S Li1, M Coloma, P F White, M F Watcha, J W Chiu, H Li, P J Huber. 1. Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Management and Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235-9068, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting. METHODS:Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 microg. kg-1. min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 microg fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision. RESULTS: The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19% vs. 45% for group 3; P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of local anesthesia with sedation is the most cost-effective technique for anorectal surgery in the ambulatory setting.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 microg. kg-1. min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 microg fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision. RESULTS: The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19% vs. 45% for group 3; P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of local anesthesia with sedation is the most cost-effective technique for anorectal surgery in the ambulatory setting.
Authors: Aaron B Parrish; Sean M O'Neill; Steven R Crain; Tara A Russell; Deepak K Sonthalia; Vu T Nguyen; Armen Aboulian Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Liam A Haveran; Paul R Sturrock; Mark Y Sun; Janet McDade; Sudershan Singla; Craig A Paterson; Timothy C Counihan Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2006-11-22 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Marc D Schmittner; Andrea Janke; Christel Weiss; Grietje C Beck; Dieter G Bussen Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2009-03-13 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Hélio Moreira; José Pt Moreira; Raniere R Isaac; Onofre Alves-Neto; Thiago Ac Moreira; Tiago Hm Vieira; Andressa Ms Brasil Journal: Ann Coloproctol Date: 2014-06-23