Bhumy A Davé1, Camaleigh Jaber2, Alix Leader-Cramer3, Nicole Higgins4, Margaret Mueller3, Christina Lewicky-Gaupp3, Kimberly Kenton3,5. 1. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 250 E. Superior, Suite 05-2370, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. bhumydave@gmail.com. 2. Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 250 E. Superior, Suite 05-2370, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 4. Anesthesiology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Urology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus on the most appropriate type of anesthesia for placement of a midurethral sling. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative outcomes for this procedure performed under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing outpatient placement of synthetic retropubic midurethral sling under general anesthesia (n = 141) or monitored anesthesia care (n = 84). Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was operating room time. Secondary outcomes included surgical and recovery times, cost, discharge home with a catheter, and postoperative pain and/or nausea. RESULTS: In the general anesthesia group, both operating room time (mean ± SD, 67.6 ± 13.3 min vs 56.9 ± 11.8 min, p < 0.001) and recovery room time (240.0 ± 69.8 min vs 190.1 ± 78.3 min, p < 0.001) were longer, whereas there was no difference in surgical time (30.0 ± 8.9 min vs 29.0 ± 9.7 min, p = 0.43). Cost was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group ($4,095 ± 715 vs $3,877 ± 777, p = 0.03). There was no difference in rates of bladder perforation (6.4 % vs 11.9 %, p = 0.33). Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher rates of discharge with a catheter (27.0 % vs 15.8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Monitored anesthesia care may offer significant benefits over general anesthesia in women undergoing retropubic midurethral sling, including shorter operating room and recovery times, lower costs, and less voiding dysfunction in the immediate postoperative period.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus on the most appropriate type of anesthesia for placement of a midurethral sling. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative outcomes for this procedure performed under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing outpatient placement of synthetic retropubic midurethral sling under general anesthesia (n = 141) or monitored anesthesia care (n = 84). Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was operating room time. Secondary outcomes included surgical and recovery times, cost, discharge home with a catheter, and postoperative pain and/or nausea. RESULTS: In the general anesthesia group, both operating room time (mean ± SD, 67.6 ± 13.3 min vs 56.9 ± 11.8 min, p < 0.001) and recovery room time (240.0 ± 69.8 min vs 190.1 ± 78.3 min, p < 0.001) were longer, whereas there was no difference in surgical time (30.0 ± 8.9 min vs 29.0 ± 9.7 min, p = 0.43). Cost was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group ($4,095 ± 715 vs $3,877 ± 777, p = 0.03). There was no difference in rates of bladder perforation (6.4 % vs 11.9 %, p = 0.33). Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher rates of discharge with a catheter (27.0 % vs 15.8 %, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Monitored anesthesia care may offer significant benefits over general anesthesia in women undergoing retropubic midurethral sling, including shorter operating room and recovery times, lower costs, and less voiding dysfunction in the immediate postoperative period.
Authors: Anne M Suskind; Samuel R Kaufman; Rodney L Dunn; John T Stoffel; J Quentin Clemens; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-06-06 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Mihir P Gandhi; Aparna D Shah; Jatin Y Shah; Rebekah G Fulton; Alison C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Tanya M Bisseling; H Jorien van Brummen; A Peter M Heintz; Harry A M Vervest Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kyle J Wohlrab; Elisabeth A Erekson; Nicole B Korbly; Calin D Drimbarean; Charles R Rardin; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-02-14 Impact factor: 8.661