Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 721 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
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 724-729

Comparison of spinal anesthesia and paravertebral block in inguinal hernia repair

Department of Anesthesiology and ICU, Government Medical College, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Arminder Kaur
H. No. 111, Rajiana, Baghapurana, Moga - 142 038, Punjab
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_251_16

Rights and Permissions

Context: Inguinal hernia repair (IHR) is a common surgical procedure which can be performed under general, regional, or peripheral nerve block anesthesia. Aim: The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of paravertebral block (PVB) with spinal anesthesia (SA) for IHR with respect to postoperative analgesia, ambulation, and adverse effects. Settings and Design: This was a prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologists Class I–II patients of 20–60 years scheduled for IHR were randomized by a computer-generated list into two groups of thirty each, to receive either PVB (Group PVB: at T12–L2 levels, 10 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine at each level) or SA (Group SA: at L3–L4/L2–L3 level, 2.5 ml of 0.5% levobupivacaine). Primary outcome was duration of postoperative analgesia and time to reach discharge criteria. Secondary outcome was time to ambulation, time to perform the block, time to surgical anesthesia, total rescue analgesic consumption, adverse effects, hemodynamic changes, patient, and surgeon satisfaction. Statistical Analysis Used: Student's t-test, Chi-square test as applicable, and Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 14.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) were used. Results: Time to the first analgesic requirement was 15.17 ± 3.35 h in Group PVB and 4.67 ± 1.03 h in Group SA (P < 0.001). Time to reach the discharge criteria was significantly shorter in Group PVB than Group SA (P < 0.001). Conclusion: PVB is advantageous in terms of prolonged postoperative analgesia and encourages early ambulation compared to SA.

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
    PDF Downloaded185    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal