LAPAROSCOPIC TUBAL-LIGATION IN A MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL UNIT UNDER LOCAL-ANESTHESIA COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL OPERATING-ROOM APPROACHUNDER GENERAL-ANESTHESIA
Hh. Hatasaka et al., LAPAROSCOPIC TUBAL-LIGATION IN A MINIMALLY INVASIVE SURGICAL UNIT UNDER LOCAL-ANESTHESIA COMPARED TO A CONVENTIONAL OPERATING-ROOM APPROACHUNDER GENERAL-ANESTHESIA, Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques-Part A, 7(5), 1997, pp. 295-299
Objective: This study was done to compare costs, operating and recover
y times, safety, and patient acceptance between (a) minimally invasive
laparoscopic tubal ligation under sedation and local anesthesia and (
Ib) conventional laparoscopic operating-room-based tubal ligations und
er general anesthesia. Methods: Fourteen women desiring sterilization
were randomized between tubal ligation under sedation/local analgesia
versus general anesthesia. Procedures were performed by supervised res
idents previously unfamiliar with the minimally invasive technique. Ho
spital charges were used as a surrogate for cost. Operating or procedu
re room times, surgical complications, and recovery times were recorde
d. Patient acceptance was assessed using satisfaction surveys administ
ered in the recovery room and again 1 week postoperatively. Results: T
he cost of minimally invasive tubal ligation was significantly lower t
han for the conventional technique ($1,615 +/- $134 vs $2,820 +/- $110
, p < 0.001). Surgical times were not different between the two proced
ures: 40.4 +/- 15 min for the conventional technique versus 32.9 +/- 1
0 min for minimally invasive surgery. However, the total in-room time
required in the operating room significantly exceeded that for the pro
cedure room technique (84 +/- 10 min vs 60 +/- 2 min, p < 0.05). Likew
ise, recovery time for the general anesthesia technique was longer (48
+/- 6 min vs 14 +/- 7 min, p < 0.03). No complications were encounter
ed with either surgical method. Patient satisfaction for pain, fatigue
, and days of missed work was similar between the two groups. Conclusi
ons: The use of minimally invasive surgery to perform tubal ligation i
s advantageous over conventional laparoscopic tubal ligation under gen
eral anesthesia with regard to cost and time utilization. The minimall
y invasive technique appears to be easy to learn, safe, and well toler
ated.