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.

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

Riemma G.;De Franciscis P.;Borrelli D.;
2022

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.
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/11591/482496
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 7
  • Scopus 14
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact