z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
The Effects of General Versus Epidural Anesthesia for Outpatient Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy
Author(s) -
Michael G. Richardson,
Joseph W. Dooley
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
anesthesia and analgesia/anesthesia and analgesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.404
H-Index - 201
eISSN - 1526-7598
pISSN - 0003-2999
DOI - 10.1097/00000539-199806000-00015
Subject(s) - medicine , anesthesia , extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy , lidocaine , laryngeal mask airway , propofol , anesthetic , lithotripsy , surgery , local anesthesia , randomized controlled trial , patient satisfaction , local anesthetic , airway
Although many anesthetic techniques are described for immersion extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), regional and i.v. techniques are the most commonly reported. This randomized, prospective study compared general anesthesia (GA) and epidural anesthesia (EPID) with regard to effectiveness, side effects, induction time, and recovery in patients undergoing ESWL using an unmodified Dornier HM-3 lithotriptor. Twenty-six healthy outpatients were randomized to GA (propofol, N2O, laryngeal mask airway) or EPID (lidocaine 1.5% with epinephrine). Intraoperative and postoperative supplemental medications, side effects, and complications were noted. Induction times and times required to meet standard recovery criteria were compared between groups. Patients were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with anesthesia. All patients in the EPID group had effective blocks with a single catheter insertion and local anesthetic injection. In the GA group, the LMA was inserted successfully in all patients. Time from room entry to procedure start was significantly less in the GA group (23 +/- 11 vs 34 +/- 9 min; P < 0.05). Patients in the GA group were ready for discharge home earlier (127 +/- 59 vs 178 +/- 49 min; P < 0.05). Only three patients experienced nausea (one in the GA group, two in the EPID group). There were no differences in patient or urologist satisfaction with anesthesia. We conclude that GA is associated with a rapid recovery compared with EPID.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here