首页> 外文期刊>The American Journal of Gastroenterology >Endoscopic-guided versus cotton-tipped applicator methods of nasal anesthesia for transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, prospective, controlled study.
【24h】

Endoscopic-guided versus cotton-tipped applicator methods of nasal anesthesia for transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, prospective, controlled study.

机译:经鼻食管胃十二指肠镜鼻腔内窥镜引导与棉签鼻腔麻醉的应用:随机,前瞻性,对照研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Ultrathin transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (UT-EGD) is well tolerated by patients, but the methods of nasal anesthesia are various. AIM: To compare patient tolerance, safety, and adverse events between the endoscopic-guided (EGNA) and cotton-tipped applicator (CTNA) methods of nasal anesthesia. METHODS: Between September 2005 and September 2006, we conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled study in a large tertiary referral hospital in eastern Taiwan. In total, 235 consecutive patients were randomly assigned to the CTNA group or EGNA group before unsedated UT-EGD. We compared demographic data, procedural discomfort using a validated 5-point visual analog scale, optical quality, total procedure time, and adverse events between the two groups. RESULTS: After randomization and exclusion, 101 (43 men and 58 women) and 103 (44 men and 59 women) patients were allocated to the CTNA and EGNA groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and periprocedural hemodynamics of patients in thetwo groups were similar. There was no statistical difference in insertion failure rates between the two methods (CTNA 10.9%vs EGNA 7.7%, P= 0.59). Pain scores during both anesthesia (2.3 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.6, P < 0.001) and insertion (2.8 +/- 1.2 vs 3.8 +/- 1.8, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the EGNA group; however, the sensation of bad taste was significantly worse in the EGNA group (2.3 +/- 1.3 vs 1.9 +/- 1.4, P= 0.040). Less epistaxis happened in the EGNA group than in the CTNA group. The EGNA method had a significantly better visual capacity and shorter procedure time. More patients in the EGNA group said they would like to receive the same procedure the next time. CONCLUSION: Compared with the CTNA method, in which the taste of lidocaine gel was more acceptable, EGNA appeared to be more tolerable, caused less epistaxis, improved visualization capacity, and reduced procedure time.
机译:背景:超薄经鼻食管胃十二指肠镜(UT-EGD)对患者的耐受性良好,但鼻腔麻醉的方法多种多样。目的:比较鼻内窥镜引导(EGNA)和棉签(CTNA)两种鼻腔麻醉方法之间的患者耐受性,安全性和不良事件。方法:2005年9月至2006年9月,我们在台湾东部一家大型转诊医院进行了一项前瞻性,随机对照研究。在未镇静的UT-EGD之前,总共235例连续患者被随机分为CTNA组或EGNA组。我们使用经过验证的5点视觉模拟量表,两组的光学质量,总手术时间和不良事件,比较了人口统计学数据,手术不适。结果:在随机分组和排除后,分别将101例(43例男性和58例女性)和103例(44例男性和59例女性)分配到CTNA和EGNA组。两组患者的基线特征和围手术期血流动力学相似。两种方法之间的插入失败率无统计学差异(CTNA为10.9%,EGNA为7.7%,P = 0.59)。 EGNA组麻醉期间(2.3 +/- 0.4 vs 3.5 +/- 0.6,P <0.001)和插入(2.8 +/- 1.2 vs 3.8 +/- 1.8,P <0.001)时的疼痛评分均明显降低。但是,EGNA组的不良口感明显较差(2.3 +/- 1.3与1.9 +/- 1.4,P = 0.040)。与CTNA组相比,EGNA组的鼻epi发生较少。 EGNA方法具有明显更好的视觉能力和较短的手术时间。 EGNA组的更多患者表示,他们希望下次再次接受相同的手术。结论:与CTNA方法相比,利多卡因凝胶的口味更易被接受,EGNA似乎具有更好的耐受性,减少了鼻epi,提高了显像能力,并减少了手术时间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号