Inguinal hernia repair: a comparison between local and general anaesthesia.

P Subramaniam, J Leslie, C Gourlay, J K Clezy
{"title":"Inguinal hernia repair: a comparison between local and general anaesthesia.","authors":"P Subramaniam,&nbsp;J Leslie,&nbsp;C Gourlay,&nbsp;J K Clezy","doi":"10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04680.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A comparative analysis of outcomes of inguinal hernia repair performed under local (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) by a single surgeon using a standardized technique of anterior transversalis repair was performed. Ninety-three cases were examined, 56 of which were cases of LA hernia repair.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of the patient hospital record was performed with particular attention to intra-operative and post-operative analgesia requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>An overall series complication rate of 6.5% (6/93) is reported. Only one of 56 LA patients (2%) required more than 24 h of narcotic analgesic injections compared to 11% (4/37) in the GA group (P < 0.05). The mean total postoperative parenteral narcotic requirement in the LA group was 86+/-14 mg of pethidine as compared to the GA group who had a mean total requirement of 121+/-17 mg of pethidine (P > 0.08).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LA infiltration technique is an effective method for inguinal hernia repair. This series demonstrates benefits in terms of length of hospital stay and a lower incidence of postoperative parenteral narcotic analgesic requirement although when post-operative parenteral narcotics were required by the LA group of patients, the difference in mean total pethidine requirement was not statistically significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":22494,"journal":{"name":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04680.x","citationCount":"25","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian and New Zealand journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.1998.tb04680.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

Abstract

Background: A comparative analysis of outcomes of inguinal hernia repair performed under local (LA) and general anaesthesia (GA) by a single surgeon using a standardized technique of anterior transversalis repair was performed. Ninety-three cases were examined, 56 of which were cases of LA hernia repair.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of the patient hospital record was performed with particular attention to intra-operative and post-operative analgesia requirements.

Results: An overall series complication rate of 6.5% (6/93) is reported. Only one of 56 LA patients (2%) required more than 24 h of narcotic analgesic injections compared to 11% (4/37) in the GA group (P < 0.05). The mean total postoperative parenteral narcotic requirement in the LA group was 86+/-14 mg of pethidine as compared to the GA group who had a mean total requirement of 121+/-17 mg of pethidine (P > 0.08).

Conclusions: The LA infiltration technique is an effective method for inguinal hernia repair. This series demonstrates benefits in terms of length of hospital stay and a lower incidence of postoperative parenteral narcotic analgesic requirement although when post-operative parenteral narcotics were required by the LA group of patients, the difference in mean total pethidine requirement was not statistically significant.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
腹股沟疝修补术:局部麻醉与全身麻醉的比较。
背景:比较分析了一名外科医生在局部麻醉(LA)和全身麻醉(GA)下使用标准前横肌修复技术进行腹股沟疝修补的结果。我们检查了93例,其中56例为LA疝修补术。方法:回顾性分析患者住院记录,特别注意术中和术后镇痛要求。结果:报告的总系列并发症发生率为6.5%(6/93)。56例LA患者中只有1例(2%)需要超过24小时的麻醉镇痛注射,而GA组为11% (4/37)(P < 0.05)。LA组术后平均总静脉麻醉需用量为哌替啶86+/-14 mg,而GA组术后平均总需用量为121+/-17 mg (P > 0.08)。结论:LA浸润技术是腹股沟疝修补术的有效方法。该系列研究表明,尽管LA组患者术后需要静脉注射麻醉剂,但在住院时间和术后静脉注射麻醉性镇痛药的发生率方面,平均总哌替啶需用量的差异无统计学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hiatus. ELECTROSURGERY: A SHORT HISTORY1 EUTHANASIA: A POINT OF VIEW1 DISSEMINATED INTRAVASCULAR COAGULATION CADE A model for reflecting upon the ethical dilemma of hands-on teaching of surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1