PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11244919

Regional anesthesia for laparoscopy.

L M Collins·H Vaghadia
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

A variety of laparoscopic procedures can be performed on patients under regional anesthesia. Diagnostic laparoscopy in elective and emergency patients, pain mapping, laparoscopy for infertility, and tubal sterilization are some examples. The key benefits of regional anesthesia include less emesis, less postoperative pain, shorter postoperative stay, improved patient satisfaction, and overall safety. Regional techniques, such as rectus sheath blocks, inguinal blocks, and caudal blocks, are useful adjuncts to general anesthesia and facilitate postoperative analgesia. Other techniques, such as spinal and epidural anesthesia, and combination of the two, are suitable as a sole anesthetic technique for laparoscopy. The physiologic changes during laparoscopy in the awake patient appear to be tolerated well under regional anesthesia. It is reasonable to assume that with advances in instrumentation and surgical techniques, the role of laparoscopy will increase in the future. The benefits conferred by regional anesthesia make it an attractive option to general anesthesia for many patients and procedures. Successful implementation of regional anesthesia is an important determinant of how anesthesiologists, surgeons, and surgical facilities cope with new challenges. In the future, it could be possible to provide "walk-in/walk-out" regional anesthesia with a real possibility of fast tracking patients through the recovery process after ambulatory surgery. For maximal patient safety, however, facilities offering regional anesthesia must have appropriately trained anesthesia personnel and the equipment necessary for monitoring and providing full resuscitation in the event of complications or a need to convert to general anesthesia.

Explore related subjects

Anesthesia, ConductionFemaleGamete Intrafallopian TransferHumansLaparoscopyPatient SatisfactionPneumoperitoneum, ArtificialSterilization, TubalJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L M Collins, H Vaghadia. 2001. Regional anesthesia for laparoscopy.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-8537(05)70210-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Regional and general anaesthesia (GA) are commonly used for caesarean section (CS) and both have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to clarify what type of anaesthesia is more efficacious. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of regional anaesthesia (RA) with those of GA on the outcomes of CS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to December 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of RA and GA in women who had CS for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction and trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies (1586 women) were included in this review. Women who had either epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia were found to have a significantly lower difference between pre and postoperative haematocrit (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.93, one trial, 231 women) and (WMD 3.10, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.47, one trial, 209 women). Compared to GA, women having either an epidural anaesthesia or spinal had a lower estimated maternal blood loss (WMD -126.98 millilitres, 95% CI -225.06 to -28.90, two trials, 256 women) and (WMD -84.79 millilitres, 95% CI -126.96 to -42.63, two trials, 279 women). More women preferred to have GA for subsequent procedures when compared with epidural (odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, one trial, 223 women) or spinal (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.81, 221 women). The incidence of nausea was also less for this group of women compared with epidural (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.64 to 6.14, three trials, 286 women) or spinal (OR 23.22, 95% CI 8.69 to 62.03, 209 women). No significant difference was seen in terms of neonatal Apgar scores of six or less and of four or less at one and five minutes and need for neonatal resuscitation with oxygen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from this review to show that RA is superior to GA in terms of major maternal or neonatal outcomes. Further research to evaluate neonatal morbidity and maternal outcomes, such as satisfaction with technique, will be useful.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗
PubMed2006

[Perineal regional anaesthesia: indications in gynaecologic and proctologic surgery and in obstetric].

Perineal and proctologic surgery is well known as very painful. The apparition of new specific needles, long acting and less toxic local anaesthetics and neurostimulation allowed reconsidering some old forgotten techniques. Those blocks appear really useful to optimize multimodal postoperative analgesia and postoperative rehabilitation. After anatomic review, authors describe perineal regional anaesthesia and discuss about main indications and advantages, in the eyes of their experience and bibliographic review.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