Outpatient management of proctologic disease. Which techniques for local anesthesia? The experience of a single center
- Autori: Falco N.; Tutino R.; Fontana T.; Gullo R.; Licari L.; Raspanti C.; De Marco P.; Colli F.; Venturelli P.; Salamone G.; Cocorullo G.
- Anno di pubblicazione: 2019
- Tipologia: Articolo in rivista
- OA Link: http://hdl.handle.net/10447/401292
Introduction. Since 1899 outpatient management of surgical patients had been increasing, becoming the best option when possible. In 1988 was described the first experience of outpatient management of proctologic disease. Advances in local anesthesia techniques have improved the outpatient approach to surgical disease, particularly in patients with proctological diseases. Methods. From 2010 to 2016, 1160 patients who needed surgery for proctologic disease have been recruited: 239 hemorrhoidectomies using the variant of Milligan Morgan technique described by Phillips, 45 trans-anal hemorrhoidal DE-arterialization (THD), 315 sphincterotomies, 12 anal polypectomies, 230 loop seton positions, 65 cone-like fistulectomies and 254 fistulotomies for perianal fistulas. In 329 cases, we used the posterior perineal block, 603 local perineal blocks, and 228 tumescent anesthesia. Results. On a total of 1160 procedure failure rate was of 4.7% (55 cases). Urinary retention (69% 38 cases); bleeding 18% (10 cases), uncontrolled pain 12% of cases (7 cases). The chi-square test demonstrates (p<0.01) that the failure rate of the three types of anesthesia is very different with high statistical significance. The failure rate in patient underwent Posterior Perineal Block was 27/329 cases (8.2%), 8/228 (3.5%) in patients who underwent Tumescent Anesthesia and 20/603 (3.3%) in who underwent Local Perineal Block. Conclusions. Outpatient protocols represent the most common approach to minor proctologic disease that needs a good local block, with a good analgesic and sedative assistance, the different local block seems to be the same concerning the pain control, but presents some little, not relevant difference concerning urinary retention rate.