Spinal Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia in Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author:

Della Corte Luigi,Mercorio Antonio,Morra Ilaria,Riemma Gaetano,De Franciscis Pasquale,Palumbo Mario,Viciglione FrancescoORCID,Borrelli Danilo,Laganà Antonio SimoneORCID,Vizzielli Giuseppe,Bifulco Giuseppe,Giampaolino Pierluigi

Abstract

Introduction: In the last years, spinal anesthesia (SA) has been emerging as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for the laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases, for better control of postoperative pain. The aim of the review is to compare the advantages of SA compared to GA. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) about women underwent SA and GA for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were analyzed. Relevant data were extracted and tabulated. Results: The primary outcomes included the evaluation of postoperative pain (described as shoulder pain), postoperative nausea and vomiting, and operative times. One hundred and eight patients were included in RCTs, 58 in NRSs. The qualitative analysis had conflicting results and for the most of parameters (hemodynamic variables, nausea, and postoperative analgesic administration) no statistically significant differences were observed: in the NRSs, contradictory results regarding the postoperative pain in SA and GA groups were reported. Regarding the quantitative analysis, in the RCTs, women who received SA had not significantly lower operative times (relative risk [RR] −4.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] −9.32–0.53) and a lower incidence of vomiting (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17–1.55); on the other hand, in the NRS, women who received SA had longer operative times (RR 5.05, 95% CI −0.03–10.14) and more episodes of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10–2.97) compared to those with GA: anyway, the outcomes proved to be insignificant. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant advantages to using SA over GA for laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases.

Publisher

S. Karger AG

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,Reproductive Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3