TY - JOUR
T1 - Effect of anesthesia type on perioperative outcomes with a midurethral sling
AU - Davé, Bhumy A.
AU - Jaber, Camaleigh
AU - Leader-Cramer, Alix
AU - Higgins, Nicole
AU - Mueller, Margaret
AU - Lewicky-Gaupp, Christina
AU - Kenton, Kimberly
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016, The International Urogynecological Association.
PY - 2016/9/1
Y1 - 2016/9/1
N2 - Introduction and hypothesis: There is no consensus on the most appropriate type of anesthesia for placement of a midurethral sling. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative outcomes for this procedure performed under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing outpatient placement of synthetic retropubic midurethral sling under general anesthesia (n = 141) or monitored anesthesia care (n = 84). Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was operating room time. Secondary outcomes included surgical and recovery times, cost, discharge home with a catheter, and postoperative pain and/or nausea. Results: In the general anesthesia group, both operating room time (mean ± SD, 67.6 ± 13.3 min vs 56.9 ± 11.8 min, p < 0.001) and recovery room time (240.0 ± 69.8 min vs 190.1 ± 78.3 min, p < 0.001) were longer, whereas there was no difference in surgical time (30.0 ± 8.9 min vs 29.0 ± 9.7 min, p = 0.43). Cost was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group ($4,095 ± 715 vs $3,877 ± 777, p = 0.03). There was no difference in rates of bladder perforation (6.4 % vs 11.9 %, p = 0.33). Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher rates of discharge with a catheter (27.0 % vs 15.8 %, p = 0.04). Conclusion: Monitored anesthesia care may offer significant benefits over general anesthesia in women undergoing retropubic midurethral sling, including shorter operating room and recovery times, lower costs, and less voiding dysfunction in the immediate postoperative period.
AB - Introduction and hypothesis: There is no consensus on the most appropriate type of anesthesia for placement of a midurethral sling. Our objective was to compare intra- and perioperative outcomes for this procedure performed under general anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of women undergoing outpatient placement of synthetic retropubic midurethral sling under general anesthesia (n = 141) or monitored anesthesia care (n = 84). Patients undergoing concomitant procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was operating room time. Secondary outcomes included surgical and recovery times, cost, discharge home with a catheter, and postoperative pain and/or nausea. Results: In the general anesthesia group, both operating room time (mean ± SD, 67.6 ± 13.3 min vs 56.9 ± 11.8 min, p < 0.001) and recovery room time (240.0 ± 69.8 min vs 190.1 ± 78.3 min, p < 0.001) were longer, whereas there was no difference in surgical time (30.0 ± 8.9 min vs 29.0 ± 9.7 min, p = 0.43). Cost was significantly higher in the general anesthesia group ($4,095 ± 715 vs $3,877 ± 777, p = 0.03). There was no difference in rates of bladder perforation (6.4 % vs 11.9 %, p = 0.33). Patients who underwent general anesthesia had higher rates of discharge with a catheter (27.0 % vs 15.8 %, p = 0.04). Conclusion: Monitored anesthesia care may offer significant benefits over general anesthesia in women undergoing retropubic midurethral sling, including shorter operating room and recovery times, lower costs, and less voiding dysfunction in the immediate postoperative period.
KW - Anesthesia
KW - Economics
KW - Operative time
KW - Suburethral sling
KW - Urinary retention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955270660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84955270660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00192-016-2950-7
DO - 10.1007/s00192-016-2950-7
M3 - Article
C2 - 26811113
AN - SCOPUS:84955270660
SN - 0937-3462
VL - 27
SP - 1327
EP - 1332
JO - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
JF - International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
IS - 9
ER -