Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a prospective randomised study

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC. METHODS: Forty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups. RESULTS: Anesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group. CONCLUSION: CSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

Two-port laparoscopic appendectomy assisted with needle grasper comparison with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy

PURPOSE: The 2-port laparoscopic appendectomy technique (TLA) is between the conventional 3-port and single-port laparoscopic appendectomy surgeries. We compared postoperative pain and cosmetic results after TLA with conventional laparoscopic appendectomy (CLA) by a 3-port device. METHODS: Patients undergoing TLA were matched with patients undergoing CLA between February 2015 and November 2015 at the same institution. Thirty-two patients underwent TLA with a needle grasper. The appendix was secured by a percutaneous organ-holding device (needle grasper), then removed through a puncture at McBurney's point. Another 38 patients underwent CLA. Patient demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were collected and evaluated. RESULTS: One patient in the TLA group developed a wound infection and 1 patient in the CLA group developed a postoperative intra-abdominal abscess and 3 wound infections. There was no significant difference between the groups when comparing the length of hospital stay, time until oral intake, and other complications. The pain score in the first 12 hours after surgery was significanly higher in CLA group than the TLA group (P < 0.001). Operative time was significantly shorter in the CLA group compared to the TLA group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TLA using a needle grasper was associated with a significantly lower pain score 12 hours after surgery, better cosmetic results, and lower cost, than the CLA 3-port procedure because of the fewer number of ports.