Open Access Subscription Access
Preferences of the Thoracic-Surgery Academic Teaching Staff on Thoracotomy Opening/Closure and Post-Thoracotomy Pain Management
Background: A survey was conducted on preferences for thoracotomy opening and closure as well as post-thoracotomy pain management among academic teaching staff of thoracic surgeons in Turkey. It was aimed to assess the attitudes of the thoracic surgery training-center academicians on aforesaid topic. Methods: A 7-question questionnaire was performed by face-to-face interview or online by e-mail to the academic professionals working at resident-training centers. Eighty-eight randomly selected academicians were invited to complete the questionnaire, and 48 of them answered. Based on the complete and valid responses, the methods for opening and closure of thorax, the number of chest drains placed, the method of analgesia in per-or postoperative period and the analgesic agents used commonly were assessed. Results: Thirty-three (68.8%) of 48 were working at university hospitals and 24 (50.0%) were in age group of 40 - 49 years. Muscle-sparing (41.7%) and standard posterolateral thoracotomies (41.7%) were the most preferred incision. The most used method for closing thorax was pericostal sutures. Per-or postoperative analgesia was stated to be performed by all of the participants, while 45 (93.75%) of them reported that they preferred to administrate more than one procedure. Intercostal/paravertebral nerve block (26.4%), epidural analgesia (24.5%), systemic parenteral non-steroid drugs (24.5%) and systemic parenteral opioid (20.9%) were the most commonly used methods. Conclusion: Preventing intercostal nerve injury decreaseed post-thoracotomy pain, as well as the necessity of post-operative analgesic use. Conversely, most of the academic staff did not prefer the methods for preserving intercostal nerve. More than one analgesia procedure were said to be used by majority of the participants.
Thoracotomy Opening and Closure, Pain, Analgesia, Academic Teaching Staff.
Abstract Views: 69
PDF Views: 0