Breast Augmentation Under General Anesthesia Versus Monitored Anesthesia Care : A Retrospective Comparative Study

Breast augmentation is one of the leading esthetic surgeries, enjoying high satisfaction rates. Pain, nausea, and vomiting are frequent shortcomings of the immediate postoperative period. The aim of this study was to compare breast augmentation from the anesthetic point of view: general anesthesia (...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of plastic surgery 2008-09, Vol.61 (3), p.243-246
Hauptverfasser: ELDOR, Liron, WEISSMAN, Avi, FODOR, Lucian, CARMI, Nurit, ULLMANN, Yehuda
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Breast augmentation is one of the leading esthetic surgeries, enjoying high satisfaction rates. Pain, nausea, and vomiting are frequent shortcomings of the immediate postoperative period. The aim of this study was to compare breast augmentation from the anesthetic point of view: general anesthesia (GA) versus monitored anesthesia care (MAC). The charts of 115 patients were reviewed in this retrospective study performed over a period of 2 years. Sixty-nine women chose to have the surgery done under MAC, and 46 under GA. Statistically significant differences were noted in both postoperative hospital stay (16.1 +/- 6.78 hours vs. 11.7 +/- 6.10 hours) and frequency of vomiting (mean, 0.5 vs. 0.22 times per patient) after GA and MAC, respectively (Mann-Whitney, P < 0.01). Postoperative pain, assessed using the visual analog scale, was significantly higher (mean visual analog scale, 5 vs. 3.27) when the prosthesis was placed in the submuscular plane compared with the subglandular plane (Mann-Whitney, P = 0.043). When offered a choice, more women preferred MAC over GA for their breast augmentation procedure. Less vomiting and shorter postoperative hospitalization were prominent in the MAC group.
ISSN:0148-7043
1536-3708
DOI:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31815bfe98