Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy

Kuan Hung Chen, Bruno Jawan, Chien Hui Yang, Chia Chih Tseng, Kok Wei Cheng, Chih Hsien Wang, Chia Jung Huang

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to compare the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods and patients: Anesthesia and post-anesthetic recovery records of sixty patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty patients received general anesthesia (group I) and 30 epidural anesthesia (group II). The procedure time, discharge time from the post anesthetic care unit (PACU), demerol required for pain relief in PACU and 24 hours in the ward were recorded and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The incidence of urinary retention, nausea and vomiting were also recorded. Results: There was no different in the age, weight and the operating time between groups. In PACU, 80% of the patients from group I suffered form postoperative pain requiring 22.8 ± 16.9 mg demerol for pain relief, while no patients from group II complained of pain and were discharged to ward significantly earlier. In the ward, the number of patients suffering from pain and the demerol needed were not different in the two groups. Likewise, the incidence of vomiting and urinary retention between groups was also not significantly different. Conclusion: Epidural anesthesia provides prolonged pain relief in the immediate postoperative period in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)303-306
Number of pages4
JournalPain Clinic
Volume17
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2005 Sep 20

Fingerprint

Hemorrhoidectomy
Epidural Anesthesia
General Anesthesia
Meperidine
Anesthetics
Pain
Urinary Retention
Vomiting
Incidence
Postoperative Pain
Postoperative Period
Nausea
Anesthesia
Weights and Measures

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Chen, K. H., Jawan, B., Yang, C. H., Tseng, C. C., Cheng, K. W., Wang, C. H., & Huang, C. J. (2005). Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Pain Clinic, 17(3), 303-306. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568569054729571
Chen, Kuan Hung ; Jawan, Bruno ; Yang, Chien Hui ; Tseng, Chia Chih ; Cheng, Kok Wei ; Wang, Chih Hsien ; Huang, Chia Jung. / Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. In: Pain Clinic. 2005 ; Vol. 17, No. 3. pp. 303-306.
@article{479e2f45ebcc462bbc2eaae29f485df9,
title = "Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy",
abstract = "Background: The aim of the study was to compare the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods and patients: Anesthesia and post-anesthetic recovery records of sixty patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty patients received general anesthesia (group I) and 30 epidural anesthesia (group II). The procedure time, discharge time from the post anesthetic care unit (PACU), demerol required for pain relief in PACU and 24 hours in the ward were recorded and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The incidence of urinary retention, nausea and vomiting were also recorded. Results: There was no different in the age, weight and the operating time between groups. In PACU, 80{\%} of the patients from group I suffered form postoperative pain requiring 22.8 ± 16.9 mg demerol for pain relief, while no patients from group II complained of pain and were discharged to ward significantly earlier. In the ward, the number of patients suffering from pain and the demerol needed were not different in the two groups. Likewise, the incidence of vomiting and urinary retention between groups was also not significantly different. Conclusion: Epidural anesthesia provides prolonged pain relief in the immediate postoperative period in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.",
author = "Chen, {Kuan Hung} and Bruno Jawan and Yang, {Chien Hui} and Tseng, {Chia Chih} and Cheng, {Kok Wei} and Wang, {Chih Hsien} and Huang, {Chia Jung}",
year = "2005",
month = "9",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1163/1568569054729571",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "303--306",
journal = "Pain Clinic",
issn = "0169-1112",
publisher = "Maney Publishing",
number = "3",

}

Chen, KH, Jawan, B, Yang, CH, Tseng, CC, Cheng, KW, Wang, CH & Huang, CJ 2005, 'Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy', Pain Clinic, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 303-306. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568569054729571

Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. / Chen, Kuan Hung; Jawan, Bruno; Yang, Chien Hui; Tseng, Chia Chih; Cheng, Kok Wei; Wang, Chih Hsien; Huang, Chia Jung.

In: Pain Clinic, Vol. 17, No. 3, 20.09.2005, p. 303-306.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy

AU - Chen, Kuan Hung

AU - Jawan, Bruno

AU - Yang, Chien Hui

AU - Tseng, Chia Chih

AU - Cheng, Kok Wei

AU - Wang, Chih Hsien

AU - Huang, Chia Jung

PY - 2005/9/20

Y1 - 2005/9/20

N2 - Background: The aim of the study was to compare the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods and patients: Anesthesia and post-anesthetic recovery records of sixty patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty patients received general anesthesia (group I) and 30 epidural anesthesia (group II). The procedure time, discharge time from the post anesthetic care unit (PACU), demerol required for pain relief in PACU and 24 hours in the ward were recorded and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The incidence of urinary retention, nausea and vomiting were also recorded. Results: There was no different in the age, weight and the operating time between groups. In PACU, 80% of the patients from group I suffered form postoperative pain requiring 22.8 ± 16.9 mg demerol for pain relief, while no patients from group II complained of pain and were discharged to ward significantly earlier. In the ward, the number of patients suffering from pain and the demerol needed were not different in the two groups. Likewise, the incidence of vomiting and urinary retention between groups was also not significantly different. Conclusion: Epidural anesthesia provides prolonged pain relief in the immediate postoperative period in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

AB - Background: The aim of the study was to compare the recovery profile of epidural and general anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy. Methods and patients: Anesthesia and post-anesthetic recovery records of sixty patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty patients received general anesthesia (group I) and 30 epidural anesthesia (group II). The procedure time, discharge time from the post anesthetic care unit (PACU), demerol required for pain relief in PACU and 24 hours in the ward were recorded and compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The incidence of urinary retention, nausea and vomiting were also recorded. Results: There was no different in the age, weight and the operating time between groups. In PACU, 80% of the patients from group I suffered form postoperative pain requiring 22.8 ± 16.9 mg demerol for pain relief, while no patients from group II complained of pain and were discharged to ward significantly earlier. In the ward, the number of patients suffering from pain and the demerol needed were not different in the two groups. Likewise, the incidence of vomiting and urinary retention between groups was also not significantly different. Conclusion: Epidural anesthesia provides prolonged pain relief in the immediate postoperative period in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=24644507864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=24644507864&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1163/1568569054729571

DO - 10.1163/1568569054729571

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:24644507864

VL - 17

SP - 303

EP - 306

JO - Pain Clinic

JF - Pain Clinic

SN - 0169-1112

IS - 3

ER -