Anesthesia in minor obstetric and gynecological operations

Introduction. Minor obstetric and gynecological operations are among the most frequently performed surgical interventions, including for emergency indications. At the present stage of anesthesiology, various anesthesia techniques are used, and there is no consensus regarding the optimal method of anesthesia for these operations. Purpose of the work: to determine the optimal method of anesthesia for minor obstetric and gynecological operations.

Objectives: 1. to study and analyze literature data on methods of anesthesia for minor obstetric and gynecological operations in outpatient practice and for emergency interventions in a 24-hour hospital. 2. Determine the optimal methods of anesthesia for this category of patients. 3. Identify factors influencing the choice of anesthesia method.

Material and methods. More than 20 literary sources have been studied, the main ones of which are presented in the list of references. A retrospective analysis of 2700 patients who underwent minor obstetric and gynecological operations at the Saint Petersburg I.I. Dzhanelidze Research Institute of Emergency Medicine and 400 patients of the Medsi clinic St. Petersburg.

Results. In our opinion, the optimal methods of general anesthesia are: usually non-inhalation or combined. The guarantee of effective and safe anesthetic care is preoperative preparation and selection of the optimal method of anesthesia in order to reduce the risks of negative effects, that is, a personalized approach is required. Propofol in combination with narcotic analgesics and combined anesthesia propofol-sevorane have proven to be the best in terms of controllability.

Conclusions. 1. The issue of pain relief during minor obstetric and gynecological operations is relevant and unresolved. 2. In our opinion, the optimal methods of general anesthesia are: non-inhalation propofol and narcotic analgesic and combined propofol and sevoran. 3. The choice of anesthesia method depends on many factors and should have a personalized approach.

1. Connolly A., Regan D.L. Women›s health matters // Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2022. Nov. 24; Vol. 72, No. 725. Р. 556–557. doi: 10.3399/bjgp22X721193. PMID: 36424149; PMCID: PMC9710831.

2. Kuklin V. N. Anesthesia in the surgery department of one day. Literature review. Bulletin of Intensive Care named after A. I. Saltanov, 2020, Vol. 4, рр. 88–98 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21320/1818-474X-2020-4-88-98.

3. Leshchenko R. E., Levit A. L., Davydova N. S. Procedural sedation and/or analgesia: a review. Annals of Critical Care, 2023, Vol. 2, рр. 117–129 (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21320/1818–474X-2023–2–117–129.

4. Kabanova T. A., Degtyarev P. A., Shkerdina M. I., Kostikov A. P., Khalimov M. Ya., Tereschenko E. V. et al. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in anesthesia — russian experience: a questionnaire survey. Messenger of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, 2022, Vol. 19, No. 4, рр. 69–79 (In Russ.). doi: 10.21292/2078-5658-2022-19-4-69-79 (In Russ.).

5. Koriachkin V. A., Levin Yа. I., Zabolotskii D. V., Khinovker V.V., Safin R.P. Updated classification of the physical condition of patients of the american society of anesthesiologists. Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Management, 2021, Vol. 15, Nо. 2, рр. 101–106 (In Russ.). doi: 10.17816/RA90041.

6. Manouchehrian N., Pilehvari S., Rahimi-Bashar F., Esna-Ashari F., Mohammadi S. Comparison of the effects of spinal anesthesia, paracervical block and general anesthesia on pain, nausea and vomiting, and analgesic requirements in diagnostic hysteroscopy: A non-randomized clinical trial // Front. Med. (Lausanne). 2023. Mar. 1, Vol. 10. 1089497. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1089497. PMID: 36936226; PMCID: PMC10016381.

7. McIlroy E. I., Leslie K. Total intravenous anaesthesia in ambulatory care // Curr. Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019. Dec., Vol. 32, No. 6. Р. 703–707. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000786. PMID: 31436553.

8. Brix L. D., Thillemann T.M., Nikolajsen L. Local Anesthesia Combined With Sedation Compared With General Anesthesia for Ambulatory Operative Hysteroscopy: A Randomized Study // J. Perianesth Nurs. 2016. Aug; Vol. 31, No. 4. Р. 309–316. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2015.09.009. Epub 2016 Mar 21. PMID: 27444763.

9. Ushakov I. L., Potievskaya V. I., Popov A. A., Loginova E. A. A Comparison of the Effects of Inhalation and Intravenous Anesthesia for Transvaginal Ovarian Puncture. Doctor.Ru, 2017, Vol. 6, No. 135, рр. 50–54 (In Russ.).

10. Turner R. J., Lambrost M., Holmes C., Katz S. G., Downs C. S., Collins D. W., Gatt S. P. The effects of sevoflurane on isolated gravid human myometrium // Anaesth. Intensive Care. 2002 Oct., Vol. 30, No. 5. Р. 591–596. doi: 10.1177/0310057X0203000508. PMID: 12413258.

11. Ramirez M. F., Gan T.J. Total intravenous anesthesia versus inhalation anesthesia: how do outcomes compare? // Curr. Opin Anaesthesiol. 2023. Aug. 1; Vol. 36, No. 4. Р. 399–406. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000001274. Epub 2023 Jun 19. PMID: 37338939.

12. Park S., Choi S.L., Nahm F.S., Ryu J.H., Do S.H. Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs propofol-remifentanil for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy: Randomized, single-blind, controlled trial // Medicine (Baltimore). 2020. Oct 23; Vol. 99, No. 43. e22712. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022712. PMID: 33120766; PMCID: PMC7581053.

13. Shindyapina N. V., Marshalov D. V., Shifman E. M., Kuligin A. V. Clinical effects of low-dose intravenous ketamine in obstetrics: a systematic review. Annals of Critical Care, 2020, No. 2, рр. 104–121 (In Russ.).

14. Gao P. F., Lin J.Y., Wang S., Zhang Y.F., Wang G. Q., Xu Q., Guo X. Antinociceptive effects of magnesium sulfate for monitored anesthesia care during hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study // BMC Anesthesiol. 2020. Sep. 21, Vol. 20, No. 1. Р. 240. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01158-9. PMID: 32957926; PMCID: PMC7504853.

15. Fouks Y., Kern G., Cohen A., Reicher L., Shapira Z., Many A., Yogev Y., Rattan G. A virtual reality system for pain and anxiety management during outpatient hysteroscopy-A randomized control trial // Eur. J. Pain. 2022. Mar; Vol. 26, No. 3. Р. 600–609. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1882. Epub 2021 Nov 23. PMID: 34748679.