Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 390 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 167-173

General anesthesia versus segmental thoracic or conventional lumbar spinal anesthesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy


1 Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt
2 General Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Gamal T Yousef
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


Read associated Retraction Notice: Retraction Notice with this article

DOI: 10.4103/0259-1162.108302

Rights and Permissions

Background: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy became the standard surgery for gallstone disease because of causing less postoperative pain, respiratory compromise and early ambulation. Objective : This study was designed to compare spinal anesthesia, (segmental thoracic or conventional lumbar) vs the gold standard general anesthesia as three anesthetic techniques for healthy patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, evaluating intraoperative parameters, postoperative recovery and analgesia, complications as well as patient and surgeon satisfaction. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, between January 2010 and May 2011, were randomized into three equal groups to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy with low-pressure CO 2 pneumoperitoneum under segmental thoracic (TSA group) or conventional lumbar (LSA group) spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia (GA group). To achieve a T 3 sensory level we used (hyperbaric bupivacaine 15 mg, and fentanyl 25 mg at L2/L3) for LSAgroup, and (hyperbaric bupivacaine 7.5 mg, and fentanyl 25 mg at T10/T11) for TSAgroup. Propofol, fentanyl, atracurium, sevoflurane, and tracheal intubation were used for GA group. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative recovery and analgesia, complications as well as patient and surgeon satisfaction were compared between the three groups. Results: All procedures were completed laparoscopically by the allocated method of anesthesia with no anesthetic conversions. The time for the blockade to reach T 3 level, intraoperative hypotensive and bradycardic events and vasopressor use were significantly lower in (TSA group) than in (LSA group). Postoperative pain scores as assessed throughout any time, postoperative right shoulder pain and hospital stay was lower for both (TSA group) and (LSA group) compared with (GA group). The higher degree of patients satisfaction scores were recorded in patients under segmental TSA. Conclusion: The present study not only confirmed that both segmental TSA and conventional lumber spinal anesthesia (LSA) are safe and good alternatives to general anesthesia (GA) in healthy patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy but also showed better postoperative pain control of both spinal techniques when compared with general anesthesia. Segmental TSA provides better hemodynamic stability, lesser vasopressor use and early ambulation and discharge with higher degree of patient satisfaction making it excellent for day case surgery compared with conventional lumbar spinal anesthesia.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1597    
    Printed33    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded183    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal