A randomized prospective comparative study of general versus epidural anesthesia for transcervical hysteroscopic endometrial resection

Motti Goldenberg, Shlomo B. Cohen, Aba Etchin, Shlomo Mashiach, Daniel S. Seidman*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare general versus epidural anesthesia during hysteroscopic endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding. STUDY DESIGN: In a prospective comparative study, 24 women with abnormal uterine bleeding that was unresponsive to conservative medical management were randomly assigned to undergo hysteroscopic endometrial resection with either general or epidural anesthesia. RESULTS: The durations of the endometrial resection procedure were similar for women who had general and epidural anesthesia (28.3 ± 4.2 minutes vs 27.5 ± 5.4 minutes, respectively). However, there was a statistically significantly lower absorption of distention fluid in women who underwent the procedure with general rather than epidural anesthesia (380.8 ± 158.2 ml vs 648.3 ± 157.1 ml, respectively; p < .0005). Conclusion: a significantly lower amount of glycine distention fluid was absorbed during endometrial resection in women who underwent the procedure with general rather than epidural anesthesia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)273-276
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume184
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Keywords

  • Endometrial resection
  • Epidural anesthesia
  • General anesthesia
  • Glycine distention fluid
  • Hysteroscopy
  • Menorrhagia

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A randomized prospective comparative study of general versus epidural anesthesia for transcervical hysteroscopic endometrial resection'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this