Different anesthesia methods for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Comparision of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anesthesia

Background:

Spinal anesthesia (SA) with sedation is considered to be an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in high-risk patients. Ketamine in analgesic dose with propofol or dexmedetomidine infusion provides titratable sedation, hemodynamic stability, and minimum respiratory depression without psychomimetic effects.

Aim:

To compare the efficacy of ketamine–dexmedetomidine and ketamine-propofol combination in relation to sedation, analgesia, hemodynamic effects, and perioperative side effects.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized single-blind comparative study comprising 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists I, II, and III patients posted for LC.

Materials and Methods:

Patients were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each. Group KP (ketamine + propofol) received intravenous (i.v.) bolus of injection ketamine 0.5 mg.kg ⁻¹ and propofol infusion at 3 mg.kg ⁻¹.h ⁻¹. Group KD (ketamine + dexmedetomidine) received i.v. bolus of injection ketamine 0.5 mg.kg ⁻¹ and dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.4 μg.kg ⁻¹.h ⁻¹. Parameters observed were vitals, perioperative side effects, time to first rescue analgesia, and return of consciousness.

Statistical Analysis:

Student's independent t-test was employed for comparing continuous variables. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, whichever appropriate, was applied for comparing categorical variables.

Results:

Duration of analgesia was longer in KD Group (191.2 vs. 173.5 min), and time to regain consciousness was faster in KP Group (14.9 vs. 20.4 min).

Conclusion:

Both the techniques of sedation are feasible, safe, and comparable, except the duration of analgesia and time to regain consciousness which was longer in KD Group.

Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.76; P = 0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I (2) = 13%; P = 0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-19.71; P = 0.02) without any heterogeneity (I (2) = 0%; P = 0.98). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.

Major laparoscopic surgery under regional anesthesia: A prospective feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgeries have attained the status of a gold standard for most of the abdominal pathology; we therefore performed this study to assess feasibility and safety of major laparoscopic surgeries like laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH)/total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) under regional anesthesia that is combined spinal epidural anesthesia (CSE) with normal pressure pneumoperitoneum using intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacain.

METHODS

In a zonal government hospital, 50 patients were selected prospectively for LC and LAVH/TLH, under normal pressure (12 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum and under CSE over a span of fifteen months. Injection bupivacaine (0.5%) and 20 μg of fentanyl were used for spinal anesthesia. Plain bupivacaine (0.5%) was used for epidural anesthesia.

RESULTS

We successfully performed the operations in 48 patients without major complications. CSE was converted to general anesthesia in two patients due to distressing shoulder tip pain. Age varied between 25 and 70 years. Duration of operation time (skin to skin) was between 50 and 170 min. Five patients had urinary retention and one developed localized pruritis. There was no incidence of respiratory depression, aspiration or headache.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgeries with normal pressure CO2 pneumoperitoneum are feasible and safe under CSE. Incidence of postoperative shoulder pain was minimal due to use of intrathecal fentanyl and complications were less and easily manageable.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia: A prospective, randomised study

CONTEXT:

Spinal anaesthesia has been reported as an alternative to general anaesthesia for performing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

AIMS:

Study aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety and cost benefit of conducting laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia (SA) in comparison to general anaesthesia(GA)

SETTINGS AND DESIGN:

A prospective, randomised study conducted over a two year period at an urban, non teaching hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Patients meeting inclusion criteria e randomised into two groups. Group A and Group B received general and spinal anaesthesia by standardised techniques. Both groups underwent standard four port laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Mean anaesthesia time, pneumoperitoneum time and surgery time defined primary outcome measures. Intraoperative events and post operative pain score were secondary outcome measure.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED:

The Student t test, Pearson′s chi-square test and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS:

Out of 235 cases enrolled in the study, 114 cases in Group A and 110 in Group B analysed. Mean anaesthesia time appeared to be more in the GA group (49.45 vs. 40.64, P = 0.02) while pneumoperitoneum time and corresponding the total surgery time was slightly longer in the SA group. 27/117 cases who received SA experienced intraoperative events, four significant enough to convert to GA. No postoperative complications noted in either group. Pain relief significantly more in SA group in immediate post operative period (06 and 12 hours) but same as GA group at time of discharge (24 hours). No late postoperative complication or readmission noted in either group.

CONCLUSION:

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy done under spinal anaesthesia as a routine anaesthesia of choice is feasible and safe. Spinal anaesthesia can be recommended to be the anaesthesia technique of choice for conducting laparoscopic cholecystectomy in hospital setups in developing countries where cost factor is a major factor.

Cholecystectomy under segmental thoracic epidural block in a patient with twin gestation

Cholecystectomy represents the second most common surgery during pregnancy. Both general and regional anesthetic techniques have been successfully used for cholecystectomy in pregnant patients. Authors present here a case of a pregnant patient carrying twin gestation who underwent cholecystectomy, which is not frequently encountered by the anesthesiologists. This report enumerates the perioperative issues relating to anesthesia given to a pregnant patient in addition to emphasizing the importance of multidisciplinary approach when such a case is encountered.