Laparoscopic Versus Open Inguinal Ligation of Varicocele: A Study of 60 Cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 3161-3165
Author(s):  
Muhammad Mansoor ◽  
Arif Ali ◽  
Naresh Kumar ◽  
Suhail Dilawar ◽  
Saeed Ahmed Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Early Postoperative Period ◽  
P Value ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Post Operative Pain

Objective: To compare the results of trans-peritoneal laparoscopic varicocelectomy with open inguinal technique in terms of operation time, post-operative pain and analgesic requirement, post-operative complications and hospital stay. Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Place & Duration of study: Department of Urology, Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center (JPMC) Karachi, from January 2017 to December 2020. Methodology: This prospective study composed of 60 patients diagnosed as primary varicocele clinically or as asymptomatic on Doppler U/S. They were divided into two groups on the basis of type of operation by alternate methods. In Group A (n=32), laparoscopic varicocelectomy was performed while in Group B (n=28), open inguinal method was used. Their clinical presentations, operation times, postoperative pain, analgesic requirement, hospital stay and postoperative complications were noted and analyzed. Results: Out of 60 patients included, the age range was from 18-30 years.41.6% patients were asymptomatic and were referred to us because they were declared unfit for recruitment. Left sided varicocele was diagnosed in 81.6% patients, while 16.6% were bilateral. Grade II was most common seen in 60% of patients. Operation time for unilateral laparoscopic varicocelectomy was 17.25±2.1minutes, while open unilateral time was 42.5±3.4 minutes. Post-operative pain and hospital stay were significantly better in laparoscopic group (p value<.001). Postoperative wound related complications and secondary hydrocele was more in open group. In laparoscopic group, subcutaneous emphysema was noted in early postoperative period in 3 patients (9.3%) and portside hernia in one patient (3.1%). Recurrence rate was more in open cases (14.2%), versus 6.2% in laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Laparoscopic varicocelectomy is a simple and safe technique causing minimal morbidity with early recovery and better surgical outcome. Keywords: Varicocele, Laparoscopic Ligation, Open ligation

scholarly journals APPENDICECTOMY;

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (01) ◽  
pp. 001-005
Author(s):  
JAHANGIR SARWAR KHAN ◽  
UMAR FAROOQ ◽  
HAMID HASSAN
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Wound Infection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Open Appendectomy ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
P Value ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Post Operative Pain

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare length of hospital stay, pain scores and the rate of wound infectionsbetween laparoscopic and open appendectomy. Design: Randomized Controlled trial. Place and Duration of study: This study wasconducted in surgical unit I Holy Family hospital, Rawalpindi from 1st June 2009 to 31st May 2010. Patients and methods: The patients weredivided into open and laparoscopy groups and their age, sex, time of discharge, pain scores and wound infection rates were compared andanalyzed. Results: Total of 160 patients were included in the study, 80 in each group. There were 58% male and 42% female patients. Mean agewas 22.78 years (±6.2).Post operative pain scores were significantly less in the laparoscopic group (p<0.05). The length of hospital stay in opengroup was 35.10 hrs (±5.4) hours and in the laparoscopic group was 38.70(4.8) hrs with a p value of 0.592.Wound infection was 0.037% in openand 0.025% in the laparoscopic group. Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior in terms of less morbidity and shorter postoperative hospital stay in the setting of an overworked tertiary care surgical floor of a Pakistani hospital.

scholarly journals Laparoscopic Versus Open Appendicectomy – A Randomized Controlled Trial

1970 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 82-90
Author(s):  
SM Ashraf Ali ◽  
MA Wahhab Chowdhury ◽  
HMA Rouf ◽  
Omor Faruque Yusuf ◽  
Md Saiful Islam
Keyword(s):  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Wound Infection Rate ◽  
Open Operation ◽  
Narcotic Analgesia ◽  
Negative Appendicectomy ◽  
Operative Findings

Background: The authors compare open and laparoscopic appendicectomy in a randomized fashion with an object to define benefit of laparoscopic procedure if any. Methods: Patients of acute appendicitis were randomized to either laparoscopic(n=62) or open (n=58) appendicectomy . Operation time, per-operative findings, concomitant and or other pathological lesions, postoperative pain, rescue narcotic analgesia required, negative appendicectomy rate, hospital stay and complications were noted. Results: No patient in the laparoscopic group required conversion to open. The mean operation time were 36.51±15.81 minutes and 31.62±19.61 minutes for the laparoscopic and open groups respectively (p=0.1368). But the operation time is low in LA group (mean 37.92±16.28 versus 62.55±20.04 minutes, p=.0080) when only high up retrocaecal types were considered. In the laparoscopic group 45 patients (72.58%) had acute appendicitis, 15 (24.19%) had other pathologies (appendix were histologically normal) and in 2(3.225%) appendix were normal. Post operative pain score was significantly low (p=0.037) in LA group after six hours but became insignificant after twelve hours (p=0.959) and twenty fours (p=0.114). The LA group required significantly less rescue narcotic analgesia (p=0.026). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (29.935±8.995 versus 35.413±11.30 hours, p=0.0038). The wound infection rate is higher in open group (13.79% versus 6.45% ) Patients who underwent LA have a shorter operation time in high-up retrocaecal type of appendicitis, significantly less pain and require less rescue narcotic analgesia in comparison to open operation. Conclusions: Laparoscopic method offers an excellent opportunity to detect concomitant other pathology and there by reduce incidence of missdiagnosis and negative appendicectomy rate. The authors consider LA to be the procedure of choice in patients with acute appendicitis. DOI: 10.3329/jbcps.v27i2.4251J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2009; 27: 82-90

scholarly journals Comparison of the effects of intravenous propofol and inhalational desflurane on the quality of early recovery after hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a prospective, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e039881
Author(s):  
Jaesik Park ◽  
Minhee Kim ◽  
Yong Hyun Park ◽  
Jung-Woo Shim ◽  
Hyung Mook Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Total Hospital ◽  
Kidney Donors ◽  
Living Kidney Donors ◽  
Total Hospital Stay ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesWe compared early recovery outcomes between living kidney donors who received total intravenous (IV) propofol versus inhalational desflurane during hand-assisted laparoscopic nephrectomy.DesignA single-centre, prospective randomised controlled trial.SettingUniversity hospital.ParticipantsStudy participants were enrolled between October 2019 and February 2020. A total of 80 living donors were randomly assigned to an intravenous propofol group (n=40) or a desflurane group (n=40).InterventionPropofol group received intravenous propofol and desflurane group received desflurane, as a maintenance anaesthetic.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe quality of postoperative functional recovery was primarily assessed using the Korean version of the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40K) questionnaire on postoperative day 1. Secondarily, ambulation, pain score, rescue analgesics, complications and total hospital stay were assessed postoperatively.ResultsOur study population included 35 males and 45 females. The mean age was 46±13 years. The global QoR-40K score (161 (154–173) vs 152 (136–161) points, respectively, p=0.001) and all five subdimension scores (physical comfort, 49 (45–53) vs 45 (42–48) points, respectively, p=0.003; emotional state, 39 (37–41) vs 37 (33–41) points, respectively, p=0.005; psychological support, 30 (26–34) vs 28 (26–32) points, respectively, p=0.04; physical independence, 16 (11–18) vs 12 (8-14) points, respectively, p=0.004; and pain, 31 (28–33) vs 29 (25-31) points, respectively, p=0.021) were significantly higher in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The early ambulation success rate and numbers of early and total steps were higher, but the incidence of nausea/vomiting was lower, in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group. The total hospital stay after surgery was shorter in the intravenous propofol group than the desflurane group.ConclusionsIntravenous propofol may enhance the quality of postoperative recovery in comparison to desflurane in living kidney donors.Trial registration numberKCT0004365.

scholarly journals “Enhanced recovery after surgery – ERAS in elective craniotomies-a non-randomized controlled trial”

BMC Neurology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anirudh Elayat ◽  
Sritam S. Jena ◽  
Sukdev Nayak ◽  
R. N. Sahu ◽  
Swagata Tripathy
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
High Dependency

Abstract Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal perioperative care bundle aimed at the early recovery of patients. Well accepted in gastric and pelvic surgeries, there is minimal evidence in neurosurgery and neurocritical care barring spinal surgeries. We wished to compare the length of intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) stay of patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial neurosurgery: ERAS protocol versus routine care. The secondary objective was to compare the postoperative pain scores, opioid use, glycemic control, and the duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups. Methods In this pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial (CTRI/2017/07/015451), consenting adult patients scheduled for elective supratentorial intracranial tumor excision were enrolled prospectively after institutional ethical clearance and consent. Elements-of-care in the ERAS group were- Preoperative –family education, complex-carbohydrate drink, flupiritine; Intraoperative – scalp blocks, limited opioids, rigorous fluid and temperature regulation; Postoperative- flupiritine, early mobilization, removal of catheters, and initiation of feeds. Apart from these, all perioperative protocols and management strategies were similar between groups. The two groups were compared with regards to the length of ICU stay, pain scores in ICU, opioid requirement, glycemic control, and hospital stay duration. The decision for discharge from ICU and hospital, data collection, and analysis was by independent assessors blind to the patient group. Results Seventy patients were enrolled. Baseline demographics – age, sex, tumor volume, and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. The proportion of patients staying in the ICU for less than 48 h after surgery, the cumulative insulin requirement, and the episodes of VAS scores > 4 in the first 48 h after surgery was significantly less in the ERAS group – 40.6% vs. 65.7%, 0.6 (±2.5) units vs. 3.6 (±8.1) units, and one vs. ten episodes (p = 0.04, 0.001, 0.004 respectively). The total hospital stay was similar in both groups. Conclusion The study demonstrated a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring ICU/ HDU stay > 48 h. Better pain and glycemic control in the postoperative period may have contributed to a decreased stay. More extensive randomized studies may be designed to confirm these results. Trial registration Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2018/04/013247), registered retrospectively on April 2018.

scholarly journals Role of laparoscopy in incisional hernia and relative benefit of the laparoscopic incisional hernia repair to the open incisional hernia repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 2165
Author(s):  
Sudhir Singh Pal ◽  
Azad Kumar Mourya
Keyword(s):  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Hernia Repair ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Mesh Repair ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Incisional Hernia Repair ◽  
Visual Analogue Score ◽  
Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Open Mesh Repair

Background: Incisional hernia is a common complication of abdominal surgery. Historically the open repair with or without mesh was the mainstay of treatment. However, many recently published laparoscopic repair studies have challenged surgeons to re-evaluate which technique provides the best short and long term outcomes.Methods: The study was conducted on 50 patients admitted at GMC Bhopal with approval from college ethical committee.Results: In 50 cases 21 were male and 29 were female. 7 male (14%) and 15 female (30%) patients had undergone laproscopic mesh repair (LMR) and 14 male (28%) and 14 female (28%) patients had undergone open mesh repair (OMR). Total complication in OMR group is 10 (35%) and in LMR group is 2 (9.09%). Mean duration of hospital stay in LMR group was 6.6 days and in OMR group was 15.57 days. Post-operative patients of LMR group returned back to the work early (mean 12 days) compared to OMR group (mean 20.7 days). Mean post-operative day of movement in LMR group was 1 day and in OMR group was 2.03 days. Pain measured using visual analogue score on 3rd post-operative day showed decreased pain score in laparoscopic group (mean 2) compared to open group (mean 5.35).Conclusions: Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair provides lesser post-operative pain, lesser complications, shorter hospital stay and lesser economic impact as they returned to work early. Thus patients have less morbidity and improved quality of life. 

Postoperative Pain Relief: The Comparison of Bupivacaine before Incision and Near Closure of Wound

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 2622-2624
Author(s):  
Haq dad Durrani ◽  
Rafia Kousar ◽  
Ejaz Iqbal ◽  
Muhammad Abdul Aziz ◽  
Syed Aushtar Abbas Naqvi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Relief ◽  
Subcutaneous Tissue ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
P Value ◽  
Trial Methodology ◽  
Analgesic Requirement ◽  
Rescue Analgesia ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pain is the most common and most difficult problem faced by patients after operation. Due to inadequate management 30-70% patients suffer from post-operative pain. Acute pain resulting in chronic pain reduces quality of life and creates economic burden. Aim: To compare post-operative pain relief between infiltration of 0.25% bupivacaine into skin and subcutaneous tissue in the line of incision before incision and along edges of wound near completion of procedure. Study design: Randomized control trial Methodology: Sixty four patients were randomly divided into two groups i.e. (0.25% Bupivacaine 6 to 30ml) at the site of incision into skin and subcutaneous tissue Preincision (Group P) and (0.25% Bupivacaine 6 to 30ml) along the edges of wound at near closure of procedure (Group C). Intensity of pain was assessed on visual analogue scale in the recovery room, 3, 6 and 24 hours postoperatively.The time of first dose of rescue analgesia within 24 hours was also noted in both groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between two groups regarding age (p-value = 0.324), gender i.e. males (p=0.545) females (p=0.763) and duration of operation (P=Value=0.208). The mean time of rescue analgesia in Group P and Group C in minutes was 318.12±149.47 and 374.84±125.67 respectively (p value =1.5) reflecting no statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Postoperative analgesia and analgesic requirement do not differ significantly whether bupivacaine is infiltrated before incision or just before closure of wound. Keywords: Postoperative pain, bupivacaine, rescue analgesia, Preincision

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes of Endoscopic Stenting and Laparoscopic Gastrojejunostomy for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 84 (6) ◽  
pp. 991-995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuai Leiyuan ◽  
Xu Jianli ◽  
Zhao Zhengzhong ◽  
Ji Guangyan ◽  
Zhu Dailiang
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Gastric Outlet Obstruction ◽  
Outlet Obstruction ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Laparoscopic Group ◽  
Endoscopic Stenting ◽  
Stent Group ◽  
Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction ◽  
Laparoscopic Gastrojejunostomy

To compare the clinic outcomes of endoscopic stenting and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) for patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We retrospectively reviewed 63 patients with malignant GOO that underwent endoscopic stenting [Stent Group (SG), n = 29] or LGJ [Laparoscopic Group (LG), n = 34]. Then, we evaluated the medical effects, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses in both groups. Compared to LG, SG has a shorter operation time [SG: (41.1 ± 9.3) minutes vs LG: (137.4 ± 21.7) minutes, P = 0.000], less intra-operative blood loss [(23.7 ± 9.0) mL vs (121.1 ± 24.3) mL, P = 0.000], relatively lower hospitalization expenses [(2272.7 ± 413.9) $ vs (5182.4 ± 517.3) $, P = 0.000]. Besides, the median intake time was significantly shorter in the SG than that in the LG [(0.9 ± 0.3) days vs (4.1 ± 0.6) days, P = 0.000]. However, there were no significant differences between SG with LG in surgical success rate (100 vs 100%, P = 1.000), length of hospital stay [(6.1 ± 3.3) days vs (10.9 ± 4.7) days, P = 0.422], recurrent obstructive rate (37.9 vs 26.5%, P = 0.949) and median survivals [(141.4 ± 81.4) days vs (122.7 ± 88.8) days, P = 0.879]. Endoscopic stenting and LGJ are both relatively safe and effective treatments for patients with malignant GOO. But we suggest that endoscopic stenting should be considered first in patients with malignant GOO because it has many advantages over LGJ.

scholarly journals Intraoperative Complications Are Significantly Less in Pcnl in the Treatment of Large Renal Calculi : A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-74
Author(s):  
Syed Alfasani ◽  
Zamanul Islam Bhuiyan
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Kidney Stone ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intraoperative Complications ◽  
Renal Calculi ◽  
Stone Disease ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
P Value ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery in the treatment of patients having large kidney stone(>2 cm ). Materials & Methods: A Randomised controlled clinical trial (RCT ) of 80 patients diagnosed with kidney stone disease admitted in the NIKDU during the period of Jan’ to Dec’2009 were divided conveniently into two groups. Intervention was done in the form PCNL(40) and open surgery (40). Clinical outcome like, peroperativecomplications,durationof surgery,mean hospital stay,convalescence period, amount of analgesia required to relief pain, stone clearance rate were reviewed and compared between the groups. There was no significant difference in preoperative variables such as age,sex, stone size in cm, stone number- single/multiple and stag horn Stone. Results: There were statistically significant difference in the parameters between the groups,( PCNL vs open surgery [mean ± SD]): duration of operation (min), 97.90 ± 24.89 vs 136.62 ± 23.54, postoperative hospital stay (days) ,4.77 ± 3.98 vs 9.55 ± 3.65, mean time return to work (days) , 3.09 ± 1.21vs 6.25 ± 1.53, ( p value is <0.001). Intraoperative complications like bleeding requiring blood transfusion are significantly lower in PCNL (11 cases 34.1%) than in open surgery( 18 cases 45.0%), (Chi-square = 4.82; p = 0.049). Conclusion: PCNL is relatively safe & better treatment option than open surgery in the treatment of large renal calculi, It has definite advantages of statistically less peroperative bleeding and lower morbidity. Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2014 p.71-74

scholarly journals HEMORRHOIDECTOMY;

