Femoral and Genitofemoral Nerve Blocks Versus Spinal Anesthesia for Outpatients Undergoing Long Saphenous Vein Stripping Surgery

• Published in: Anesthesia and analgesia Vol. 84; no. 4; pp. 749 - 752
• Main Authors: Vloka, Jerry D, Hadzic, Admir, Mulcare, Robert, Lesser, Jonathan B, Kitain, Eric, Thys, Daniel M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD International Anesthesia Research Society 01-04-1997; Lippincott
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia; Anesthesia depending on type of surgery; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Female; Femoral Nerve; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Nerve Block; Saphenous Vein - surgery; Thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. Cardiopulmonary bypass; Varicose Veins - surgery; Human; Stripping; Femoral nerve; Peripheral nerve; Blocking; Cardiovascular disease; Intrathecal administration; Venous disease; Vascular disease; Regional anesthesia; Saphenous vein; Surgery; Ambulatory; Comparative study; Varix
• ISSN: 0003-2999; 1526-7598
• DOI: 10.1097/00000539-199704000-00009

Long saphenous vein stripping (LSVS) surgery is often used to treat varicose veins.We tested the hypothesis that femoral nerve block (FNB) with genitofemoral nerve infiltration provides sufficient analgesia and superior recovery characteristics to spinal anesthesia for LSVS procedures in the ambulatory setting. Thirty-six patients were randomized to receive FNB with 30 mL of 3% alkalinized chloroprocaine, and 32 patients received spinal anesthesia with 65 mg of 5% hyperbaric lidocaine. Data collected included patient demographics, time required for induction of and recovery from anesthesia, postoperative anesthesia complications, and patient report of pain severity after the operation. During a follow-up call, a blinded observer noted the onset of any complications, the requirement for analgesics, and the patientsʼ satisfaction with the anesthetic technique. Patients in the FNB group had significantly faster recovery (P < 0.01) and lower incidences of pain (P < 0.05) and complications (P < 0.05) than the patients in the spinal group. All patients who received FNB indicated that they would choose this type of anesthesia in the future, whereas five (15%) patients in the spinal group would refuse spinal anesthesia in the future (P < 0.01). We conclude that FNB is an excellent anesthetic choice for LSVS.(Anesth Analg 1997;84:749-52)