title: Comparison of the costs and recovery profiles of three anesthetic techniques for ambulatory anorectal surgery.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Given the current practice environment, it is important to determine the anesthetic technique with the highest patient acceptance and lowest associated costs. The authors compared three commonly used anesthetic techniques for anorectal procedures in the ambulatory setting.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ninety-three consenting adult outpatients undergoing anorectal surgery were randomly assigned to one of three anesthetic treatment groups: group 1 received local infiltration with a 30-ml mixture containing 15 ml lidocaine, 2%, and 15 ml bupivacaine, 0.5%, with epinephrine (1:200,000) in combination with intravenous sedation using a propofol infusion, 25-100 microg. kg-1. min-1; group 2 received a spinal subarachnoid block with a combination of 30 mg lidocaine and 20 microg fentanyl with midazolam, 1-2-mg intravenous bolus doses; and group 3 received general anesthesia with 2.5 mg/kg propofol administered intravenously and 0.5-2% sevoflurane in combination with 65% nitrous oxide. In groups 2 and 3, the surgeon also administered 10 ml of the previously described local anesthetic mixture at the surgical site before the skin incision.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean costs were significantly decreased in group 1 ($69 +/- 20 compared with $104 +/- 18 and $145 +/- 25 in groups 2 and 3, respectively) because both intraoperative and recovery costs were lowest (P < 0.05). Although the surgical time did not differ among the three groups, the anesthesia time and times to oral intake and home-readiness were significantly shorter in group 1 (vs. groups 2 and 3). There was no significant difference among the three groups with respect to the postoperative side effects or unanticipated hospitalizations. However, the need for pain medication was less in groups 1 and 2 (19% and 19% vs. 45% for group 3; P < 0.05). Patients in group 1 had no complaints of nausea (vs. 3% and 26% in groups 2 and 3, respectively). More patients in group 1 (68%) were highly satisfied with the care they received than in groups 2 (58%) and 3 (39%).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The use of local anesthesia with sedation is the most cost-effective technique for anorectal surgery in the ambulatory setting.
authors.affiliation: Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Management and Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas 75235-9068, USA.
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Coloma
authors.forename: P F
authors.initials: PF
authors.lastname: White
authors.forename: M F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Watcha
authors.forename: J W
authors.initials: JW
authors.lastname: Chiu
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Li
authors.forename: P J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Huber
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000556:Ambulatory Surgical Procedures / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D000758:Anesthesia / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics* / Q000379:methods*; D000762:Anesthesia Recovery Period; D000768:Anesthesia, General / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D000772:Anesthesia, Local / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D000775:Anesthesia, Spinal / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives / Q000627:therapeutic use; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015742:Propofol / Q000627:therapeutic use; D012007:Rectum / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives; D015742:Propofol