[Ambulatory Essure implant placement sterilization procedure for women: prospective study comparing general anesthesia versus hypnosis combined with sedation].
ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2010;
29:889-96. [PMID:
21112724 DOI:
10.1016/j.annfar.2010.10.008]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2009] [Accepted: 10/15/2010] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
implant placement Essure, sterilization procedure for women, were performed under hypnosedation (HYP) and compared to the operative anxiety and analgesia of 12 patients operated-on under general anesthesia (GA).
STUDY DESIGN
prospective and comparative group study.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
two groups of twelve patients were matched and compared based on the choice of anesthetic technique: hypnotics (HYP) with possible additional sedation by propofol and remifentanil or GA involving propofol, sevoflurane and remifentanil. The assessment of anxiety and pain based on a visual analogy scale (0-10) and use of analgesics were studied in the recovery room and at discharge of hospital. The statistical analysis relies on nonparametric tests for paired data (Wilcoxon test).
RESULTS
all patients were operated. The two groups are statistically comparable. The preoperative anxiety before premedication is lower in the HYP group (p<0.05). No conversion to general anaesthesia is necessary in the HYP group, but five patients were using sedatives drugs but doses are very low compared to general anaesthesia. The analgesic consumption was equivalent in both groups.
CONCLUSION
we conclude that hypnosedation is a valuable alternative to traditional anesthetic techniques for ambulatory Essure implant. The use of hypnotic tool is an interesting alternative for the management of patients during invasive medical procedures or surgical, providing psychological benefits to the patient.
Collapse