Madison Argo1, Juan Favela2, Tri Phung2, Sergio Huerta2. 1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA; Veterans Affair North Texas Health Care System, 4500 S. Lancaster Rd, Dallas, TX, 75216, USA. Electronic address: madisonargo14@gmail.com. 2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA; Veterans Affair North Texas Health Care System, 4500 S. Lancaster Rd, Dallas, TX, 75216, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is variation in the anesthetic technique for open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) worldwide. Factors determining the anesthetic technique remains equivocal. We hypothesize that outcomes and operative room times are superior with local anesthesia (LA) compared to AO [all others (general and spinal anesthesia)]. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines and set inclusion and exclusion criteria, various databases were reviewed and 18 RCT's were isolated. Using ReviewManager 5.3, multiple parameters were used to test for overall effect between the included studies. RESULTS: Overall complication rate was similar in LA vs. AO (p = 0.06). Wound infection and hematomas were similar between LA vs. OA, but urinary retention was significantly decreased in LA (p = 0.0002). Patient satisfaction was not inferior with LA (p = 0.10). Surgical time was similar in LA vs. AO (p = 0.86), but operating room time was significantly decreased with LA (p < 0.0001). The literature review also showed a decrease in the LOS and cost when LA was used. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that LA is a well-tolerated for OIHR with OR times and urinary retention being significantly decreased.
BACKGROUND: There is variation in the anesthetic technique for open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) worldwide. Factors determining the anesthetic technique remains equivocal. We hypothesize that outcomes and operative room times are superior with local anesthesia (LA) compared to AO [all others (general and spinal anesthesia)]. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines and set inclusion and exclusion criteria, various databases were reviewed and 18 RCT's were isolated. Using ReviewManager 5.3, multiple parameters were used to test for overall effect between the included studies. RESULTS: Overall complication rate was similar in LA vs. AO (p = 0.06). Wound infection and hematomas were similar between LA vs. OA, but urinary retention was significantly decreased in LA (p = 0.0002). Patient satisfaction was not inferior with LA (p = 0.10). Surgical time was similar in LA vs. AO (p = 0.86), but operating room time was significantly decreased with LA (p < 0.0001). The literature review also showed a decrease in the LOS and cost when LA was used. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates that LA is a well-tolerated for OIHR with OR times and urinary retention being significantly decreased.