Utilize este identificador para referenciar este registo: https://hdl.handle.net/1822/67187

TítuloWhat recovery position should patients adopt after percutaneous liver biopsy?
Autor(es)Costa, Rita S.
Cardoso, Ana F.
Ferreira, Anibal
Costa, Juliana
Costa, Dalila Amélia Amorim
Fernandes, Dália
Caetano, Ana C.
Palavras-chaveAdult
Aged
Biopsy
Female
Humans
Liver
Liver Diseases
Male
Middle Aged
Pain
Pain Measurement
Patient Positioning
Patient Satisfaction
Portugal
Prospective Studies
Recovery of Function
Young Adult
Acceptability
Bleeding
Percutaneous liver biopsy
Recovery position
Vasovagal reaction
Data2019
EditoraKluwer
RevistaEuropean Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Resumo(s)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.
TipoArtigo
URIhttps://hdl.handle.net/1822/67187
DOI10.1097/MEG.0000000000001290
ISSN0954-691X
e-ISSN1473-5687
Arbitragem científicayes
AcessoAcesso restrito UMinho
Aparece nas coleções:ICVS - Artigos em revistas internacionais / Papers in international journals

Ficheiros deste registo:
Ficheiro Descrição TamanhoFormato 
costa2019.pdf
Acesso restrito!
192,17 kBAdobe PDFVer/Abrir

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID