What is it about?

This meta-analysis and systematic review investigated intra- and postoperative complications associated with spinal and general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair in preterm born neonates. We compared the complications in both groups from data of 6 trials. The null hypothesis was tested as a two-sided hypothesis that there was no difference in the outcome between general and spinal anaesthesia. Effect measure estimates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the outcomes using Review Manager in either dichomous or continuous outcome measures. It is of major importance to research whether any method provides advantages due to the increasing number of preterm born babies that are often born with pre-existing diseases, which put them at an even higher risk for complications such as apnoea and bradycardia. Spinal anaesthesia as a fast and simple method could be suitable for not only for quick hernia fixation but also for infants with high risks preventing complications that are linked to volatile and intravenous anaesthetics. Our aim was to work out of any of the two methods provided advantages.

Featured Image

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Inguinal hernia repair in preterm neonates: is there evidence that spinal or general anaesthesia is the better option regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications? A systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ Open, October 2019, BMJ,
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028728.
You can read the full text:

Read

Contributors

Be the first to contribute to this page