About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Advances in Urology
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 696752, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/696752
Research Article

Subarachnoid versus General Anesthesia in Penile Prosthetic Implantation: Outcomes Analyses

1Department of Urology, Regional Urology, 255 Bert Kouns - Industrial Loop, Shreveport, LA 71106, USA
2Department of Urology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
3Department of Biostatistics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, USA
4Department of Urology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA

Received 27 February 2012; Accepted 17 July 2012

Academic Editor: Rafael Carrion

Copyright © 2012 Gerard D. Henry et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The leading patient complaint during the perioperative period for penile prosthesis implantation is postoperative pain, while emesis and urticaria also affect the procedure’s perceived success. In analyzing surgical outcomes, assessment of the anesthetic for postoperative pain and side effects should be included. This paper retrospectively reviews 90 consecutive, primary inflatable penile prosthetic operations performed by a single surgeon at one private medical center. Fifty-seven patients were included in final analysis. Patients who had more than one procedure that day or who used chronic pain medication were excluded. The type and amount of each drug used for each respective side effect (within the first 24 hours after procedure) were compared to determine relative benefit. Twenty patients received general anesthesia (denoted herein as “GA”) and 37 received spinal (or also known as subarachnoid) anesthesia (denoted herein as “SA”). Patients receiving GA had significantly greater ( 𝑃 < 0 . 0 0 0 1 ) occurrence and amount of intravenous pain treatment than those receiving SA. Patients with SA required less intravenous pain medication and less treatment for nausea/emesis.