General anaesthesia is better suitable than epidural anaesthesia for surgical removal of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity712 @entity5 @entity190 @entity26 @entity4 @entity854
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare general and epidural anaesthesia for surgical resection of @entity5 . @entity1 AND METHODS: 80 @entity1 with @entity5 were randomly divided into two groups which respectively received general or epidural anaesthesia prior to the surgery. General anaesthesia was done under intubation and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Vital signs, including diastolic pressure, systolic pressure, heart rate and @entity26 saturation, were not significantly different between two groups before the surgery. Vital signs were decreased in @entity1 of both groups after surgery. However, vital signs in the general anaesthesia group were markedly higher than in the epidural anaesthesia group (p < 0.05), indicating that the changes of vital signs were less pronounced in the general anaesthesia group. Furthermore, the operation time in this group was markedly shorter than in the epidural anaesthesia group, while the success rate was markedly higher. In addition, the intraoperative @entity190 and infusion volume were both markedly lower in the general anaesthesia group, as well as the occurrence rate of supine position (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). Occurrence of @entity712 , @entity4 , altered water-electrolyte balance, @entity854 in @entity1 undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia group was significantly lower (p < 0.05 vs. @entity1 under epidural anaesthesia). There were no deaths in either @entity1 group, and all @entity1 were successfully cured and discharged. CONCLUSIONS: General anaesthesia under intubation and mechanical ventilation is better suited for surgical removal of @entity5 .
