| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||


Departments of Anesthesiology, *Virginia Mason Medical Center and the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington;
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Address correspondence to Spencer S. Liu, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 1100 Ninth Avenue, P.O. Box 900, Mail Stop B2-AN, Seattle, WA 98111. Address electronic mail to anessl{at}vmmc.org.
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.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. L. Friedberg Avoiding Emetogenic Triggers in the First Place Is More Effective than Using Antiemetics Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2008; 106(6): 1921 - 1922. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. F. White, H. Kehlet, J. M. Neal, T. Schricker, D. B. Carr, F. Carli, and the Fast-Track Surgery Study Group The Role of the Anesthesiologist in Fast-Track Surgery: From Multimodal Analgesia to Perioperative Medical Care Anesth. Analg., June 1, 2007; 104(6): 1380 - 1396. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. J. Chamberlin General Versus Regional: Why Either/Or? Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2006; 103(4): 1058 - 1059. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. T. Awad and F. Chung Factors affecting recovery and discharge following ambulatory surgery: [Les facteurs influencant la recuperation et la sortie apres une operation en chirurgie ambulatoire]. Can J Anesth, September 1, 2006; 53(9): 858 - 872. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. F. White Choice of peripheral nerve block for inguinal herniorrhaphy: is better the enemy of good? Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2006; 102(4): 1073 - 1075. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Hadzic Is Regional Anesthesia Really Better than General Anesthesia? Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2005; 101(6): 1631 - 1633. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
|