STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare operating conditions, intraoperative adverse events, recovery profiles, postoperative adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and costs of small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia with those of general anesthesia using fentanyl and propofol for elderly outpatient prostate biopsy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blind study. SETTING:Outpatient anesthesia unit at a municipal hospital. PATIENTS: 80 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 65 to 80 years, scheduled for outpatient prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to receive either spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine (L group, n=40) or anesthetic induction with fentanyl 1 microg.kg-1 IV and 1.0 mg.kg-1 propofol injected at 90 mg.kg-1.h-1, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg.kg-1.h-1 (F/P group, n=40). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both anesthetic techniques provided acceptable operating conditions for the surgeon. However, a significantly higher frequency of intraoperative hypotension was found in the F/P group than in the L group (P<0.05). Time to home readiness was shorter in the F/P group (P<0.05). Both techniques had no major postoperative adverse effects and resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total costs were significantly lower in the L group than in the F/P group (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be a more suitable alternative to general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory elderly prostate biopsy in terms of safety and costs.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare operating conditions, intraoperative adverse events, recovery profiles, postoperative adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and costs of small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia with those of general anesthesia using fentanyl and propofol for elderly outpatient prostate biopsy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blind study. SETTING:Outpatient anesthesia unit at a municipal hospital. PATIENTS: 80 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 65 to 80 years, scheduled for outpatient prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were assigned to receive either spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine (L group, n=40) or anesthetic induction with fentanyl 1 microg.kg-1 IV and 1.0 mg.kg-1 propofol injected at 90 mg.kg-1.h-1, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg.kg-1.h-1 (F/P group, n=40). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both anesthetic techniques provided acceptable operating conditions for the surgeon. However, a significantly higher frequency of intraoperative hypotension was found in the F/P group than in the L group (P<0.05). Time to home readiness was shorter in the F/P group (P<0.05). Both techniques had no major postoperative adverse effects and resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total costs were significantly lower in the L group than in the F/P group (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be a more suitable alternative to general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory elderly prostate biopsy in terms of safety and costs.