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (09) ◽  
pp. 1316-1321
Author(s):  
Shibber Ahmed ◽  
Ishtiaq Ahmad ◽  
Humayun Amjid ◽  
Aamir Furqan
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
P Value ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Group A ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Group B

Objectives: Is to compare outcomes in terms of mean post-operative pain andhospital stay between stapled versus conventional hemorrhoidectomy. Hypothesis: There isa difference in mean post-operative pain and hospital stay between stapled and conventionalhemorrhoidectomy, stapled technique is better than conventional technique. Study Design:Randomized control trial. Setting: Department of General Surgery Bakhtawar Amin MemorialHospital Multan. Period: February 2016 February 2017. Methodology: A total number of 60patients enrolled in the study, both genders. Statistical software SPSS ver.23 was used toanalyze the data. Mean and SD were calculated and presented for numerical variables likeduration of hemorrhoids, age and pain score while frequencies and percentage were calculatedand presented for categorical variables like ender and grade of hemorrhoids. Independent t-testand chi square test were applied to see effect modification. P value ≤0.05 was considered assignificant. Results: Total number of 60 (100%) patients in the study, 32 (53.3%) were maleand 28 (46.7 %) were female. Mean hospital stay in group A was 1.63 ± 0.71 and in groupB means duration of hospital stay was 1.73 ± 0.74. A P value was 0.001. On stratification ofdata it is concluded that in group A 9 patients have no pain 6 have mild and 6 have moderatepain and 5 patients have severe pain, similarly in group B, 3 patients have no pain 2 have mildpain 1 have moderate pain and no patient have severe pain. P value for male patients was2.65. Conclusion: This study confirms that stapled hemorrhoidectomy is associated with lesspostoperative pain with no effect of age and gender on outcome.

scholarly journals Enhanced Recovery After Surgery – ERAS in Elective Craniotomies-a Non-randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anirudh Elayat ◽  
Sritam Swarup Jena ◽  
Rabi Narayan Sahu ◽  
Sukdev Nayak ◽  
Swagata Tripathy
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Glycemic Control ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Perioperative Care ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Early Recovery ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Pain Scores

Abstract Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal perioperative care bundle aimed at early recovery of patients. Well accepted in gastric and pelvic surgeries, there is minimal evidence in neurosurgery and neurocritical care barring spinal surgeries. We wished to compare the length of intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) stay of patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial neurosurgery: ERAS protocol versus routine care. The secondary objective was to compare the postoperative pain scores, opioid use, glycemic control, and the duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups.Methods: This was a pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial (CTRI/2017/07/015451). Consenting adult patients scheduled for elective supratentorial intracranial tumor excision were enrolled prospectively after institutional ethical clearance and consent. Patients in the ERAS group received a fixed bundle of care. Pre-operative –family education,, complex-carbohydrate drink, scalp blocks, and flupiritine ; Intraoperative –limited opioids,fluid and temperature regulation; Post operative- early mobilization, removal of catheters and initiation of feeds. In the control group, standard practice and protocols of perioperative care were followed. The two groups were compared with regards to the length of ICU stay, pain scores in ICU, opioid requirement, glycemic control and the overall duration of stay in the hospital. Results: Seventy patients were enrolled. Baseline demographics – age, sex, tumor volume and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. The proportion of patients staying in the ICU for less than 48 hrs after surgery, the cumulative insulin requirement and the episodes of VAS scores > 4 in first 48 hours after surgery was significantly less in the ERAS group – 40.6% vs 65.7%, 0.6 (±2.5) units vs 3.6 (±8.1 ) units and 1 vs 10 episodes ( p= 0.04, 0.001, 0.004 respectively). The total hospital stay was similar in both groups.Conclusion: The study demonstrated a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring ICU/ HDU stay > 48 hrs. Better pain and glycemic control in the postoperative period may have contributed to a decreased stay. More extensive randomized studies may be designed to confirm these results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document