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
Comparative Study
. 1997 Apr-Jun;1(2):141-4.

A comparison of epidural versus general anesthesia for outpatient endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy

A L Schuricht  1 , C S McCarthy, W L Wells, R J Kumor, J Cwik
Affiliations
Comparative Study

A comparison of epidural versus general anesthesia for outpatient endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy

A L Schuricht et al. JSLS. 1997 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: To study the efficacy of epidural versus general anesthesia on length of stay, patient recovery and anesthetic-related complications in patients undergoing endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy.

Methods: One hundred sixty-seven consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy from July, 1994, to August, 1995, were retrospectively studied. A total of 243 herniorrhaphies were performed. Four patients required conversion of epidural anesthesia to general anesthesia because of inadequate sensory blockade (67/71; 94% success rate). One-hundred-forty-eight patients were available for review. Sixty-seven patients underwent successful epidural anesthesia during the case, while 81 patients were managed with general anesthesia.

Results: Thirty patients (37%) receiving general anesthesia required interventions for nausea compared to only six patients (9.0%) in the epidural anesthesia group (p < 0.001). Thirty patients (37%) in the general anesthesia group required intervention because of complaints of pain, compared to 13 (19.4%) in the epidural group (p < 0.05). There were no differences between the two groups for length of stay in OR, PACU, or total hospital times.

Conclusions: The use of epidural anesthesia during the performance of endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy was associated with a decrease in the incidence of postoperative pain and nausea. The technique was successful in 94% of the cases in which it was used. Epidural anesthesia is recommended as an effective alternative to general anesthesia for the performance of outpatient endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Stoker DL, Spiegelhalter DJ, Singh R, Wellwood JM. Laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair: A randomized prospective trial. Lancet. 1994;343:1243–1245 - PubMed
    1. Atabek U, Spence RK, Pello M, Alexander J, Story L, Camishion RC. A survey of preferred approach to inguinal hernia repair: Laparoscopic or inguinal incision? Amer Surg. 1994;60:255–258 - PubMed
    1. Azurin DJ, Go LS, Arroyo LR, Cwik JC, Schuricht AL. The efficacy of epidural anesthesia for endoscopic preperitoneal herniorrhaphy: A prospective study. J Laparoendosc Surg. 1996;6(6):369–373 - PubMed
    1. Parnass SM, McCarthy RJ, Bach BR, Corey ER, Hasson S, Werling MA, Ivankovich AD. Beneficial impact of epidural anesthesia on recovery after outpatient arthroscopy. Arthrosc. 1993;9:91–95 - PubMed
    1. Gold BS, Kitz DS, Lecky JH, Newhaus, JM. Unanticipated admission to the hospital following ambulatory surgery. JAMA. 1989;262:3008–3010 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources