General anesthesia versus regional anesthesia in patients undergoing obliterative vaginal procedures for pelvic organ prolapse

Introduction and hypothesisThe objective was to compare outcomes in patients receiving general versus regional anesthesia when undergoing obliterative vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.MethodsObliterative vaginal procedures performed from 2010 to 2020 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Surgeries were categorized into general anesthesia (GA) or regional anesthesia (RA). Rates of reoperation, readmission, operative time, and length of stay were determined. A composite adverse outcome was calculated including any of the following: nonserious or serious adverse events, 30-day readmission, or reoperation. Propensity score-weighted analysis of perioperative outcomes was performed.ResultsThe cohort included 6,951 patients, of whom 6,537 (94%) underwent obliterative vaginal surgery under GA and 414 (6%) received RA. When comparing outcomes under the propensity score-weighted analysis, operative times were shorter (median 96 vs 104 min, p<0.01) in the RA group versus GA. There were no significant differences between composite adverse outcomes (10% vs 12%, p=0.06), or readmission (5% vs 5%, p=0.83) and reoperation rates (1% vs 2%, p=0.12) between the RA and GA groups. Length of stay was shorter in patients receiving GA than in those receiving RA, especially when undergoing concomitant hysterectomy (67% discharged within 1 day in GA vs 45% in RA, p<0.01).ConclusionsComposite adverse outcomes, reoperation rates, and readmission rates were similar in patients who received RA for obliterative vaginal procedures compared with GA. Operative times were shorter in patients receiving RA than in those receiving GA, and length of stay was shorter in patients receiving GA than in those receiving RA.