Segal J L, Owens G, Silva W A, Kleeman S D, Pauls R, Karram M M
Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007 Jul;18(7):807-12. doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0242-3. Epub 2006 Nov 21.
The purpose of this study is to compare the feasibility of local anesthesia with IV sedation versus general anesthesia for vaginal correction of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients with pelvic organ prolapse who were scheduled for an anterior or posterior colporrhaphy, or an obliterative procedure, and who did not have a contraindication or preference to type of anesthesia were randomized to one of the two anesthesia groups. Nineteen patients were randomized to the general group and 21 patients were randomized to the local group. Mean operating room, anesthesia, and surgical time were similar in each group, and 10 patients in the local group bypassed the recovery room. Requests and doses of antiemetics, postoperative verbal numerical pain scores and length of hospital stay were similar between the two groups. Mean recovery room and total hospital costs were significantly lower in the local group. Local anesthesia with IV sedation is a feasible alternative for vaginal surgery to correct pelvic organ prolapse.
本研究的目的是比较局部麻醉联合静脉镇静与全身麻醉用于阴道修复盆腔器官脱垂的可行性。计划进行前后阴道壁修补术或封闭手术且无麻醉类型禁忌或偏好的盆腔器官脱垂患者被随机分为两个麻醉组之一。19例患者被随机分配至全身麻醉组,21例患者被随机分配至局部麻醉组。每组的平均手术室时间、麻醉时间和手术时间相似,局部麻醉组有10例患者未进入恢复室。两组之间的止吐药需求和剂量、术后口头数字疼痛评分及住院时间相似。局部麻醉组的平均恢复室费用和总住院费用显著更低。局部麻醉联合静脉镇静是阴道手术修复盆腔器官脱垂的一种可行替代方法。