Assessment of Awareness of Local Anaesthetic Systemic Toxicity (LAST) among Postgraduate Trainees

Author:

Jamaleddin Surani Shafiq Ali1ORCID,Budiman Maryam2ORCID,Azman Mawaddah3ORCID,Abdul Rahman Raha2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Penang General Hospital, Jalan Residensi, 10990 George Town, Penang, Malaysia

2. Department of Anaesthesiology & Intensive Care, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head, and Neck Surgery, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Bandar Tun Razak, 56000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

Introduction. Although uncommon, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) may impose fatal risk to the patients. We investigated the awareness of LAST and knowledge on local anaesthetics among our postgraduate trainees. Materials and Methods. A total of 134 postgraduate trainees from the departments of general surgery (Surgical), orthopaedic surgery (Ortho), otorhinolaryngology (ENT), obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN), as well as anaesthesiology and intensive care (Anaesth) were recruited. A validated questionnaire was used to assess awareness and knowledge. All participants attended a medical-education session and completed the questionnaire as preassessment and postassessment. Data were analysed, and comparisons between disciplines were conducted. Results. The trainees’ awareness of LAST was overall poor at preassessment which improved almost 6-folds at postassessment. Surprisingly, only 20 (45.5%) participants from the anaesthesiology group had awareness of LAST at preassessment, and none of the participants were from surgical, orthopaedic, and obstetrics and gynaecology departments. Preassessment scores were significantly higher in the anaesth group as compared to all other groups; with a difference in the average score for Anaesth vs Surgical of 3.46 (95%, CI:2.17, 4.74), Anaesth vs Ortho of 3.64 (95%, CI:2.64, 4.64), Anaesth vs ENT of 3.43 (95%, CI:2.20, 4.67), and Anaesth vs OBGYN of 6.93 (95%, CI:5.64, 8.21). However, there was no significant difference of awareness scores between all participants at postassessment scores. Conclusion. The overall level of awareness was poor. However, the implementation of an education session significantly improved the knowledge and awareness across all disciplines.

Funder

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Publisher

Hindawi Limited

Subject

General Medicine

Reference19 articles.

1. Clinical use of local anaesthetics in anaesthesia;J. F. Butterworth,2019

2. Pacemaker insertion;M. Kotsakou;Annals of Translational Medicine,2015

3. Various strategies for pain-free root canal treatment;M. Parirokh;Iranian Endodontic Journal,2014

4. Regional anaesthesia with ankle block for acute diabetic foot surgery;N. Chinai;The Diabetic Foot Journal,2016

5. Effectiveness of local anaesthetics with and without vasoconstrictors for perineal repair during spontaneous delivery: Double-blind randomised controlled trial

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3