Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective feasibility study

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is routinely performed under general, not regional anesthesia. This study assessed the feasibility, efficacy, and side effects of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) in LA. METHODS: Thirty-three American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status classification grade I patients underwent LA under CSEA. CSEA was performed using the needle-through-needle technique at the L₃–L₄ interspace. Preoperative and postoperative adverse events related to CSEA, patient satisfaction, and postoperative pain levels were recorded. RESULTS: LA under CSEA was performed successfully in 33 patients (84.6%). Peroperatively, right shoulder pain was observed in 8 patients (24.1%), abdominal discomfort in 6 (18.2%), anxiety in 5 (15.2%), hypotension in 2 (6.1%) and nausea-vomiting in 1 (3%). In the first 24 hours after LA, headache, urinary retention, right shoulder pain, and postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) occurred in 18.1%, 12.1%, 9.1%, and 0% of patients, respectively. In the first 6 hours postoperation, no patients had operation-site pain that required analgesic treatment. Thirty-one patients (94%) evaluated their satisfaction with the procedure as good or moderate. CONCLUSION: CSEA is an efficient and suitable anesthesia technique in LA for ASA physical status classification grade I healthy patients. CSEA is associated with good postoperative pain control and the absence of PONV and intubation-associated complications.

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.