4.2 Article

A French Nationwide Survey on Anesthesiologist-Perceived Barriers to the Use of Epidural and Paravertebral Block in Thoracic Surgery

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2014.11.006

关键词

pain; postoperative; anesthesia; regional anesthesia; practice survey; epidural blockade; paravertebral block

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To explore the barriers to the use of epidural block (EDB) or paravertebral block (PVB) for thoracotomy or thoracoscopy. Design: Cross-sectional ancillary study. Setting: French nationwide practice survey. Participants: Lead anesthesiologists at centers practicing thoracic surgery completed an online questionnaire. Interventions: A 9-item electronic questionnaire regarding perceived barriers to the use of EDB and PVB was developed, including technical factors, nursing factors (training and supervision), and reluctance of non-anesthesiologist colleagues (eg, surgeons, nurses and hospital managers). Descriptive and factorial analyses were conducted, including the current use of the techniques in the model. Measurements and Main Results: The questionnaire was answered by 84 of 103 (82%) centers. For both techniques, the most frequently cited barriers were the 4 technical ones and lack of nursing supervision. There was a high rate of do not know/no opinion responses regarding barriers to paravertebral block. The type of center did not influence the responses, but paravertebral block was used more often in university hospitals. Colleague reluctance and time consumption (for both techniques), nursing barriers (for epidural block), and perception of risk and complexity (for paravertebral block), were correlated inversely with actual use. Perception of cost had no influence on practice. Conclusions: This survey suggested that the use of epidural or paravertebral block to provide analgesia for thoracic surgery might be increased by multimodal actions focused on improved communication with surgical and managerial teams. Paravertebral block, as an emerging technique, still is insufficiently recognized in France. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据