Daryl S Henshaw1, Matthew L Baker2, Robert S Weller2, Jon Wellington Reynolds2, Jonathan Douglas Jaffe2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1009, United States. Electronic address: dhenshaw@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1009, United States.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to determine whether transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks were effective as the primary anesthetic technique for insertion and/or removal of peritoneal dialysis catheters. DESIGN: This study is a descriptive case series investigation. SETTING: Operating rooms at a tertiary care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 3 and 4, were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Patients who had received a TAP block preoperatively for open surgical insertion or removal of a peritoneal dialysis catheter over a 26-month period with the intent of the block to serve as the primary anesthetic were included in this study. MEASUREMENTS: Preoperative and intraoperative sedative medications and local anesthetic medications were analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was the ability of the TAP block to provide surgical anesthesia as determined by a lack of need to convert to general anesthesia (defined by placement of an airway device, use of volatile anesthetics, intraoperative propofol infusion dose equal to or greater than 100 μg kg(-1) min(-1)). Secondary outcomes included analysis of any complications from the higher concentrations of local anesthetics required for surgical block. MANI RESULTS: Of 24 patients, 21 underwent the procedure without conversion to general anesthesia as defined above. No complications related to local anesthetics were found. CONCLUSION: Transversus abdominis plane blockade can be successful at serving as the primary anesthetic modality for the insertion and/or removal of a peritoneal dialysis catheter by open-surgical approach. There were no systemic toxic effects or other complications recorded.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to determine whether transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks were effective as the primary anesthetic technique for insertion and/or removal of peritoneal dialysis catheters. DESIGN: This study is a descriptive case series investigation. SETTING: Operating rooms at a tertiary care academic medical center. PATIENTS: Twenty-four patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 3 and 4, were included in this study. INTERVENTIONS:Patients who had received a TAP block preoperatively for open surgical insertion or removal of a peritoneal dialysis catheter over a 26-month period with the intent of the block to serve as the primary anesthetic were included in this study. MEASUREMENTS: Preoperative and intraoperative sedative medications and local anesthetic medications were analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was the ability of the TAP block to provide surgical anesthesia as determined by a lack of need to convert to general anesthesia (defined by placement of an airway device, use of volatile anesthetics, intraoperative propofol infusion dose equal to or greater than 100 μg kg(-1) min(-1)). Secondary outcomes included analysis of any complications from the higher concentrations of local anesthetics required for surgical block. MANI RESULTS: Of 24 patients, 21 underwent the procedure without conversion to general anesthesia as defined above. No complications related to local anesthetics were found. CONCLUSION: Transversus abdominis plane blockade can be successful at serving as the primary anesthetic modality for the insertion and/or removal of a peritoneal dialysis catheter by open-surgical approach. There were no systemic toxic effects or other complications recorded.
Authors: Elizabeth Jabbour; Carsten Fütterer; Sebastian Zach; Anna-Isabelle Kälsch; Michael Keese; Nuh N Rahbari; Bernhard K Krämer; Kay G Schwenke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240