Laparoscopic tubal ligation in a minimally invasive surgical unit under local anesthesia compared to a conventional operating room approach under general anesthesia

被引:7
作者
Hatasaka, HH
Sharp, HT
Dowling, DD
Teahon, K
Peterson, CM
机构
[1] Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
[2] Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California at Irvine, Irvine
[3] Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT 84132
来源
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES-PART A | 1997年 / 7卷 / 05期
关键词
D O I
10.1089/lap.1997.7.295
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: This study was done to compare costs, operating and recovery times, safety, and patient acceptance between (a) minimally invasive laparoscopic tubal ligation under sedation and local anesthesia and (Ib) conventional laparoscopic operating-room-based tubal ligations under general anesthesia. Methods: Fourteen women desiring sterilization were randomized between tubal ligation under sedation/local analgesia versus general anesthesia. Procedures were performed by supervised residents previously unfamiliar with the minimally invasive technique. Hospital charges were used as a surrogate for cost. Operating or procedure room times, surgical complications, and recovery times were recorded. Patient acceptance was assessed using satisfaction surveys administered in the recovery room and again 1 week postoperatively. Results: The cost of minimally invasive tubal ligation was significantly lower than for the conventional technique ($1,615 +/- $134 vs $2,820 +/- $110, p < 0.001). Surgical times were not different between the two procedures: 40.4 +/- 15 min for the conventional technique versus 32.9 +/- 10 min for minimally invasive surgery. However, the total in-room time required in the operating room significantly exceeded that for the procedure room technique (84 +/- 10 min vs 60 +/- 2 min, p < 0.05). Likewise, recovery time for the general anesthesia technique was longer (48 +/- 6 min vs 14 +/- 7 min, p < 0.03). No complications were encountered with either surgical method. Patient satisfaction for pain, fatigue, and days of missed work was similar between the two groups. Conclusions: The use of minimally invasive surgery to perform tubal ligation is advantageous over conventional laparoscopic tubal ligation under general anesthesia with regard to cost and time utilization. The minimally invasive technique appears to be easy to learn, safe, and well tolerated.
引用
收藏
页码:295 / 299
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   OUTPATIENT LAPAROSCOPIC STERILIZATION UNDER LOCAL ANESTHESIA [J].
ALEXANDER, GD ;
GOLDRATH, M ;
BROWN, EM ;
SMILER, BG .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1973, 116 (08) :1065-1068
[2]  
BORDAHL PE, 1993, OBSTET GYNECOL, V81, P137
[3]  
CHURCH CA, 1990, POPULATION REPORTS C, V10, P1
[4]  
FISHBURNE JI, 1974, FERTIL STERIL, V25, P762
[5]  
HULKA JF, 1990, J REPROD MED, V35, P584
[6]  
LIPSCOMB GH, 1992, OBSTET GYNECOL, V80, P645
[7]  
LIPSCOMB GH, 1995, OBSTET GYNECOL, V86, P609
[8]  
METHA PV, 1989, BRIT J OBSTET GYNAEC, V96, P1024
[9]  
PELLAND PC, 1976, OBSTET GYNECOL, V47, P501
[10]  
PENFIELD AJ, 1977, OBSTET GYNECOL, V49, P725