Laparoscopic gynecological surgery under minimally invasive anesthesia: a prospective cohort study

13Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic gynecological surgery in regional anesthesia (RA) from the point of view of the surgeon, anesthesiologist and patient. This is a prospective cohort study comprising sixty-six women planned to undergo gynecologic laparoscopy surgery for benign pathology at tertiary care gynecolgical center of the University Federico II of Naples. Women were assigned, according to their preference, to either RA (Group A) or general anesthesia (GA) (Group B). Surgical, anesthesiologic and postoperative recovery data were recorded. Postoperative pain was considered as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included mobilization, length of hospital stay, global surgeons and patient satisfaction, intraoperative pain assessment in Group A. Immediate postoperative pain was significantly lower in Group A 0 vs 2 (p < 0.001), with no significant differences at 24 h. The secondary outcome demonstrated early patient’s mobilization (p < 0.001) as well as early discharge (p < 0.001) and greater patient’s satisfaction for the Group A. In these patients, a maximum pain score of 3 points out of 5 was recorded through the entire surgery. RA showed to decrease the impact of surgical stress and to guarantee a quicker recovery without compromising surgical results. Although several surgical approaches can be employed to treat different conditions, RA technique could be a viable option for well-selected patients affected by gynecological diseases.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Giampaolino, P., Della Corte, L., Mercorio, A., Bruzzese, D., Coviello, A., Grasso, G., … Bifulco, G. (2022). Laparoscopic gynecological surgery under minimally invasive anesthesia: a prospective cohort study. Updates in Surgery, 74(5), 1755–1762. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01310-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free