Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

General anesthesia

  • Chapter
Handbook of Ambulatory Anesthesia

Abstract

Patients eligible for ambulatory anesthesia must achieve discharge criteria rapidly after completion of the surgery. Therefore, the anesthetic technique used should allow early recovery and reduce common postoperative complications, in particular pain, nausea, and vomiting. The choice of anesthetic technique (i.e., general versus regional anesthesia) can be an important determinant of the recovery after ambulatory surgery.1 A recent meta-analysis suggests that regional anesthesia techniques reduce postanesthesia care unit (PACU) use and postoperative nausea and pain; however, they do not reduce the time to home-readiness. 2 Overall, general anesthesia continues to be the mainstay of ambulatory anesthesia practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Chung F, Mezei G. Factors contributing to a prolonged stay after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1352–1359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu SS, Strodtbeck WM, Richman JM, Wu CL. A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1634–1642.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Miller DR, Blew PG, Martineau RJ, Hull KA. Midazolam and awareness with recall during total intravenous anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 1996;43:946–953.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith AF, Pittaway AJ. Premedication for anxiety in adult day surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003:CD002192.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Raeder JC, Misvaer G. Comparison of propofol induction with thiopentone or methohexitone in short outpatient general anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1988;32: 607–613.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pizov R, Brown RH, Weiss YS, et al. Wheezing during induction of general anesthesia in patients with and without asthma. A randomized, blinded trial. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:1111–1116.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Grood PM, Harbers JB, van Egmond J, Crul JF. Anaesthesia for laparoscopy. A comparison of five techniques including propofol, etomidate, thiopentone and isoflurane. Anaesthesia. 1987;42:815–823.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Joshi G, Gertler R. Is one general anesthetic technique associated with faster recovery? In: Fleisher L, ed. Evidence-Based Practice of Anesthesiology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Science; 2004:236–240.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Philip BK, Lombard LL, Roaf ER, et al. Comparison of vital capacity induction with sevoflurane to intravenous induction with propofol for adult ambulatory anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:623–627.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall JE, Ebert TJ, Harmer M. Induction characteristics with 3% and 8% sevoflurane in adults: an evaluation of the second stage of anaesthesia and its haemodynamic consequences. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:545–550.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thwaites A, Edmends S, Smith I. Inhalation induction with sevoflurane: a doubleblind comparison with propofol. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:356–361.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cros AM, Lopez C, Kandel T, Sztark F. Determination of sevoflurane alveolar concentration for tracheal intubation with remifentanil, and no muscle relaxant. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:965–969.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Song D, Joshi GP, White PF. Fast-track eligibility after ambulatory anesthesia: a comparison of desflurane, sevoflurane, and propofol. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:267–273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Song D, Joshi GP, White PF. Titration of volatile anesthetics using bispectral index facilitates recovery after ambulatory anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:842–848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tarazi EM, Philip BK. A comparison of recovery after sevoflurane or desflurane in ambulatory anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 1998;10:272–277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Juvin P, Vadam C, Malek L, et al. Postoperative recovery after desflurane, propofol, or isoflurane anesthesia among morbidly obese patients: a prospective, randomized study. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:714–719.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Arain SR, Barth CD, Shankar H, Ebert TJ. Choice of volatile anesthetic for the morbidly obese patient: sevoflurane or desflurane. J Clin Anesth. 2005;17:413–419.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eger EI 2nd, Shafer SL. Tutorial: context-sensitive decrement times for inhaled anesthetics. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:688–696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Juvin P, Servin F, Giraud O, Desmonts JM. Emergence of elderly patients from prolonged desflurane, isoflurane, or propofol anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1997;85: 647–651.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McKay RE, Large MJ, Balea MC, McKay WR. Airway reflexes return more rapidly after desflurane anesthesia than after sevoflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2005; 100:697–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gupta A, Stierer T, Zuckerman R, et al. Comparison of recovery profile after ambulatory anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane: a systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:632–641.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Visser K, Hassink EA, Bonsel GJ, et al. Randomized controlled trial of total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with isoflurane-nitrous oxide: postoperative nausea with vomiting and economic analysis. Anesthesiology. 2001;95:616–626.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M, et al. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 2004;350: 2441–2451.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tramer M, Moore A, McQuay H. Omitting nitrous oxide in general anaesthesia: meta-analysis of intraoperative awareness and postoperative emesis in randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 1996;76:186–193.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith I. Nitrous oxide in ambulatory anaesthesia: does it have a place in day surgical anaesthesia or is it just a threat for personnel and the global environment? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2006;19:592–596.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Practice Advisory for Intraoperative Awareness and Brain Function Monitoring. American Society of Anesthesiologists, 2005. Available at: http://www.asahq.org/ publicationsAndServices/practiceparam.htm#brain. Accessed July 5, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bruhn J, Myles PS, Sneyd R, Struys MM. