Talk:Regional anaesthesia

Untitled

Acupuncture is not a method of regional anaesthesia. It has to do with meredians and stuff, but to mention it here just leads to confusion. JFW | T@lk 13:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

here here. thanks JFW! Erich 23:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Acupuncture has legitimate anaesthetic and analgesic utilizations. It is recognised by the Royal College of Anaesthetists as a valid form of regional anaesthesia as well as being used for chronic pain management in patients. It is available on the NHS(UK) as an alternative to anaesthetics drugs. See also the research carried out at Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina into the treatment and management of post-operative pain using acupuncture. Also, this article links to some relevant subject matter: http://www.icmart.org/icmart02/abstracts/11.html A full and indepth analysis of all forms of regional anaesthesia is currently being prepared and will be posted online shortly. If you wish to remove the word acupuncture from the brief stub for the purposes of clarity then that's acceptable, but acupuncture will be discussed as a valid alternative to drugs based anaesthetics and pain management within the full article. I take it Erich that in Australia you guys don't consider acupuncture a valid form of anaesthesia? Are you by chance still using chloroform for tonsillectomies as well :P when you are not hunting game with your boomerang! Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

62.252.0.5, sign your entries (~~~~ = four tildes does the trick).

Acupuncture is an alternative form of regional anaesthesia, but to mention it inline with regular methods is really dubious. If you're so insistent, create a seperate section about it.

Given your previous trolling on Talk:Jew it's going to take some time before I feel I can take your edits seriously. And stop your personal attacks on Erich; I find myself secretly wishing he'd knock you out with a boomerang before performing a tonsillectomy on you (and I mean a cerebellar one). JFW | T@lk 08:01, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about JFDwolff. I believe (I can't remember precisely what I typed) my former comment said words to the effect of 'regional anaesthesia involves the use of drugs and in SOME circumstances acupuncture ... etc As it was a stub comment I didnt expand on this, but have intention to. I am not a champion of exclusively using acupuncture, the GMC would probably have a field day with that one. However it is a valid form of regional anaesthesia and used quite successfully along side of and in many circumstances in lieu of drugs based anaesthetics. My comments to Erich were entirely in jest. As for talk:jew? I have no idea what you mean by that. This computer is a shared resource. Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

Ok I have just checked this IP you quoted next to my anaesthetics comments above, and its coming back as a Cache Server IP for an internet service provider in the UK. Please do not attribute responsibility of every post under that IP to one individual! Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

Well, the edits made from your IP number on this page were (literally) moments after someone with that IP number wrote some stuff stinking of Holocaust denial on Talk:Jew. If it wasn't true, I'll eat my words and take your work here on their merits. Occam's razor may have cut me short.

The use of acupuncture as a form of anaesthesia is very contentious. There are some randomised controlled trials of mediocre quality that find little benefit of acupuncture over placebo. If you possess references to studies that say otherwise, please share them with us!

Again, please sign your entries! I've explained above how to do this. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will register with the wikipedia site as I am not sure what I need to do with tidal things (~) you mention. As I said, that ip you listed above which you say is for me, is certainly not the IP of this shared PC, but is a cache server for an internet service provider (NTL Guildford region Cache according to a tracert I did on it just now). Unsigned byUser:62.252.0.5.

Good, this means you won't get mistaken for the Neo-Nazi Holocaust denier vandal who has been trolling Jew and Holocaust from the same IP. (You'll need to learn the ~tilde trick when you get a login. It's made with a key on your keyboard; you'll probably need shift to bring it up.) ~~~~ JFW | T@lk 19:09, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clean up Required

This copied from an erroneous VfD Regional anaesthesia This article appears to me to be a less comprehensive article, and a duplication of the subject of Local anaesthesia L-Bit 3 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)

While I don't know the subject, the thing to do if that is indeed the case would be a redirect from one to the other. No VfD required. CDC (talk) 3 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
~~Keep~~, expand. Different from Local anaesthesia, and if that is a valid topic then this should be also, with cross-reference links both ways. It is important for the article to show that it is not the same as local. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

But, keep in mind I am not in the medical profession or by any means knowledgeable about anaesthesia. ~~Make my vote Weak Keep for now.~~ --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Back to Keep, with restructuring. Looking for definitions makes me think that local anaesthesia is a subset of regional anaesthesia. Therefore, I suggest that the material in Local anaesthesia be moved to Regional anaesthesia and a redirect created from the local anaesthesia article. But, first, we must ask the age-old question - Is there a Doctor in the house?. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 09:35 (UTC)

Keep Had I done some research before posting here, I would probably not have posted as VfD. Acccording to Oysten's website, local anaesthesia is indeed a subset of regional anaesthesia and so User:WCFrancis; you are correct. However, as Dr Oysten states, ".... many people use the phrase (local anaesthesia) loosely to include regional anaesthesia". That begs the question, if "Local" is more commonly used to refer to the medically correct term "Regional", and I would hazard a guess that "more commonly" should be read as "almost universally", then should "Local" be the main entry? I note also that the original "Regional" article spells anaethesia without the second 'A'. I have no idea if this is American spelling or a typo. So, I am giving up with this VfD and copying this whole section to the two discussion pages - "Regional" and "Local" in the hope that a medical person and/or a person better versed in Wiki procedures can clean up the issue. L-Bit 01:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD results

This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Regional anaesthesia. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Although I am not an anaesthetist, as an orthopaedic surgeon I recognise the difference between Regional and Local anaesthetics. Local anaesthesia is usually achieved by infiltration of the area with local anaesthetics. Regional anaesthesia extends well beyond the area infiltrated and may affect a whole limb. It is achieved by neural blockade and can be accomplished either by spinal anesthesia, epidural anaesthetic, caudal blocks, nerve block or intravenous (Bier) blocks. It is interesting (to me) that Caudal and Bier blocks don't have wiki entries yet and the nerve block entry has some bizarre statements (done under fluroscopic control!). --Mylesclough 07:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with nerve block

A merge tag was placed on this 9 months ago, but no reasons were given that I can see on this page, and no discussion has taken place. Nerve blocks are one of several modes of regional anesthesia, so separate pages for each, with cross-references, seems reasonable. Therefore, I have removed the merge tag. Terrace4 00:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Merge Proposal

Regional anaesthesia seems to be used as a synonym for local anaesthesia. Unless someone can find some material difference between the terms, the articles should be merged. K e rowyn ^{Leave a note} 07:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defintely merge! They are one in the same. Nevie Nevie 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, sorry folk. These are different. I do them every couple of days. Erich 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local anesthesia is a term to describe infiltration of a local anesthetic agent (e.g. - lidocaine) into the subcutaneous tissue surrounding an incision. This numbs the nerve endings supplying the tissue. Regional anesthesia includes several techniques of injecting local anesthetic into the tissue/fluid surrounding nerve roots or peripheral nerve(s) (spinal or epidural block, peripheral nerve block). Regional anesthesia (yes, this is the American spelling) targets large areas of the body without affecting the rest of the body. This can allow some patients to remain completely awake during surgery on an arm, leg or lower abdomen. By choosing appropriate drugs the duration of pain control can be extended to many hours or even days with little or no systemic side effects. I do spinal, epidural and peripheral nerve blocks every day in my anesthetic practice.Ericdi 01:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are different can we still merge the two and just spell out the differences in the article? Maybe put the page under "Conduction anesthesia" and have local and regional both redirect there? This topic has needed serious clean up for a long time Chursaner (talk) 13:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]