Objectives To evaluate the impact of general anesthesia (GA) versus spinal anesthesia (SpA) on intraoperative and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Methods Seventy-two consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized into group 1 (GA: 34 patients) or group 2 (L2-L3 or L3-L4 SpA: 38 patients) and underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. The intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic and surgical variables were evaluated. Results The mean ± SEM operative time was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.43). The overall blood loss was less in group 2 (P = 0.04). The mean ± SEM postoperative time in the postoperative holding area was significantly shorter after SpA than after GA (P <0.0001). The perioperative pain outcome in the postoperative holding area was significantly better for group 2 than for group 1 (P = 0.0017), but postoperative pain on day 1 was not significantly different between the two groups. The postoperative sedation score was significantly less in group 2 than in group 1 (P <0.0001). On day 1, first flatus passed in a significantly larger number of patients in group 2 (P <0.0001), and the overall gait was greater for group 2 patients (P = 0.02). Conclusions These results suggest that SpA allows good muscle relaxation and a successful surgical outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Moreover, SpA results in less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a faster postoperative recovery than GA. © 2004 Elsevier Inc.

Salonia, A., Crescenti, A., Suardi, N., Memmo, A., Naspro, R., Bocciardi, A., et al. (2004). General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study. UROLOGY, 64(1), 95-100 [10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.010].

General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study

Da Pozzo L;
2004

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the impact of general anesthesia (GA) versus spinal anesthesia (SpA) on intraoperative and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Methods Seventy-two consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer were randomized into group 1 (GA: 34 patients) or group 2 (L2-L3 or L3-L4 SpA: 38 patients) and underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy. The intraoperative and postoperative anesthetic and surgical variables were evaluated. Results The mean ± SEM operative time was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.43). The overall blood loss was less in group 2 (P = 0.04). The mean ± SEM postoperative time in the postoperative holding area was significantly shorter after SpA than after GA (P <0.0001). The perioperative pain outcome in the postoperative holding area was significantly better for group 2 than for group 1 (P = 0.0017), but postoperative pain on day 1 was not significantly different between the two groups. The postoperative sedation score was significantly less in group 2 than in group 1 (P <0.0001). On day 1, first flatus passed in a significantly larger number of patients in group 2 (P <0.0001), and the overall gait was greater for group 2 patients (P = 0.02). Conclusions These results suggest that SpA allows good muscle relaxation and a successful surgical outcome in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Moreover, SpA results in less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and a faster postoperative recovery than GA. © 2004 Elsevier Inc.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
radical prostatectomy, general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia
English
2004
64
1
95
100
none
Salonia, A., Crescenti, A., Suardi, N., Memmo, A., Naspro, R., Bocciardi, A., et al. (2004). General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, randomized study. UROLOGY, 64(1), 95-100 [10.1016/j.urology.2004.03.010].
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/264758
Citazioni
  • Scopus 52
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 37
Social impact