A cost and efficacy analysis of performing arthroscopic excision of wrist ganglions under wide-awake anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia

Arthroscopic excision has currently become popular for the treatment of wrist ganglions. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic wrist ganglion excisions under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet versus general anaesthesia.

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic ganglionectomy from April 2009 to October 2016 at our institute. They were separated into two groups according to anaesthesia techniques: general anaesthesia and Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet. We compared the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of the two groups.

Seventy-four patients were included. Both groups were matched with regard to the demographics and preoperative clinical assessments. We found no significant differences between groups in postoperative visual analog scale, modified Mayo wrist score, Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, recurrence, residual pain, or complications. Recurrence was found in five of 74 patients, one (4.3%) in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet group and four (7.8%) in the general anaesthesia group. One extensor tendon injury and four extensor tenosynovitis cases occurred in the general anaesthesia group. Regarding cost effectiveness, the mean operating time in the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were 88.7 ± 24.51 and 121.5 ± 25.75 min, respectively (p < 0.001). The average total costs of the Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet and general anaesthesia groups were €487.4 ± 89.15 and €878.7 ± 182.13, respectively (p < 0.001).

For arthroscopic wrist ganglion resections, both anaesthesia techniques were effective and safe regarding recurrence rates, complications, and residual pain. The most important finding of this study was that arthroscopic ganglionectomy under Wide-Awake Local Anaesthesia No Tourniquet was superior to that under general anaesthesia for cost-effectiveness.

Level III, Retrospective comparative study.