4 -8 (46) 2022 — Tkachenko R.O., Petrychenko V.V., — COMPARISON OF METHODS OF ANESTHETIC MANAGEMENT OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS IN GYNECOLOGY

COMPARISON OF METHODS OF ANESTHETIC MANAGEMENT OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS IN GYNECOLOGY

Tkachenko R.O., Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Shupik National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Petrychenko V.V., Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproduction, Shupik National Healthcare University of Ukraine, Ukraine.

Pyasetska N.V.   Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Kyiv City Center of Reproductive and Perinatal Medicine, Ukraine.

Resume

The article discusses the options for anesthetic management that are used in the provision of minimally invasive surgical interventions in gynecological practice both on an outpatient basis, as well as in inpatient treatment. The work presents a comparison of two methods of anesthesia in the provision of surgical interventions. Hemodynamic parameters were studied, pain sensations were assessed in the postoperative period, and complications were also considered. The presented conclusions, which make it possible to optimize the anesthetic benefit during minimally invasive surgical interventions in gynecological practice.

Key words: Hysteroscopy, hysteroresectoscopy, endotracheal anesthesia, total intravenous anesthesia, hemodynamics, pain level, VAS scale, outpatient surgery, fast-track surgery, pain management.

First page

22

Last page

27

For citation: Tkachenko R.O., Petrychenko V.V., Pyasetska N.V. COMPARISON OF METHODS OF ANESTHETIC MANAGEMENT OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL INTERVENTIONS IN GYNECOLOGY //New Day in Medicine 8(46)2022 22-27 https://clck.ru/sQ4yN

LIST OF REFERENCES:

1. Курочка В.В., et al. гістерорезектоскопія у жінок репродуктивного віку з поєднаною доброякісною патологією матки. «Медичні та фармацевтичні науки: аналіз сучасності та прогноз». 2014, 78.
2. Мельник М.Г. Выбор оптимального нестероидного противовоспалительного препарата с позиции кардиолога. Медицинский алфавит, 2020, 36: 55-60.
3. Сулима А.Н., Баснева А.Д. Программа «Fast track» в оперативной гинекологии. Rossiiskii Vestnik Akushera-Ginekologa, 2020, 20.1.
4. Asgar Pour H. Association Between Acute Pain and Hemodynamic Parameters in a Postoperative Surgical Intensive Care Unit. AORN J. 2017 Jun; 105(6):571-578. doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2017.04.006. PMID: 28554354.
5. Atlee John L. Complications in Anesthesia. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2007.
6. Brain A.J. The development of the laryngeal mask a brief history of the invention, early clinical studies and experimental work from which the laryngeal mask evolved / A.J. Brain // Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. – 1991. – № 4. – Р. 5–17.
7. Brevik H., Borchgrevink P.C., Alen S.M. et al. Assessment of pain. // Br. J. Anaesth. 2008. 101 (1). Р. 17-24.
8. Howard J. W., Jones H. W., Wentz A. C. Novak’s textbook of gynecology. Baltimore: Williams Wilkins, 2017. 919 p.
9. Ohnhaus Edgar E., Adler, Rolf. Methodological problems in the measurement of pain: a comparison between the verbal rating scale and the visual analogue scale. Pain, 1975, 1.4: 379-384.
10. Wong, Marron, et al. Managing postoperative pain after minimally invasive gynecologic surgery in the era of the opioid epidemic. // Journal of minimally invasive gynecology, 2018, 25.7: 1165-1178.