Can the Choice of the Local Anesthetic Have an Impact on Ambulatory Surgery Perioperative Costs? Chloroprocaine for Popliteal Block in Outpatient Foot Surgery
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 100
- 主要终点
- Cost minimization analysis
研究概览
简要总结
Background and Objectives Short acting regional anesthetics have already been successfully employed for peripheral nerve blocks in an ambulatory surgery setting. However, the impact on direct and indirect perioperative costs comparing two different short-acting local anesthetics has not been performed, yet.
Methods In an observational study including 50 patients per group, patient undergoing popliteal block with chloroprocaine 3% or mepivacaine 1.5% for ambulatory minor foot surgery were compared. The primary outcome was the saving of both direct and indirect perioperative costs. Secondary outcomes were block success, onset time and block duration, patient satisfaction and unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions after discharge.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Observational
- 观察模型
- Case Control
- 时间视角
- Prospective
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —（Adult, Older Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •ASA I-III scheduled for elective, unilateral, ambulant minor foot surgery (percutaneous hallux valgus correction, osteotomies, tenotomies, mallet and hammer toes correction, screws and/or plaques removal)
排除标准
- •known allergy to drugs used in the study;
- •coagulopathies, known neuropathy;
- •pregnancy;
- •chronic pain;
- •drug or alcohol abuse;
- •psychiatric disease or lack of competence affecting compliance and evidence of ongoing sepsis or local skin / subcutaneous tissues infections in the popliteal fossa.
研究组 & 干预措施
Chloroprocaine
Patient undergoing popliteal block with chloroprocaine
干预措施: Chloroprocaine (Drug)
Mepivacaine
Patient undergoing popliteal block with mepivacaine
干预措施: Mepivacaine (Drug)
结局指标
主要结局
Cost minimization analysis
时间窗: 6 months
次要结局
未报告次要终点
研究者
Andrea Saporito
MD
Ospedale Regionale Bellinzona e Valli