Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 1988 Mar;70(2):69-73.

Comparative evaluation of general, epidural and spinal anaesthesia for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Comparative evaluation of general, epidural and spinal anaesthesia for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy

J K Rickford et al. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1988 Mar.

Abstract

The results of a prospective randomised evaluation of general anaesthesia (GA), epidural anaesthesia (EA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy are presented. GA provided speed and reliability but resulted in a high incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting and sore throat. Both regional techniques conferred the advantages of an awake, cooperative patient, but EA required a longer preparation time than SA and more supplementary treatment with fentanyl or midazolam. A major drawback associated with the use of SA was a 42% incidence of postspinal headache. All three techniques were associated with hypotension on placement in the hoisl; bath immersion resulted in significant rises in blood pressure in the EA and SA groups and a more variable (overall non-significant) response in the GA group.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lancet. 1980 Dec 13;2(8207):1265-8 - PubMed
    1. Lancet. 1981 Nov 21;2(8256):1133-5 - PubMed
    1. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1981;70(3):107-11 - PubMed
    1. Urology. 1986 Aug;28(2):86-94 - PubMed
    1. Anesth Analg. 1985 May;64(5):544-6 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources