Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2005 September;71(9) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2005 September;71(9):497-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Reprints

MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

A Journal on Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, Analgesia and Intensive Care


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,623


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  IIII MEETING OF PAIN SECTION OF SIAARTI
INTERNATIONAL J. J. BONICA MEMORIAL
Capo Calavà (Messina), September 20-23, 2004
FREEfree


Minerva Anestesiologica 2005 September;71(9):497-9

Copyright © 2005 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Locoregional anesthesia and coagulation

Mentegazzi F., Danelli G., Ghisi D., Tosi M., Gennari A., Fanelli G.

Anesthesia and Resuscitation Unit Azienda Ospedaliera di Parma, Parma, Italy


FULL TEXT  


The introduction of low molecolar weith heparin (LMWE) and the strong antithromboembolic prophylaxis protocols used in the USA, underlined the risk of spinal hemorrhage in patients receveing a neuraxial blockade. On the other side, the efficacy of these techniques over general anesthesia doesn’t allow the anesthesist to miss this pratice, where possible. So it’s necessary to quantify the spinal hematoma risk in patients assuming these drugs. Unfortunately, routine investigations on coagulation factors and platelets count are not reliable if patients are receiving LMWE. Waiting for dynamic tests concerning the coagulative status such as thromboelastography (TEG), many hospitals follow many different guidelines. For these reasons peripherical nerve block techniques are a good alternative, since they are not influenced by the efficacy of the coagulation system.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail