Open mesh and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair under spinal and general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Mesh placement is the main standard in repair of inguinal hernia, and laparoscopic repair is the standard of care via spinal, epidural, or combined anesthesia. Here, we compared open and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) repairs under general (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA). METHODS: Inguinal hernia patients (n=440) were analyzed retrospectively. There were four groups: Group 1 was TEP under GA (TEP-GA) (n=111); Group 2 was open mesh repair (OM) under SA (n=116) (OM-SA); Group 3 was open mesh repair under GA (n=117) (OM-GA); Group four was TEP under SA (n=96) (TEP-SA). The age, body mass index, duration of operation, hospital stay, postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores, recurrence, postoperative pain, urinary retention, headache, and patient satisfaction were all recorded. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in terms of hypotension, vomiting, seroma and scrotal edema, recurrence, and wound infection incidence between the groups. However, the operation duration, hospital stay period, headache, urinary retention, postoperative Visual Analog Scale scores, chronic pain, and patient satisfaction showed significant differences between groups. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic TEP hernia repair is a safe and effective method along with its advantages of shorter hospital stay, less recurrence, less postoperative pain, higher patient satisfaction, and similar postoperative complication rates. SA has the disadvantage of higher incidence of headache and urinary retention compared to GA.

Spinal/epidural block as an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized clinical study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been generally performed under general anesthesia. Laparoscopic appendectomy is rarely performed under regional anesthesia because of pneumoperitoneum-related problems. AIM: To compare spinal/epidural anesthesia (SEA) and general anesthesia (GA) during LA with respect to perioperative and postoperative adverse events and postoperative pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty patients, aged 18-65, who underwent LA, were randomly allocated to two groups: the GA (n = 25) and SEA (n = 25) groups. Perioperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain level, and patient satisfaction were compared between the groups. RESULTS: None of the patients needed conversion to an open procedure or conversion from SEA to GA. In the SEA group we encountered shoulder pain in 6 (24%) patients, abdominal discomfort/pain in 4 (16%) patients, anxiety in 4 (16%) patients, and hypotension in 2 (8%) patients intraoperatively. Also, post-spinal headache was observed in 5 (20%) patients in the SEA group. Postoperative right shoulder pain was significantly higher in the GA group compared to the SEA group (32% vs. 8%; p = 0.037). In the SEA group the incidence of urinary retention and in the GA group the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were higher, but these differences were not statistically significant. The postoperative surgical pain level was significantly lower in the SEA group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal/epidural anesthesia is effective and safe in ASA I healthy patients undergoing LA. Less postoperative pain, PONV and shoulder pain are the advantages of SEA compared to GA.

Comparison of the effects of spinal epidural and general anesthesia on coagulation and fibrinolysis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial: VSJ Competition, 2nd place.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under general anesthesia. Recently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy under regional anesthesia has become popular, but this creates a serious risk of thromboembolism because of pneumoperitoneum, anesthesia technique, operative positioning, and patient-specific risk factors. AIM: This randomized controlled trial compares the effects of two different anesthesia techniques in laparoscopic cholecystectomy on coagulation and fibrinolysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This randomized prospective study included 60 low-risk patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent elective LC without thrombo-emboli prophylaxis. The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the anesthesia technique: the general anesthesia (group 1, n = 30) and spinal epidural anesthesia (group 2, n = 30) groups. Measurement of the prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and blood levels of D-dimer (DD) and fibrinogen (F) were recorded preoperatively (pre), at the first hour (post 1) and 24 h (post 24) after the surgery. These results were compared both between and within the groups. RESULTS: The mean age was 51.5 ±16.7 years (range: 19-79 years). Pneumoperitoneum time was similar between group 1 (33.8 ±7.8) and group 2 (34.8 ±10.4). The TT levels significantly declined postoperatively in both groups. The levels of PT, aPTT, INR, D-dimer and fibrinogen dramatically increased postoperatively in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: While there was not any DVT, there was a significant decline in TT. There was a dramatic rise in the PT, INR, D-dimer, fibrin degradation products (FDP), and fibrinogen following LC. This may be attributed to the effects of pneumoperitoneum and anesthesia techniques on portal vein flow.

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is routinely performed under general, not regional anesthesia. This study assessed the feasibility, efficacy, and side effects of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in LA. METHODS: Thirty-three American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification grade I patients underwent LA under CSEA. CSEA was performed using the needle-through-needle technique at the L3-L4 interspace. Preoperative and postoperative adverse events related to CSEA, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain levels were recorded. RESULTS: LA under CSEA was performed successfully in 33 patients (84.6%). Peroperatively, right shoulder pain was observed in 8 patients (24.1%), abdominal discomfort in 6 (18.2%), anxiety in 5 (15.2%), hypotension in 2 (6.1%) and nausea-vomiting in 1 (3%). In the first 24 hours after LA, headache, urinary retention, right shoulder pain, and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) occurred in 18.1%, 12.1%, 9.1%, and 0% of patients, respectively. In the first 6 hours postoperation, no patients had operation-site pain that required analgesic treatment. Thirty-one patients (94%) evaluated their satisfaction with the procedure as good or moderate. CONCLUSION: CSEA is an efficient and suitable anesthesia technique in LA for ASA physical status classification grade I healthy patients. CSEA is associated with good postoperative pain control and the absence of PONV and intubation-associated complications.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a prospective randomised study.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC. METHODS: Forty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups. RESULTS: Anesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group. CONCLUSION: CSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair under spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia: a randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is a well-known approach to inguinal hernia repair that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA). To date, no reports compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) with that of GA for laparoscopic hernia repairs. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of TEP inguinal hernia repair performed when the patient was treated under SA with that performed under GA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between July 2015 and July 2016, 50 patients were prospectively randomized to either the GA TEP group (Group I) or the SA TEP group (Group II). Propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, sevoflurane, and tracheal intubation were used for GA. Hyperbaric bupivacaine (15 mg) and fentanyl (10 µg) were used for SA to achieve a sensorial level of T3. Intraoperative events related to SA, operative and anesthesia times, postoperative complications, and pain scores were recorded. Each patient was asked to evaluate the anesthetic technique by using a direct questionnaire filled in 3 months after the operation. RESULTS: All the procedures were completed by the allocated method of anesthesia as there were no conversions from SA to GA. Pain was significantly less for 1 h (P<0.0001) and 4 h (P=0.002) after the procedure for the SA and GA groups, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, hospital stay, recovery, or surgery time. Generally, patients were more satisfied with SA than GA (P<0.020). CONCLUSION: TEP inguinal hernia repair can be safely performed under SA, and SA was associated with less postoperative pain, better recovery, and better patient satisfaction than GA.