Literature DB >> 21350878

Different anesthesia methods for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

X Liu1, C Wei, Z Wang, H Wang.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the possibility of performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy using two different anesthesia procedures (spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia).
METHODS: The study included 68 patients with symptoms of cholelithiasis examined in the 309th Hospital of PLA from 2006 to 2009. Patients were randomly selected to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy with low tension pneumoperitoneum with CO(2) under general anesthesia (n=33) or spinal anesthesia (n=35). The study used propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, sevoflurane and tracheal intubation for general anesthesia and hyperbaric 15 mg bupivacaine and 20 µg fentanyl were used to achieve a sensorial level of T(3) for spinal anesthesia. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative pain, complications, recovery, patient satisfaction and cost were compared between both groups.
RESULTS: All surgical procedures were completed with the chosen method with the exception of one case, in which spinal anesthesia was converted to general anesthesia. Shoulder pain was significantly less frequent in the spinal anesthesia group (6%) compared with the general anesthesia group (24%). The level of pain at 2, 4, and 6 h after the procedure under spinal anesthesia was significantly lower than that under general anesthesia. At 12 h both groups had the same evaluation in the visual analogue scale. In the spinal anesthesia group all patients recovered 6 h after surgery, while patients in the general anesthesia group spent more time in recovery. All patients were discharged from hospital after 24 h. In the postoperative evaluation all patients were satisfied with the spinal anesthesia and would recommend this procedure, while only 78.9% of patients were very satisfied in the general anesthesia group. The cost of spinal anesthesia was significantly lower than that of general anesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy with low pressure pneumoperitoneum with CO(2) can be safely performed under spinal anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia was associated with an extremely low level of postoperative pain, better recovery and lower cost than general anesthesia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21350878     DOI: 10.1007/s00101-011-1863-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesthesist        ISSN: 0003-2417            Impact factor:   1.041


  19 in total

1.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia: a pilot study.

Authors:  G Tzovaras; F Fafoulakis; K Pratsas; S Georgopoulou; G Stamatiou; C Hatzitheofilou
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-01-25       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia: a study of 3492 patients.

Authors:  Rajeev Sinha; A K Gurwara; S C Gupta
Journal:  J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.878

3.  Causes of arterial hypertension and splachnic ischemia during acute elevations in intra-abdominal pressure with CO2 pneumoperitoneum: a complex central nervous system mediated response.

Authors:  M Ben-Haim; R J Rosenthal
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  Acid-base balance alterations in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  V Gándara; D S de Vega; N Escriú; I G Zorrilla
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  J B Y So; K F Cheong; C Sng; W K Cheah; P Goh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-11-12       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Pathophysiological and clinical aspects of the CO2 pneumoperitoneum (CO2-PP).

Authors:  H Gebhardt; A Bautz; M Ross; D Loose; H Wulf; H Schaube
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Hemodynamic events in the peritoneal environment during pneumoperitoneum in dogs.

Authors:  K Kotzampassi; N Kapanidis; P Kazamias; E Eleftheriadis
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new 'gold standard'?

Authors:  N J Soper; P T Stockmann; D L Dunnegan; S W Ashley
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  1992-08

9.  Spinal vs general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial.

Authors:  George Tzovaras; Frank Fafoulakis; Kostantinos Pratsas; Stavroula Georgopoulou; Georgia Stamatiou; Constantine Hatzitheofilou
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2008-05

10.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia.

Authors:  Yunus Nadi Yuksek; Arif Zeki Akat; Ugur Gozalan; Gul Daglar; Yasar Pala; Mehmet Canturk; Tanju Tutuncu; Nuri Aydin Kama
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.565

View more
  5 in total

1.  Major laparoscopic surgery under regional anesthesia: A prospective feasibility study.

Authors:  R K Singh; A M Saini; Nitin Goel; Dinesh Bisht; Atul Seth
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2015-02-11

2.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia: A prospective, randomised study.

Authors:  Sangeeta Tiwari; Ashutosh Chauhan; Pallab Chaterjee; Mohammed T Alam
Journal:  J Minim Access Surg       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 1.407

3.  Cholecystectomy under segmental thoracic epidural block in a patient with twin gestation.

Authors:  R Barani Selvan; David George Veliath; Parnandi Bhaskar Rao; R V Ranjan
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2012-01

4.  Comparision of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anesthesia.

Authors:  Heena Saini; Rajesh Angral; Shruti Sharma; Raj Rishi Sharma; Ravinder Kumar
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2020-10-12

5.  Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Xian-Xue Wang; Quan Zhou; Dao-Bo Pan; Hui-Wei Deng; Ai-Guo Zhou; Hua-Jing Guo; Fu-Rong Huang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-07-25       Impact factor: 3.411

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.