What recovery position should patients adopt after percutaneous liver biopsy?
| Autor: | Dalila Amélia Amorim Costa, Ana F. Cardoso, Dália Fernandes, Juliana M Costa, Ana Célia Caetano, Rita Seara Costa, Aníbal Ferreira |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Universidade do Minho |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Biopsy Pain Vasovagal reaction Patient Positioning law.invention Young Adult 03 medical and health sciences Acceptability 0302 clinical medicine Patient satisfaction Randomized controlled trial law medicine Recovery position Humans Prospective Studies Young adult Adverse effect Prospective cohort study Aged Pain Measurement Science & Technology Portugal Hepatology medicine.diagnostic_test business.industry Liver Diseases Bleeding Gastroenterology Recovery of Function Middle Aged Percutaneous liver biopsy 3. Good health Surgery Liver Patient Satisfaction 030220 oncology & carcinogenesis Liver biopsy Female 030211 gastroenterology & hepatology business |
| Zdroj: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instacron:RCAAP |
| ISSN: | 0954-691X |
| DOI: | 10.1097/meg.0000000000001290 |
| Popis: | Introduction Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is an invasive procedure used for the assessment of liver diseases. The patient’s recovery position after the PLB differs among hospitals and departments. This study aims to evaluate adverse events and patient acceptability according to the recovery position adopted after the PLB. Patients and methods From September 2014 to March 2017, patients submitted to PLB were randomly assigned to a recovery position arm: right-side position (RRP), dorsal position (DRP), or combined position. A validated numerical rating scale was used to evaluate the level of pain and the overall acceptability of the PLB experience. Results Ninety (27 patients in RRP, 33 in DRP and 30 in combined position arm) patients were included in the study. There were no differences between the three groups regarding demographic and clinical parameters, except for the number of previous biopsies – higher in the combined group (P= 0.03). No major adverse events occurred. Minor complications described were pain (36.7% of patients), vasovagal reaction (2.2%) and nauseas/vomit (3.3%). Pain level and pain duration did not differ significantly between groups. Pain occurred more often in women (P=0.04) and younger patients (P= 0.02). The number of passages, operator and previous biopsy did not influence the occurrence of pain. The RRP group considered the procedure less acceptable than the DRP group (P=0.001) or the combined group (P= 0.002). There were no differences between the last two arms. Conclusion Although RRP is the most frequently used position, it appears to be less acceptable without any protective role in terms of adverse events. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|