M M Vu1, R D Galiano1, J M Souza1, C Du Qin1, J Y S Kim2. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 675 North St. Clair Street Galter Suite 19-250, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 675 North St. Clair Street Galter Suite 19-250, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA. jokim@nm.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Monitored anesthesia care with intravenous sedation (MAC/IV), recently proposed as a good choice for hernia repair, has faster recovery and better patient satisfaction than general anesthesia; however the possibility of oversedation and respiratory distress is a widespread concern. There is a paucity of the literature examining umbilical hernia repairs (UHR) and optimal anesthesia choice, despite its importance in determining clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of anesthesia type in UHR was performed in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005-2013 database. General anesthesia and MAC/IV groups were propensity-score-matched (PSM) to reduce treatment selection bias. Surgical complications, medical complications, and post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day were the primary outcomes of interest. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between the two anesthesia groups using univariate and multivariate statistics. RESULTS: PSM removed all observed differences between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all tracked pre-operative characteristics). MAC/IV cases required fewer post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day (3.5 vs 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that overall complication rate did not differ (1.7 vs 1.8 %, p = 0.569), however MAC/IV cases resulted in fewer incidences of septic shock (<0.1 vs 0.1 %, p = 0.016). After multivariate logistic regression, MAC/IV was revealed to yield significantly lower chances of overall medical complications (OR = 0.654, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: UHR under MAC/IV causes fewer medical complications and reduces post-operative hospital stays compared to general anesthesia. The implications for surgeons and patients are broad, including improved surgical safety, cost-effective care, and patient satisfaction.
PURPOSE: Monitored anesthesia care with intravenous sedation (MAC/IV), recently proposed as a good choice for hernia repair, has faster recovery and better patient satisfaction than general anesthesia; however the possibility of oversedation and respiratory distress is a widespread concern. There is a paucity of the literature examining umbilical hernia repairs (UHR) and optimal anesthesia choice, despite its importance in determining clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of anesthesia type in UHR was performed in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2005-2013 database. General anesthesia and MAC/IV groups were propensity-score-matched (PSM) to reduce treatment selection bias. Surgical complications, medical complications, and post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day were the primary outcomes of interest. Pre-operative characteristics and post-operative outcomes were compared between the two anesthesia groups using univariate and multivariate statistics. RESULTS: PSM removed all observed differences between the two groups (p > 0.05 for all tracked pre-operative characteristics). MAC/IV cases required fewer post-operative hospital stays exceeding 1 day (3.5 vs 6.3 %, p < 0.001). Univariate analysis showed that overall complication rate did not differ (1.7 vs 1.8 %, p = 0.569), however MAC/IV cases resulted in fewer incidences of septic shock (<0.1 vs 0.1 %, p = 0.016). After multivariate logistic regression, MAC/IV was revealed to yield significantly lower chances of overall medical complications (OR = 0.654, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: UHR under MAC/IV causes fewer medical complications and reduces post-operative hospital stays compared to general anesthesia. The implications for surgeons and patients are broad, including improved surgical safety, cost-effective care, and patient satisfaction.
Authors: Sanjay M Bhananker; Karen L Posner; Frederick W Cheney; Robert A Caplan; Lorri A Lee; Karen B Domino Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; David M Shahian; Justin B Dimick; Samuel R G Finlayson; David R Flum; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce Lee Hall Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-09-19 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Francis Lovecchio; Rebecca Farmer; Jason Souza; Nima Khavanin; Gregory A Dumanian; John Y S Kim Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: J Tang; L Chen; P F White; M F Watcha; R H Wender; R Naruse; R Kariger; A Sloninsky Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: George Bitar; William Mullis; William Jacobs; David Matthews; Michael Beasley; Kevin Smith; Paul Watterson; Stanley Getz; Peter Capizzi; Felmont Eaves Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.730