries are facilitated due to the anaesthesiologists catering to the ever-advancing surgical field requirements. Although an important speciality, patients are unaware of the speciality of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. Patients are subjecting themselves for surgical procedures without having adequate knowledge of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. Hence, the survey was designed with the aim to assess the patients’ knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist in surgical patients.Methods: A cross sectional study conducted on four hundred surgical inpatients using predesigned questionnaire containing questions related to the knowledge of anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist. The results were expressed as percentages. Chi-square/ Fisher Exact test was used to find the significance of study parameters.Results: Anaesthesiologists were considered as “doctors” by 60.5% of patients; Thirty three percent of the survey population had “no idea” of Anaesthesia. The survey populations’ knowledge about complications was 32.25%. Awareness about separate consent for anaesthesia was 49%. Anaesthesiologists’ work place was not known to 77.5% of survey population. Anaesthesiologists’ role in operation theatre was known only in 59.5% and remaining 40.5% were unaware of Anaesthesiologists’ role. None of the patients preferred to meet the Anaesthesiologists before surgery.Conclusions: Surgical inpatients in tertiary care hospital have a poor understanding of anaesthesia and poor recognition of the role of anaesthesiologist. The knowledge about anaesthesia and anaesthesiologist is not known in general population. Hence, anaesthesiologists must work towards getting recognition for the speciality of anaesthesiology and the anaesthesiologists

Anaesthetic management of a pregnant patient with intracranial space occupying lesion for craniotomy

Intracranial space occupying lesion [SOL] during pregnancy presents several challenges to the neurosurgeons, obstetricians and anaesthesiologists in not only establishing the diagnosis, but also in the perioperative management as it requires a careful plan to balance both maternal and foetal well-being. It requires modification of neuroanaesthetic and obstetric practices which often have competing clinical goals to achieve the optimal safety of both mother and foetus. Intracranial tuberculoma should be considered in the differential diagnosis of intracranial SOL in pregnant women with signs and symptoms of raised intracranial pressure with or without neurological deficits, especially when they are from high incidence areas. We report a 28-week pregnant patient with intracranial SOL who underwent craniotomy and excision of the lesion, subsequently diagnosed as cranial tuberculoma

Low‐Field Portable Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Post‐Thrombectomy Assessment of Ongoing Brain Injury

Background Timely imaging is essential for patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT). Our objective was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of low‐field portable magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) for bedside evaluation following MT. Methods Patients with suspected large‐vessel occlusion undergoing MT were screened for eligibility. All pMRI examinations were conducted in the standard ferromagnetic environment of the interventional radiology suite. Clinical characteristics, procedural details, and pMRI features were collected. Subsequent high‐field conventional MRI within 72±12 hours was analyzed. If a conventional MRI was not available for comparison, computed tomography within the same time frame was used for validation. Results Twenty‐four patients were included (63% women; median age, 76 years [interquartile range, 69–84 years]). MT was performed with a median access to revascularization time of 15 minutes (interquartile range, 8–19 minutes), and with a successful outcome as defined by a thrombolysis in cerebral infarction score of ≥2B in 90% of patients. The median time from the end of the procedure to pMRI was 22 minutes (interquartile range, 16–32 minutes). The median pMRI examination time was 30 minutes (interquartile range, 17–33 minutes). Of 23 patients with available subsequent imaging, 9 had infarct progression compared with immediate post‐MT pMRI and 14 patients did not have progression of their infarct volume. There was no adverse event related to the examination. Conclusion Low‐field pMRI is safe and feasible in a post‐MT environment and enables timely identification of ischemic changes in the interventional radiology suite. This approach can facilitate the assessment of baseline infarct burden and may help guide physiological interventions following MT