Users Online: 313 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  
Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Login 

RSACP wishes to inform that it shall be discontinuing the dispatch of print copy of JOACP to it's Life members. The print copy of JOACP will be posted only to those life members who send us a written confirmation for continuation of print copy.
Kindly email your affirmation for print copies to preferably by 30th June 2019.

Year : 2011  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 97-100

Ambulatory laparoscopic tubal ligation: A comparison of general anaesthesia with local anaesthesia and sedation

1 Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India
2 Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India
3 Director & Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Maitree Pande
Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 21804716

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Background: To compare the anaesthetic techniques for laparoscopic tubal ligation using either general anaesthesia with LMA or a combination of local anaesthetic and intravenous sedation, this study was conducted on 60 ASA-1/2 patients in the age group of 20-40 years. Patients & Methods:60 ASA grade I & II female patients undergoing laparoscopic tubal ligation on a day care basis were randomly divided in two groups- group I (GA using LMA, n=30), group II (Local anaesthesia, n=30). Both groups received similar premedication. General anaesthesia in group I was induced with propofol 2-3 mg kg -1 and following LMA insertion, the anaesthesia was maintained with 0.5-1.5% halothane. In group II the incision site was infiltrated with 10 ml of 1.5% lidocaine with adrenaline and patients were sedated with intravenous midazolam 0.07mg kg -1 and ketamine 0.5 mg kg -1 . A rescue dose of 0.15 mg kg -1 of ketamine was given in group II if the patient complained of pain or discomfort during the procedure. Diclofenac sodium 1 mg kg -1 was used for postoperative analgesia in both the groups. All patients were observed in the PACU until they met the discharge criteria. Results:The demographic profile was similar in both the groups. The induction to skin incision time was significantly more in group I (5.13 ±0.93 min vs 3.01 ±1.86 min in group II). The decrease in pulse rate and blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) was also significant in group I. The incidence of intraoperative bradycardia was 16.7% and 10% in group I & group II respectively. The changes in SpO 2 during the procedure, recovery time and time to meet discharge criteria were comparable in both the groups. The incidence of PONV was 20% & 3.3% in group I and 10% & 6.6% in group II respectively. All patients in both the groups required postoperative analgesics. Conclusions:Both the techniques were found to be comparable for laparoscopic sterilization, however a longer induction to skin incision time and higher incidence of PONV and shivering in GA group makes LA with sedation a better choice.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded489    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal