local with sedation vs general anesthesia which safer?

Answer 1

It really depends on the type of surgery and the duration. It it's minor, then local. Otherwise, general is the way to go for major. You don't want to feel any pain during the surgery. Plus you don't want to hear the surgeon's lousy singing voice.

Lately, a lot of anesthetic agents that the anesthesiologist use plus their expertise have really improved. There is less incidence of complications such as infection; bleeding and paralysis and even death.

Answer 2

Have to agree with the previous answer, for the most part. It depends on a number of factors, especially the type of surgery and the patient having the surgery.
A lot of minor procedures are easily performed with sedation and the surgeon using local anesthetics, but some types of procedures, areas of the body, etc., are not amenable to using local anesthetics. For these, and more involved surgical procedures, a general (or regional) anesthetic is more likely the way to go. Some patients (including those older, more debilitated) we prefer that "less is more" and may prefer not to do a general anesthetic if the procedure can be accomplished just as easily with sedation while still keeping the patient comfortable.
Safety first and comfort always.

Answer 3

It depends on who is doing the sedating.

I'd rather have an anesthesiologist do either than a nurse give me sedation. (I'm not talking CRNA, just RN or LPN)

Many times, sedation is given by a nurse under the direction of the surgeon, who knows little to nothing about anesthesia. Most of the time, everything goes well, but when it doesn't, it's nice to have someone there who knows what to do.

It's not unusual for an anesthesiologist to have to bail out a case gone bad, when the patient stops breathing, or has a paradoxical reaction to the sedation.

If you're in reasonably good shape, either will be fine. But ask for an anesthesiologist, and discuss your particular needs with him/her.