Article Sidebar
Published:
Jan 11, 2025Keywords:
Article Details
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Effects of general anesthesia combined with ultrasound-guided lumbosacral plexus block on hemodynamics and postoperative rehabilitation in geriatric patients with total hip arthroplasty
Abstract
Background: The incidence of fractures increases with age, and it is estimated that the incidence in women is higher than that in men.
Objective: To investigate the influence of general anesthesia & ultrasound-guided lumbosacral plexus block in elderly patients with total hip arthroplasty (THA).
Methods: Eighty-one geriatric sufferers who were sent to our hospital from July 2019 to January 2021 and underwent THA surgery in the Department of Orthopedics were divided into Grades I to III according to American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Forty-one patients were ascribed to a combination group (using general anesthesia combined with guided lumbosacral plexus block), and forty to a general anesthesia group (with general anesthesia) by a random number table to compare the differences in mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), intraoperative general anesthesia dosage, incidence of postoperative delirium (POD), serum inflammation and oxidative stress indexes between them.
Results: Prior to anesthesia induction, MAP, HR, and SpO2 between them had significant differences (P>0.05); at skin-incision-time and implantation of the prosthesis, the MAP value of the experimental group was higher than that of the general anesthesia group, 30 minutes after surgery, the SpO2 was higher than the general anesthesia group, and had significant differences (P<0.05); prior to the surgery, had significant differences in measured values such as Cor, blood glucose, IL-6, CRP, MDA and SOD between the two groups (P>0.05); 2 hours after that, the values of Cor, CRP, and MDA in experimental group were lower than the general anesthesia group, and that of IL-6 and SOD were higher than those in the general anesthesia group, and had significant differences (P<0.05); the dosage of propofol, remifentanil, sufentanil in experimental group were lower than the general
anesthesia group, while postoperative extubation time in experimental group was earlier than general anesthesia group, and had significant differences (P<0.05); the incidence of POD in experimental group was lower than the general anesthesia group at 1d, 2d, and 3d after surgery, and had significant differences (P<0.05); the incidence of adverse reactions of anesthesia in experimental group was lower than the general anesthesia group with 9.76 % to 27.50 % , and had significant differences (P<0.05).
Conclusion: General anesthesia & ultrasound-guided lumbosacral plexus block in THA patients is more conducive to the patients’ hemodynamic stability, reducing inflammatory stress response, the dosage of anesthetic drugs, and the incidence of POD,
compared with general anesthesia alone.
Keywords: Geriatric; total hip arthroplasty; general anesthesia; ultrasound guidance; lumbosacral plexus block.