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring: what’s available, what’s validated, and what’s next? Br J Anaesth. 2006;97:85–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu SS. Effects of Bispectral Index monitoring on ambulatory anesthesia: a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials and a cost analysis. Anesthesiology. 2004; 101:311–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. White PF. Use of cerebral monitoring during anaesthesia: effect on recovery profile. Best Prac Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20:181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rognas LK, Elkjaer P. Anaesthesia in day case laparoscopic female sterilization: a comparison of two anaesthetic methods. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48:899–902.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Philip BK, Scuderi PE, Chung F, et al. Remifentanil compared with alfentanil for ambulatory surgery using total intravenous anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1997;84:515–521.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Joshi GP, Warner DS, Twersky RS, Fleisher LA. A comparison of the remifentanil and fentanyl adverse effect profile in a multicenter phase IV study. J Clin Anesth. 2002;14:494–499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Coloma M, Chiu JW, White PF, Armbruster SC. The use of esmolol as an alternative to remifentanil during desflurane anesthesia for fast-track outpatient gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:352–357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Gertler R, Brown HC, Mitchell DH, Silvius EN. Dexmedetomidine: a novel sedativeanalgesic agent. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2001;14:13–21.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Kopman AF, Yee PS, Neuman GG. Relationship of the train-of-four fade ratio to clinical signs and symptoms of residual paralysis in awake volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1997;86:765–771.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bulow K, Nielsen TG, Lund J. The effect of topical lignocaine on intubating conditions after propofol-alfentanil induction. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1996;40: 752–756.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schlaich N, Mertzlufft F, Soltesz S, Fuchs-Buder T. Remifentanil and propofol without muscle relaxants or with different doses of rocuronium for tracheal intubation in outpatient anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2000;44:720–726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Joshi GP, Hailey A, Cross S, et al. Effects of pretreatment with cisatracurium, rocuronium, and d-tubocurarine on succinylcholine-induced fasciculations and myalgia: a comparison with placebo. J Clin Anesth. 1999;11:641–645.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Joshi GP, Garg SA, Hailey A, Yu SY. The effects of antagonizing residual neuromuscular blockade by neostigmine and glycopyrrolate on nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:628–631.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelskyla K, Yli-Hankala A, Soikkeli A, Korttila K. Neostigmine with glycopyrrolate does not increase the incidence or severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in outpatients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:757–760.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Shields M, Giovannelli M, Mirakhur RK, et al. Org 25969 (sugammadex), a selective relaxant binding agent for antagonism of prolonged rocuronium-induced neuromuscular block. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96:36–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Junger A, Klasen J, Hartmann B, et al. Shorter discharge time after regional or intravenous anaesthesia in combination with laryngeal mask airway compared with balanced anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19:119–124.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hartmann B, Banzhaf A, Junger A, et al. Laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube for outpatient surgery: analysis of anesthesia-controlled time. J Clin Anesth. 2004;16:195–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Molloy ME, Buggy DJ, Scanlon P. Propofol or sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:322–326.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tang J, White PF, Wender RH, et al. Fast-track office-based anesthesia: a comparison of propofol versus desflurane with antiemetic prophylaxis in spontaneously breathing patients. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:95–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Hormann C. Pressure support ventilation versus continuous positive airway pressure with the laryngeal mask airway: a randomized crossover study of anesthetized adult patients. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1621–1623.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Evers AS, Maze M. Anesthetic Pharmacology. Physiologic Principles and Clinical Practice. Companion to Miller’s Anesthesia. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hughes MA, Glass PS, Jacobs JR. Context-sensitive half-time in multicompartment pharmacokinetic models for intravenous anesthetic drugs. Anesthesiology. 1992;76: 334–341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technical University of the State of Bavaria, German Heart Centre, Munich, Germany

    Ralph Gertler MD (Staff Anesthesiologist)

  2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA

    Girish P. Joshi MB, BS, MD, FFARCSI (Professor of Anesthesiology and Pain Management)

Authors
  1. Ralph Gertler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Girish P. Joshi MB, BS, MD, FFARCSI
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn

    Rebecca S. Twersky MD, MPH (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director) (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director)

  2. Ambulatory Surgery Unit, Long Island College Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA

    Rebecca S. Twersky MD, MPH (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director) (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director)

  3. Harvard Medical School, USA

    Beverly K. Philip MD (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director) (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director)

  4. Day Surgery Unit, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Beverly K. Philip MD (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director) (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gertler, R., Joshi, G.P. (2008). General anesthesia. In: Twersky, R.S., Philip, B.K. (eds) Handbook of Ambulatory Anesthesia. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73329-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73329-6_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73328-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73329-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation