Thoracic epidural versus general anaesthesia for MRM surgeries.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Date
2016-07
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Background: General anaesthesia is still the preferred technique amongst many practitioners for oncologic breast surgeries. However the TEA technique has a lot of advantages over the conventional GA technique. Objective: We attempted to evaluate the two techniques of anaesthesia for MRM surgeries. Materials and method: Sixty ASA I-II patients undergoing MRM were randomly assigned to two study groups of 30 patients each. In the TEA group( group T), an epidural catheter was inserted at T7-T8 level, and 8-10 ml of 0.5% bupivacaine was titrated and administered.GA (group G) was induced with 2mg/kg of propofol and was maintained with Isoflurane ,intermittent inj. Vecuronium and 70% N2O in oxygen. The authors evaluated the adequacy of anesthesia, surgical condition, post anesthetic recovery, post anesthetic analgesia and patients’ satisfaction. Results: The intra operative haemodynamics was comparable in between the two groups. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the TEA group ( 16.5% in group T and 39.6% in group G , P = 0.02).The mean immediate VAS score was also lower in TEA group ( group T =2.4 , group G =5.8,P = 0.001).Aldrete recovery score was 9/10 in 1st hr in a significant proportion in the TEA group (89.1% in group T v/s 59.4% in group G , P = 0.003).Patient satisfaction was significantly higher. The surgeons were however satisfied with both the methods. Conclusion: Use of thoracic epidural technique as a sole anaesthetic technique for MRM surgeries provides adequate operating conditions, better side effect profile, better pain management and patient satisfaction.
Description
Keywords
MRM, thoracic epidural, general anesthesia, breast carcinoma
Citation
Lahiry S, Sharma D N, Mund M, Dhaarini R, Deshmukh H. Thoracic epidural versus general anaesthesia for MRM surgeries. International Journal of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2016 July; 5(2): 1125-1131.