Abstract
Female sterilization is the most popular and common contraceptive method worldwide. Because hysteroscopic sterilization techniques are used less often due to side effects, the number of laparoscopic sterilization is increasing. A systematic overview concerning the most optimal anesthetic technique for laparoscopic sterilization is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare conscious sedation with general anesthesia for laparoscopic sterilization procedures with respect to clinical relevant outcome measures, such as operating times, perioperative parameters and complications, patient comfort, recovery, and patient satisfaction. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing general anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. Two authors (AGH and HAAMvV) abstracted and entered data into RevMan. Methodologic quality of the included trials was critically appraised. For our main outcome measures mean differences (continuous variables) and risk ratios (dichotomous variables) with 95% confidence intervals using random-effect models were calculated. Four randomized controlled trials were included comparing general anesthesia versus local anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. The methodologic quality of the studies was moderate to good. Both techniques were comparable with regard to operating times, complications, and postoperative pain. However, local anesthesia with conscious sedation showed better results compared with general anesthesia with respect to recovery times, patient complaints of sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction. In conclusion, this systematic review about anesthetic techniques for laparoscopic sterilization showed that both general anesthesia and conscious sedation have no major anesthetic complications and may therefore be safe. Patients might benefit from conscious sedation in terms of recovery times, sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction, but only a few studies are included in the review and are relatively old. New research regarding this subject is needed to advise our patients most optimally in the future about the best anesthetic technique to be used when choosing for a laparoscopic sterilization procedure.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 393-401 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2018 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Complications
- Operating times
- Patient satisfaction
- Perioperative parameters
- Recovery
Cite this
}
Laparoscopic sterilization under local anesthesia with conscious sedation versus general anesthesia : Systematic review of the literature. / Huppelschoten, Aleida G.; Bijleveld, Kim; Braams, Loes; Schoot, Benedictus C.; van Vliet, Huib A.A.M.
In: Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, Vol. 25, No. 3, 01.03.2018, p. 393-401.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Laparoscopic sterilization under local anesthesia with conscious sedation versus general anesthesia
T2 - Systematic review of the literature
AU - Huppelschoten, Aleida G.
AU - Bijleveld, Kim
AU - Braams, Loes
AU - Schoot, Benedictus C.
AU - van Vliet, Huib A.A.M.
PY - 2018/3/1
Y1 - 2018/3/1
N2 - Female sterilization is the most popular and common contraceptive method worldwide. Because hysteroscopic sterilization techniques are used less often due to side effects, the number of laparoscopic sterilization is increasing. A systematic overview concerning the most optimal anesthetic technique for laparoscopic sterilization is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare conscious sedation with general anesthesia for laparoscopic sterilization procedures with respect to clinical relevant outcome measures, such as operating times, perioperative parameters and complications, patient comfort, recovery, and patient satisfaction. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing general anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. Two authors (AGH and HAAMvV) abstracted and entered data into RevMan. Methodologic quality of the included trials was critically appraised. For our main outcome measures mean differences (continuous variables) and risk ratios (dichotomous variables) with 95% confidence intervals using random-effect models were calculated. Four randomized controlled trials were included comparing general anesthesia versus local anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. The methodologic quality of the studies was moderate to good. Both techniques were comparable with regard to operating times, complications, and postoperative pain. However, local anesthesia with conscious sedation showed better results compared with general anesthesia with respect to recovery times, patient complaints of sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction. In conclusion, this systematic review about anesthetic techniques for laparoscopic sterilization showed that both general anesthesia and conscious sedation have no major anesthetic complications and may therefore be safe. Patients might benefit from conscious sedation in terms of recovery times, sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction, but only a few studies are included in the review and are relatively old. New research regarding this subject is needed to advise our patients most optimally in the future about the best anesthetic technique to be used when choosing for a laparoscopic sterilization procedure.
AB - Female sterilization is the most popular and common contraceptive method worldwide. Because hysteroscopic sterilization techniques are used less often due to side effects, the number of laparoscopic sterilization is increasing. A systematic overview concerning the most optimal anesthetic technique for laparoscopic sterilization is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare conscious sedation with general anesthesia for laparoscopic sterilization procedures with respect to clinical relevant outcome measures, such as operating times, perioperative parameters and complications, patient comfort, recovery, and patient satisfaction. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing general anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. Two authors (AGH and HAAMvV) abstracted and entered data into RevMan. Methodologic quality of the included trials was critically appraised. For our main outcome measures mean differences (continuous variables) and risk ratios (dichotomous variables) with 95% confidence intervals using random-effect models were calculated. Four randomized controlled trials were included comparing general anesthesia versus local anesthesia with conscious sedation for laparoscopic sterilization. The methodologic quality of the studies was moderate to good. Both techniques were comparable with regard to operating times, complications, and postoperative pain. However, local anesthesia with conscious sedation showed better results compared with general anesthesia with respect to recovery times, patient complaints of sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction. In conclusion, this systematic review about anesthetic techniques for laparoscopic sterilization showed that both general anesthesia and conscious sedation have no major anesthetic complications and may therefore be safe. Patients might benefit from conscious sedation in terms of recovery times, sore throat, and patient recovery and satisfaction, but only a few studies are included in the review and are relatively old. New research regarding this subject is needed to advise our patients most optimally in the future about the best anesthetic technique to be used when choosing for a laparoscopic sterilization procedure.
KW - Complications
KW - Operating times
KW - Patient satisfaction
KW - Perioperative parameters
KW - Recovery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042307079&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.11.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jmig.2017.11.010
M3 - Review article
C2 - 29180307
AN - SCOPUS:85042307079
VL - 25
SP - 393
EP - 401
JO - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
JF - Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology
SN - 1553-4650
IS - 3
ER -