The efficiency of different adjunct techniques for regional anesthesia.

In the present prospective, randomized controlled trial, 110 unpremedicated patients undergoing orthopedic surgery under regional anesthesia were randomly divided into 5 groups, with 22 patients in each. During the operation, group 1 listened to a pre-recorded explanation and music, group 2 listened to a subliminal sound, group 3 received propofol by patient-controlled sedation (PCS), group 4 received intravenous midazolam, and group 5 was the control group. Patients in the midazolam group were significantly more sedated than the control group at 1 hr into the operation. The group that listened to an explanation and music were significantly less satisfied than the propofol group at the end of the operation and 30 min. postoperatively. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio showed that if explanation and music are used instead of propofol it would save 299.53 baht per patient, but the patient satisfaction score will be 17.26 points lower than if the more expensive drug is used.

Local anesthesia and midazolam versus spinal anesthesia in ambulatory pilonidal surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate two anesthetic techniques, namely, local anesthesia with sedation, and spinal anesthesia, with respect to recovery times, postoperative side effects, pain scores, patient satisfaction, and hospital costs for ambulatory pilonidal disease surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study. SETTING: University Hospital of Pamukkale. PATIENTS: 60 consenting patients scheduled for pilonidal disease operation with Limberg flap technique. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 (n = 30) received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine 1.5 mL 0.5%, and Group 2 (n = 30) received local infiltration with a 50-mL mixture containing 10 mL bupivacaine 0.5%, 10 mL prilocaine HCl 2%, and 30 mL isotonic solution with 1:200,000 epinephrine in combination with intravenous (i.v.) midazolam sedation. MEASUREMENTS: Perioperative and postoperative side effects, patient satisfaction, preoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and VAS scores from the fourth hour postoperatively until the seventh day were assessed. Anesthesia, operation, surgery, and total hospital time, and costs (drug, resources, and labor) were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: No difference was found between groups in the frequency of side effects. Urinary retention was diagnosed in two patients in the spinal anesthesia group. There was no statistical significant difference seen in satisfaction scores between groups. No statistical significance in VAS pain scores between groups was noted except for the fourth postoperative hour values. The average time spent in the operating room (OR) was greater in the spinal anesthesia group. All Group 2 patients achieved fast-tracking criteria in the OR and were able to bypass the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Total hospital time and total cost were significantly higher in the spinal anesthesia group than local anesthesia-sedation group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of local anesthesia-sedation for ambulatory anorectal surgery resulted in a shorter hospital time, lower hospital costs, and no side effects compared with spinal anesthesia.