کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2764222 | 1150803 | 2007 | 5 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
Study ObjectiveTo compare operating conditions, intraoperative adverse events, recovery profiles, postoperative adverse effects, patient satisfaction, and costs of small-dose lidocaine spinal anesthesia with those of general anesthesia using fentanyl and propofol for elderly outpatient prostate biopsy.DesignProspective, randomized, blind study.SettingOutpatient anesthesia unit at a municipal hospital.Patients80 ASA physical status I and II patients, aged 65 to 80 years, scheduled for outpatient prostate biopsy.InterventionsPatients were assigned to receive either spinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine (L group, n = 40) or anesthetic induction with fentanyl 1 μg · kg−1 IV and 1.0 mg · kg−1 propofol injected at 90 mg · kg−1 · h−1, followed by continuous infusion at 6 mg · kg−1 · h−1 (F/P group, n = 40).Measurements and Main ResultsBoth anesthetic techniques provided acceptable operating conditions for the surgeon. However, a significantly higher frequency of intraoperative hypotension was found in the F/P group than in the L group (P < 0.05). Time to home readiness was shorter in the F/P group (P < 0.05). Both techniques had no major postoperative adverse effects and resulted in a high rate of patient satisfaction. Total costs were significantly lower in the L group than in the F/P group (P < 0.01).ConclusionsSpinal anesthesia with 10 mg of hyperbaric 1% lidocaine may be a more suitable alternative to general anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol for ambulatory elderly prostate biopsy in terms of safety and costs.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia - Volume 19, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 25–29