首页> 外文期刊>Urology >Reply by the authors
【24h】

Reply by the authors

机译:作者的答复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Thank you very much for your pertinent comments. We agree with you that objective criteria for failure or inadequacy of local anesthesia (LA) and aborting the procedure were not defined in our study. We think that was the biggest defect in the study. Without the objective criteria, we could just judge the tolerance subjectively. In general, intraoperative pain is the most controversial factor to accept percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) under LA + sedation. In fact, actual intraoperative pain score much higher than 3.62 and discomfort such as nausea do occur in some patients in the initial stage of the study. However, with the personal experience increased, the incidence of intraoperative discomfort became lower in the study because the technical improvements were made.
机译:非常感谢您的相关评论。我们同意您的观点,即在我们的研究中未定义局部麻醉失败或不足以及手术中止的客观标准。我们认为这是该研究中最大的缺陷。没有客观标准,我们只能主观地判断公差。通常,术中疼痛是在LA +镇静下接受经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的最有争议的因素。实际上,在研究的最初阶段,某些患者确实发生了实际的术中疼痛评分远高于3.62,并且确实出现了恶心等不适感。然而,随着个人经验的增加,由于技术上的进步,术中不适的发生率在研究中降低了。

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