Comparison of General, Epidural, and Spinal Anesthesia in Laparoscopic TEP (Total Extraperitoneal Repair) for Inguinal Hernia.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic total extraperitoneal repair (TEP) is one of the most preferred minimally invasive methods for inguinal hernia repair. In our study, we aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of general anesthesia (GA), spinal anesthesia (SA), and epidural anesthesia (EA) for TEP operations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study involving 221 patients who underwent TEP surgery for inguinal hernia between January 2018 and July 2020. Patients were divided into 3 groups as GA (n=77), SA (n=70), and EA (n=74). Demographic data of the patients, duration of anesthesia and surgery, perioperative and postoperative complications, postoperative pain, anatomical delineation, hospital stay and quality of life were evaluated. RESULTS: Anesthesia time was the longest in the EA group (23.1±2.32 min) and significantly prolonged the operation time (P<0.001). When the visual analog scale scores were compared, it was observed that the patients in the GA group felt significantly more pain (P<0.001). While the rates of hypotension and headache were higher in regional anesthesia (P<0.001 and P<0.002), there was no significant difference in urinary retention, postoperative nausea/vomiting, and shoulder pain (P=0.274, 0.262, and 0.314, respectively). SA and EA groups were found to be superior compared with the GA group in terms of patient satisfaction (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Regional anesthesia (SA and EA) can be safely performed in TEP surgeries, gives results similar to the anatomical delineation satisfactory and complication rates of GA, and results in less postoperative pain.

Comparison of dexmedetomidine and three different doses of midazolam in preoperative sedation.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and effects of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in preoperative sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 125 patients in American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) I-II were divided into three groups: Group I (n = 40) for controls, Group II (n = 40) for Dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg), and group III was the midazolam group (n = 45). Group III was further divided into three subgroups according to the doses of midazolam: Group IIIA (n = 15) received 0.02 mg/kg, group IIIB (n = 15) received 0.04 mg/kg, and group IIIC (n = 15) received 0.06 mg/kg of midazolam. Drugs were infused over a 10-minute period with appropriate monitoring. Ramsay and visual analog scores, for sedation and anxiety, respectively, and mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and SpO(2) measurement, including respiratory rates were recorded, every 5 minutes for 30 minutes following infusion. RESULTS: There was marked sedation and a decrease in anxiety in groups II and IIIC (P < 0.01). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) decreased significantly in group II (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively), but there was no associated hypotension (MAP <60 mm Hg) or bradycardia (HR <50 bpm) (P < 0.05). Respiratory rates and SpO(2) values decreased in groups II, IIIA, IIIB, and IIIC. The differences in respiratory rates were not significant (P > 0.05); however, decrease in SpO(2) was significant in group IIIC (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine was as effective as higher doses of midazolam in sedation. The hemodynamic and respiratory effects were minimal. Although dexmedetomidine caused significant decrease in the blood pressure and heart rate, it probably just normalized increased levels caused by preoperative stress.