الفهرس 
Phases of stress responseOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 90 |  |  |
| | | from | 90 | | |
Abstract
Postoperative pain is a great problem and has serious postoperative adverse effects. Many of these effects can be eliminated or reduced by controlling postoperative pain.
The aim of the present study was to compare between the use of IFB and GA as regards postoperative anlagesia, recovery function and patient satisfaction after inguinal hernia repair.
The study was carried out on 60 adult (18-80 years) patients, ASA I and II, scheduled for elective unilateral, reducible primary inguinal hernia repair.
Patient of the study were randomly allocated into two group, as follows:
Group GA (control), 30 patients: No injec tion of LA in the ingui nal field but only there was post
oper ative wou nd infilt ratio n with bupi vaca ine.
Group IFB, 30 patients: who underwent inguinal field block (IFB) befor surgery with no or only light sedation intraoperatively. The technique was performed by an anaesthiologist, with 50-60 ml ropivacaine 0.5% (5 mg/ml) with a dedicated technique.
Measurment of postoperative pain was carried out using visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal pain score (VPS). We measured also transfer time from the operating theatre to the postoperative unit, heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, respirtory rate, time of postoperative mobilization, the total dose of analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction
nausea and vomiting. All parameters were followed up for 7 postoperative day. Also any complications occurred during this period were recorded.
PaH, PaO2 and PaCO2 were tested before surgery and ½ h after surgery.
Also, time of discharge to home was tested.
The results of this study showed that IFB was superior to general anaesthesia for inguinal hernia repair.
In comparison, in IFB group there was sufficient analgesia demonstrated by lower VPS and VAS scores and there was a significant less analgesic consumption than GA group up to the 7 postoperative days. Also IFB group patients had a shorter time to be ready for discharge, faster mobilization and a better satisfaction score up to the 7 postoperative day than GA group patients.
Also in the present study we registered slight nausea at 24 hours and during the 2-7 days period in two patients compared with slight moderate or sever nausea in eight patients in the period between 24 & 48 hours and slight nausea in two patients during the subsequent 6 days.
In all patients we did not experience any urinary retension, or signs of local anaesthestic toxicity such as tinnitus, circumoral numbness central nervous or cardiac toxicity symptoms.
Also there were no statistically significant differences found at any time of measurements between the two studied groups as regard mean ABP, HR, respiratory rate, PH, PaO2 and PaCO2.