Spinal block or total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil for gynaecological outpatient procedures:

Perioperative costs of local or regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the outpatient setting: a systematic review of recent literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In this systematic review, we carried out an assessment of perioperative costs of local or regional anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to find relevant data on costs and cost-effectiveness analyses of anesthesia regimens in outpatients, regardless of the medical procedure they underwent. The hypothesis was that local or regional anesthesia has a lower economic impact on hospital costs in the outpatient setting. The primary outcome was the average total cost of anesthesia calculated on perioperative costs (drugs, staff, resources used).

RESULTS

One-thousand-six-hundred-ninety-eight records were retrieved, and 28 articles including 27,581 patients were selected after reviewing the articles. Data on the average total costs of anesthesia and other secondary outcomes (anesthesia time, recovery time, time to home readiness, hospital stay time, complications) were retrieved. Taken together, these findings indicated that local or regional anesthesia is associated with lower average total hospital costs than general anesthesia when performed in the ambulatory setting. Reductions in operating room time and postanesthesia recovery time and a lower hospital stay time may account for this result.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of this systematic review, mainly the heterogeneity of the studies and the lack of cost-effectiveness analysis, the economic impact of the anesthesia regimes on healthcare costs appears to be relevant and should be further evaluated.

A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Both regional anesthesia and general anesthesia have been proposed to provide optimal ambulatory anesthesia. We searched MEDLINE and other databases for randomized controlled trials comparing regional anesthesia and general anesthesia in ambulatory surgery patients for meta-analysis. Only major conduction blocks were considered to be regional anesthesia. Regional anesthesia was further separated into central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block. Fifteen (1003 patients) and 7 (359 patients) trials for central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block were included in the meta-analysis. Both central neuraxial block and peripheral nerve block were associated with increased induction time, reduced pain scores, and decreased need for postanesthesia care unit analgesics. However, central neuraxial block was not associated with decreased postanesthesia care unit bypass or time or reduced nausea despite reduced analgesics, and it was associated with a 35-min increase in total ambulatory surgery unit time. In contrast, peripheral nerve block was associated with decreased postanesthesia care unit need and decreased nausea but, again, not with decreased ambulatory surgery unit time. This meta-analysis indicates potential advantages for regional anesthesia, such as decreased postanesthesia care unit use, nausea, and postoperative pain. Although these factors have been proposed to reduce ambulatory surgery unit stay, neither central neuraxial block nor peripheral nerve block were associated with reduced ambulatory surgery unit time. Other factors, such as unsuitable discharge criteria and limitations of meta-analysis, may explain this discrepancy.