Nursing Methods and Experience of Local Anesthesia Patients under Arthroscope

Abstract

In order to solve the nursing problems of local anesthesia patients under arthroscopy, a nursing method and experience based on local anesthesia patients under arthroscopy was proposed. From June 2019 to May 2021, 478 patients who underwent knee arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia or local anesthesia were retrospectively investigated, including 186 cases (38.9%) under local anesthesia and 292 cases (61.1%) under spinal anesthesia. 2% lidocaine plus epinephrine was injected locally and intra-articular in patients with local anesthesia, and 0.75% bupivacaine in patients with spinal anesthesia. It was found that in the local anesthesia group and spinal anesthesia group, 94.1% (175/186) and 98.3% (287/292) patients did not feel pain during operation. 93.0% (173/186 cases) and 96.2% (281/292 cases) of patients in the two groups were satisfied or very satisfied with the effect of anesthesia, respectively. The experimental results showed that local anesthesia was a simple and effective anesthesia method for knee arthroscopy, which was more reliable and safer than spinal anesthesia. Local anesthesia could be used for knee arthroscopy or cleaning and rinsing, free body removal, or even common meniscinoplasty.

Retracted: Nursing Methods and Experience of Local Anesthesia Patients under Arthroscope

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: The presence of these indicators undermines our confidence in the integrity of the article's content and we cannot, therefore, vouch for its reliability.…”