This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Anesthesia  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Hepatobiliary Surgery  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Susan Galandiuk, MD

Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):502.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The ongoing pursuit of minimally invasive and minimally uncomfortable elective surgery continues. The authors present interim results of a prospective randomized trial of spinal vs general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Fifty patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status I or II were randomized to each arm. Pain at 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after the procedure was significantly less following spinal anesthesia than in those patients who had general anesthesia.

This article broadens the anesthetic choice for minimally invasive abdominal surgery of most types. In the United States, the adjunct use of COX-2 inhibitors is unfortunately limited owing to publications of adverse effects of such agents despite their substantial advantages for acute pain relief. In the authors' health care system, all patients stayed in the hospital overnight postoperatively. One can only presume that these favorable results will apply to what is largely a totally outpatient or . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Spinal vs General Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Interim Analysis of a Controlled Randomized Trial
George Tzovaras, Frank Fafoulakis, Kostantinos Pratsas, Stavroula Georgopoulou, Georgia Stamatiou, and Constantine Hatzitheofilou
Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):497-501.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT