Comparative efficacy of ultrasound guidance or conventional anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adult patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preprocedural, real-time, and computer-aided three-dimensional ultrasound has been widely used for neuraxial puncture; however, the optimal guidance is unclear. We examined the comparative efficacy of three ultrasound guidance and anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adults. METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled studies comparing the efficacy of ultrasound guidance and anatomical landmarks for neuraxial puncture in adults using electronic databases and unpublished studies. The primary outcomes were first-pass success and patient satisfaction. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used. RESULTS: We identified 74 eligible studies (7090 patients). Preprocedural ultrasound and real-time ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture improved first-pass success compared with anatomical landmarks (risk ratio [RR] 1.6; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.3-1.9; RR 1.9; 95% CrI 1.3-2.9, respectively, moderate confidence). Computer-aided ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture also increased first-pass success (RR 1.8; 95% CrI 0.97-3.3, low confidence), although estimates were imprecise. However, real-time ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture resulted in minimal difference in first-pass success compared with preprocedural ultrasound (RR 1.2; 95% CrI 0.8-1.8, moderate confidence). Preprocedural ultrasound improved patient satisfaction slightly compared with anatomical landmark use (standardised mean differences 0.28; 95% CrI 0.092-0.47, low confidence). CONCLUSIONS: This NMA provides evidence supporting ultrasound-guided neuraxial puncture compared with use of anatomical landmarks, including indirect comparisons. Among the three ultrasound guidance methods, preprocedural ultrasound appears to be a better adjunctive option.

Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence.

Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are important anaesthetic techniques, familiar to all anaesthetists and applied to patients undergoing a range of surgical procedures. Although the immediate effects of a well-conducted neuraxial technique on nociceptive and sympathetic pathways are readily observable in clinical practice, the impact of such techniques on patient-centred perioperative outcomes remains an area of uncertainty and active research. The aim of this review is to present a narrative synthesis of contemporary clinical science on this topic from the most recent 5-year period and summarise the foundational scholarship upon which this research was based. We searched electronic databases for primary research, secondary research, opinion pieces, and guidelines reporting the relationship between neuraxial procedures and standardised perioperative outcomes over the period 2018-2023. Returned citation lists were examined seeking additional studies to contextualise our narrative synthesis of results. Articles were retrieved encompassing the following outcome domains: patient comfort, renal, sepsis and infection, postoperative cancer, cardiovascular, and pulmonary and mortality outcomes. Convincing evidence of the beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on patient comfort after major open thoracoabdominal surgery outcomes was identified. Recent evidence of benefit in the prevention of pulmonary complications and mortality was identified. Despite mechanistic plausibility and supportive observational evidence, there is less certain experimental evidence to support a role for neuraxial techniques impacting on other outcome domains. Evidence of positive impact of neuraxial techniques is best established for the domains of patient comfort, pulmonary complications, and mortality, particularly in the setting of major open thoracoabdominal surgery. Recent evidence does not strongly support a significant impact of neuraxial techniques on cancer, renal, infection, or cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery in most patient groups.

Impact of spinal versus general anaesthesia on perioperative obstructive sleep apnoea severity in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty: a post hoc analysis of two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations suggest favouring regional over general anaesthesia to reduce impact on postoperative sleep apnoea severity, but there is currently no evidence to support this. We compared the impact of general vs spinal anaesthesia on postoperative sleep apnoea severity and assessed the evolution of sleep apnoea severity up to the third postoperative night. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used pooled data from two previous randomised controlled trials in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under general or spinal anaesthesia (n=96), without performing a preliminary power analysis. All participants underwent respiratory polygraphy before surgery and on the first and third postoperative nights. The primary outcomes were the supine apnoea-hypopnea index on the first postoperative night and the evolution of the supine apnoea-hypopnea index up to the third postoperative night. Secondary outcomes included the oxygen desaturation index on the first and third postoperative nights. RESULTS: In the general and spinal anaesthesia groups, mean (95% confidence interval) values for the supine apnoea-hypopnoea index on the first postoperative night were 20 (16-25) and 21 (16-26) events h-1 (P=0.82), respectively; corresponding values on the third postoperative night were 34 (22-45) and 35 (20-49) events h-1 (P=0.91). The generalised estimating equations model showed a significant time effect. Secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia was not associated with a reduction in postoperative sleep apnoea severity, which was worse on the third postoperative night. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02717780 and NCT02566226.

Ultrasound-guided caudal anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Although epidural anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia are currently the general choices for patients undergoing caesarean section, these two neuraxial anaesthesia methods still have drawbacks. Caudal anaesthesia has been considered to be more appropriate for gynaecological surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia and single-space epidural anaesthesia for caesarean section with respect to postoperative comfort and intraoperative anaesthesia quality. METHODS: In this clinical trial, 150 patients undergoing elective caesarean section were recruited and randomized into three groups according to a ratio of 1:1:1to receive epidural anaesthesia only, spinal anaesthesia only or epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia. The primary outcome was postoperative comfort in the three groups. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative anaesthesia quality and the incidences of nausea, vomiting, postdural puncture headache, maternal bradycardia, or hypotension. RESULTS: More patients were satisfied with the intraoperative anaesthesia quality in the EAC group than in the EA group (P = 0.001). The obstetrician was more significantly satisfied with the intraoperative anaesthesia quality in the SA and EAC groups than in the EA group (P = 0.004 and 0.020, respectively). The parturients felt more comfortable after surgery in the EA and EAC groups (P = 0.007). The incidence of maternal hypotension during caesarean section was higher in the SA group than in the EA and EAC groups (P = 0.001 and 0.019, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anaesthesia combined with caudal anaesthesia may be a better choice for elective caesarean section. Compared with epidural anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia, it has a higher quality of postoperative comfort and intraoperative anaesthesia.

Postoperative pain, recovery and discharge after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A multicentre, single blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General anaesthesia is standard of care for patients undergoing robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). However, postoperative pain and bladder discomfort remains an issue, and optimising pain management could improve recovery and promote earlier home discharge. The main objective of this trial was to evaluate if patients receiving spinal anaesthesia are more frequently home ready at 8 pm on the same day compared with multimodal pain management following RALP under general anaesthesia. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomised controlled, multicentre trial was performed between January 2019 to December 2021. Patients undergoing RALP under general anaesthesia were randomised to either multimodal analgesia using parecoxib and morphine intra-operatively (Group GM) or spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine and sufentanil (Group GS). The primary aim, home readiness, was assessed using a post-anaesthesia discharge scoring system. RESULTS: Of 202 patients analysed, 27% patients reached home readiness criteria after 12 h, 46% after 24 h and 79% after 48 h, without differences between the groups. Urge to pass urine was greater in group GM than in group GS (p ⟨0.001) and lasted for a median of two hours in both groups. More patients expressed satisfaction with postoperative care in group GS (p ⟨0.001). No other significant differences were found between the groups. DISCUSSION: We found no difference in time to home readiness between the groups. Approximately one-fourth of the patients achieved home readiness the same day after surgery without difference between the groups. Fewer patients had urge, and patient satisfaction was greater in group GS.

Training and assessment of skills in neuraxial access-Protocol of a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Access to the neuraxial space, including lumbar punctures and neuraxial anaesthesia, is an everyday procedure in clinical practice. Traditionally these procedures rely on manual palpation technique, but ultrasound is a useful tool when patients prove challenging. Presently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for technical skills acquisition, both with and without ultrasound, and likewise, competency assessment approaches vary globally. Accordingly, we aim to assess the current evidence regarding learning and assessment in neuraxial access ± $$ \pm $$ ultrasound, for future educational recommendations. METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, together with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. A systematic search strategy will be based on a PICO approach, focusing on physicians, medical students, or nurses being exposed to education, training, or assessment in procedural neuraxial access ± $$ \pm $$ ultrasound. No comparators are obligated, but outcomes should be assessable using the Kirkpatrick four levels of training evaluation. The search will be performed in Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and CINAHL. Independently, two authors will screen the studies and conflicts will be resolved by a third author. Relevant predefined data will be extracted and analysed using a descriptive approach. The quality of the studies will be assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will contribute by presenting gathered evidence of an overview of the different approaches to achieving education and training of technical skills in neuraxial access, and how skills are tested, which could guide research and future recommendations for skills development and assessment.

Efficacy and safety of intrathecal diamorphine: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal diamorphine is believed to provide postoperative analgesia but is associated with adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting. There is little evidence of synthesis regarding intrathecal diamorphine in the contemporary literature. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis with meta-regression and trial sequential analysis to determine the magnitude of intrathecal diamorphine efficacy and safety. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature for trials comparing intrathecal diamorphine with a control group in patients undergoing all types of surgery. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were intravenous morphine consumption and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 h following surgery, respectively. RESULTS: Twelve trials were identified, which included data for 712 patients. Intrathecal doses of diamorphine ranged from 100 µg to 2500 µg. Intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h postoperatively was significantly reduced in the intrathecal diamorphine group, with a mean difference (95%CI) of -8 mg (-11 to -6), I2 = 93%, p < 0.001. There was a significant difference between three intrathecal diamorphine dosing subgroups but without correlation: mean differences (95%CI) -1 mg (-3-0), -26 mg (-40 to -11) and -6 mg (-15-4) in patients receiving doses of 0-200 µg, 201-400 µg and > 400 µg, respectively (p = 0.003). Intrathecal diamorphine increased postoperative nausea and vomiting with a risk ratio (95%CI) of 1.37 (1.19-1.58), I2 = 7%, p < 0.001. There were no differences in postoperative nausea and vomiting between the three intrathecal diamorphine dosing subgroups. There was no correlation observed with meta-regression of the primary efficacy and safety outcomes. The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. CONCLUSION: There is very low level of evidence that intrathecal diamorphine provides effective analgesia after surgery, while increasing postoperative nausea and vomiting with doses > 200 µg.

Incidence and factors associated with failed spinal anaesthesia among patients undergoing surgery: a multi- center prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Failed spinal anaesthesia causes prolonging of operation time, insufficient analgesia for surgery and needs repeating spinal anaesthesia which in turn causes local anaesthesia toxicity, high spinal and total spinal, and conversion to general anaesthesia. However, the problem remains unexplored in Amhara regional state comprehensive specialized hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To determine incidence and factors associated with failed spinal anaesthesia among patients undergoing surgery in selected Amhara National Regional State comprehensive specialized hospitals, Northwest Ethiopia, 2023. METHODS: Multi-center prospective observational study was conducted. Data was collected using questionnaire and checklist. All consecutive scheduled emergency and elective patients were included in the study. Data was transformed from Epi data to SPSS and logistic regression analysis was done. Both crude and adjusted odds ratio were used to assess the strength of association. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 532 patients were included in this study with a response rate of 98%. Incidence of failed spinal anaesthesia was 22.4% (CI = 19-25.9). Emergency surgery (AOR = 7.01, CI = 4.5-12.7), dose of bupivacaine of ≤ 10 mg (AOR = 3.02, CI = 1.3-10.2), work experience of anaesthetist < 2 years (AOR = 3.1, CI = 1.7-5.72), bloody CSF (AOR = 8.5, CI = 2.53-18.5), hyperbaric local anaesthetic drug (AOR = 3.3, 95% CI = 3.2-8.2) and local anaesthetist without adjuvants (AOR = 5.25, CI = 2.62-14.2) were associated failed spinal anaesthesia. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: The incidence of failed spinal anaesthesia was high in Amhara Region comprehensive specialized hospitals. We suggest that anaesthesia providers should minimize failure by using adjuvants and appropriate dose of local anaesthetic. Additionally, simulation training should be given for anaesthesia trainees to improve their skills and to produce competent professionals.

Effect of anaesthesia on cemented hemiarthroplasty -A multicentre retrospective study (TRON study).

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to investigate the survival rate, postoperative complications, and walking ability in cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) for displaced femoral neck fractures according to the anaesthesia method. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of a multicentre group (the TRON group). Three hundred fifty-eight patients who underwent cemented HA between 2015 and 2019 were selected; 289 patients of ≥75 years of age with no missing data were included. Patient background factors were matched and patients were assigned to spinal anaesthesia (SA) and general anaesthesia (GA) groups. The primary outcome was death at any time during the follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and walking ability assessed using the Parker mobility score (PMS). Overall survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were compared using the log-rank test. The incidence of each complication and PMS were compared between the two groups using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Overall survival during follow-up was significantly higher in the SA group in comparison to the GA group (p = 0.037). In the SA and GA groups, the survival rate at 3 months postoperatively was 98.4% and 95.5%, respectively. The incidence of postoperative pneumonia was significantly higher in the GA (p = 0.012), and PMS at 3 months postoperatively was significantly higher in the SA group (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The survival rate of elderly patients who underwent cemented HA was better in the SA group. General anaesthesia in cemented HA may be associated with lower life expectancy, increased incidence of pneumonia, and decreased walking ability.

Agreement between three noninvasive temperature monitoring devices during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean delivery: a prospective observational study.

Hypothermia during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is a common and important problem, yet temperature monitoring is often not performed due to the lack of a suitable, cost-effective monitor. This study aimed to compare a noninvasive core temperature monitor with two readily available peripheral temperature monitors during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. We undertook a prospective observational study including elective and emergency caesarean deliveries, to determine the agreement between affordable reusable surface temperature monitors (Welch Allyn SureTemp® Plus oral thermometer and the Braun 3-in-1 No Touch infrared thermometer) and the Dräger T-core© (using dual-sensor heat flux technology), in detecting thermoregulatory changes during obstetric spinal anaesthesia. Predetermined clinically relevant limits of agreement (LOA) were set at ± 0.5 °C. We included 166 patients in our analysis. Hypothermia (heat flux temperature < 36 °C) occurred in 67% (95% CI 49 to 78%). There was poor agreement between devices. In the Bland-Altman analysis, LOA for the heat flux monitor vs. oral thermometer were 1.8 °C (CI 1.7 to 2.0 °C; bias 0.5 °C), for heat flux monitor vs. infrared thermometer LOA were 2.3 °C (CI 2.1 to 2.4 °C; bias 0.4 °C) and for infrared vs. oral thermometer, LOA were 2.0 °C (CI 1.9 to 2.2 °C; bias 0.1 °C). Error grid analysis highlighted a large amount of clinical disagreement between methods. While monitoring of core temperature during obstetric spinal anaesthesia is clinically important, agreement between monitors was below clinically acceptable limits. Future research with gold-standard temperature monitors and exploration of causes of sensor divergence is needed.

Enhancing postoperative recovery in total hip arthroplasty: the role of pericapsular nerve group and lateral cutaneous nerve block under spinal anaesthesia.

AIM OF THE STUDY: To compare the efficacy of spinal anaesthesia alone versus spinal anesthesia augmented with ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) block in improving perioperative analgesia and functional recovery in patients undergoing THA. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized clinical trial we included 66 patients scheduled for THA were divided into two groups: one receiving spinal anaesthesia alone (SA group; n = 32) and the other receiving spinal anaesthesia with regional analgesia blocks PENG + LFCN (SRAB group; n = 34). In the SRAB group, PENG followed by LFCN blocks were administered under ultrasound guidance before spinal anaesthesia. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the two groups in the onset of postoperative pain (p < 0.01) and the total amount of analgesics required in the first 36 postoperative hours (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The combined approach of spinal anaesthesia with PENG and LFCN blockade, enables opioid-free analgesia and may contribute to a safer and more comfortable postoperative experience for THA patients.

Prophylactic norepinephrine infusion to treat hypotension after spinal anaesthesia during caesarean section: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anaesthesia is a common anaesthetic method for caesarean sections but often results in hypotension, posing potential risks to maternal and neonatal health. Norepinephrine, as a vasopressor, may be effective in preventing and treating this hypotension. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic norepinephrine infusion for the treatment of hypotension following spinal anaesthesia in caesarean sections. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP databases for relevant studies on prophylactic administration of norepinephrine for the treatment of hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in caesarean delivery. Reference lists of included articles were also searched. The latest search update was on March 20, 2024. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software. The methods recommended by the Cochrane Handbook, Begge's and Egger's tests were used for risk of bias evaluation of the included literature. RESULTS: Nine studies were finally included in this study. The results showed that prophylactic administration of norepinephrine was superior to the control group in four aspects of treating hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in caesarean delivery: the incidence of hypotension was reduced [RR = 0.34, 95%CI (0.27-0.43), P < 0.01]; the incidence of severe hypotension was reduced [RR = 0.32, 95%CI (0.21-0.51), P < 0.01]; and maternal blood pressure was more stable with MDPE [MD = -5.00, 95%CI (-7.80--2.21), P = 0.06] and MDAPE [MD = 4.11, 95%CI (1.38-6.85), P < 0.05], the incidence of nausea and vomiting was reduced [RR = 0.52, 95%CI (0.35-0.77), P < 0.01]. On the other hand, the incidence of reactive hypertension was higher than the control group [RR = 3.58, 95%CI (1.94-6.58), P < 0.01]. There was no difference between the two groups in one aspects: newborn Apgar scores [MD = -0.01, 95%CI (-0.10-0.09, P = 0.85)]. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic administration of norepinephrine is effective in treating hypotension after spinal anaesthesia in caesarean delivery patients; however, it does not provide improved safety and carries a risk of inducing reactive hypertension.

Hypotension, or low blood pressure, after spinal anaesthesia can threaten the health of both mothers and their babies during caesarean sections. Norepinephrine is a drug that affects heart rate less and does not easily cross the placental barrier, which may reduce its potential negative effects on the baby. However, there are not many studies on using norepinephrine as a preventive measure. Our study systematically evaluated the use of prophylactic norepinephrine infusion to prevent hypotension in caesarean section patients. We found that it is effective in preventing low blood pressure but does not show improved safety and carries some risk of causing high pressure as a reaction.

Effect of general and spinal anaesthesia on post-operative wound healing during laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair: A meta-analysis.

Totally extraperitoneal prosthetic (TEP) is a surgical technique for the treatment of hernia. The purpose of this research is to compare the efficacy of both general anaesthesia and spine anaesthesia for TEP herniorrhaphy. The number of patients who received TEP operations related to the injury from 2008 to 2022 was counted in this study. Patients with TEP operation were classified into general anaesthesia and spine anaesthesia. In this research, 186 related articles were found in the data base, and in the end, 8 were analysed. This study involved 2452 cases of hernia. The data of the operation time, the infection of the wound and the bleeding of the wound were analysed. The analysis of the data was done with RevMan 5.3. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between general anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia in post-surgical rates for post-operative wound infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-1.83; p = 0.86); In general anaesthesia, there was no difference in the risk of post-operative wound haematoma when compared with those treated with spinal anaesthesia (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 0.37-23.69; p = 0.31). In the seven trials, there was no difference in the duration of the surgery between the general anaesthetic and the spinal anaesthesia group (mean difference, -1.44; 95% CI, -4.11 to 1.22; p = 0.29). Data from the available meta-analysis indicate that there is no difference in the risk of post-operative wound infection or wound haematoma when treated with TEP.

Impact of spinal Anaesthesia versus general Anaesthesia on the incidence of surgical site infections after knee or hip arthroplasty: A meta-analysis.

Postoperative Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) pose significant challenges to recovery after joint arthroplasty. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare the incidence of SSIs after knee or hip arthroplasty under Spinal Anaesthesia (SA) versus general anaesthesia (GA). We conducted the systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines, analysing data from 15 studies selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to May 16, 2023. The analysis included studies comparing SSIs incidence in patients aged 18 years and above who underwent knee or hip arthroplasty under SA or GA. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The effect size was calculated using random or fixed-effects models based on the observed heterogeneity. We assessed the heterogeneity between studies and conducted a sensitivity analysis. Of 1651 initially identified studies, 15 articles encompassing 353 169 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 156 405 patients were under SA, while 196 764 received GA. The studies demonstrated substantial heterogeneity (p = 0.007, I2 = 53.7%), resulting in a random-effects model being employed. Patients receiving SA showed a 23% lower likelihood of developing SSIs postoperatively compared to GA patients (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70-0.86, p < 0.001). Sub-group analysis further confirmed these findings regardless of the type of joint arthroplasty. This meta-analysis indicated a significantly lower incidence of SSIs following knee or hip arthroplasty under SA compared to GA. Despite observed heterogeneity, the results underscore the potential benefit of SA over GA in orthopaedic surgeries to reduce the risk of SSIs.

Comparison of Prophylactic Phenylephrine Infusion and Rescue Bolus Administration for Maintaining Blood Pressure During Spinal Anaesthesia for Caesarean Delivery in Obese Parturient: A Randomised Control Trial.

Background: Phenylephrine (PE) is one of the vasopressor used to treat hypotension during anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of prophylactic infusion and rescue bolus of PE on the haemodynamic changes during spinal anaesthesia (SA) for Caesarean section (CS) in obese parturients. Methods: A total of 74 obese parturients scheduled for elective CS under SA were randomised into two groups; Group A (n = 37) received prophylactic PE infusion starting at 50 µg min-1 and adjusted according to the given algorithm and Group B (n = 37) received 100 µg PE bolus to treat hypotension. The measured parameters were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), the total requirement of PE and neonatal Apgar score. Results: Six patients were excluded from the analysis due to missing data and only 68 were analysed. Group A showed significantly higher SBP, DBP and MAP than Group B (P < 0.05). The requirement of PE was higher in Group A than Group B [817.7 (265.7) µg versus 360.6 (156.0) µg; P = < 0.05]. Both groups had no difference in terms of the neonatal Apgar score. Conclusion: Prophylactic PE infusion provided better haemodynamic control than therapeutic boluses in obese parturients undergoing CS under SA.

Defining the role of thoracic spinal anaesthesia in the 21st century: a narrative review.

Since the performance of the first thoracic spinal anaesthetic in early 1908 many anaesthetists have gained interest in this unorthodox neuraxial anaesthetic technique. The main rationale justifying its use is to prevent complications related to general anaesthesia in high-risk patient populations. There is, however, significant debate regarding this practice around the world. The main concerns are fear of iatrogenic injury to the spinal cord, cephalad spread of local anaesthetic causing a complete spinal block, and haemodynamic instability owing to blockade of cardioaccelerator sympathetic fibres. The purpose of this narrative review is to appraise the literature critically regarding thoracic spinal anaesthesia, to synthesise the available information, and to provide a summary of evidence justifying its use in modern anaesthesia.

There is (probably) no (meaningful) difference in (most) outcomes between 'spinal' and 'general' anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: time to move forward.

A meta-analysis influenced by two recent large randomised controlled trials (REGAIN and RAGA) concluded that little, if any, difference in commonly measured outcomes exists between patients administered spinal or general anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. We explore whether there is genuinely no difference, or what the methodological problems in research might be that prevent any real difference from being observed. We also discuss the need for greater nuance in future research to determine how anaesthetists might deliver perioperative care towards improving postoperative recovery trajectories in patients following hip fracture.

Sensory block duration after spinal anaesthesia supplemented with intravenous dexamethasone: a randomised controlled double-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous dexamethasone prolongs duration of analgesia or sensory block after injection of local anaesthetics close to peripheral nerves by an average of 8 h. Uncertainty remains on the potential increase in the duration of sensory block after spinal anaesthesia. The objective of this randomised controlled double-blinded trial was to investigate whether dexamethasone i.v. prolongs the sensory block of spinal anaesthesia with bupivacaine when compared with a control group. METHODS: Of 50 patients undergoing lower limb osteoarticular surgery under spinal anaesthesia with isobaric bupivacaine 15 mg i.t. with morphine 100 µg i.t. were randomised to receive either dexamethasone 0.15 mg kg-1 i.v. or normal saline 3 ml i.v. The primary outcome was duration of sensory block defined as the time elapsed between injection of the local anaesthetic in the intrathecal space and the regression of sensory block by two dermatomes compared with the highest dermatome blocked. Secondary outcomes included intravenous morphine consumption, pain scores at rest and on movement, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and blood glucose at 2, 24, and 48 h. RESULTS: Median duration of sensory block was 135 (105-225) min in the dexamethasone group and 158 (135-240 min) in the control group (P=0.19). Patients in the dexamethasone group received less morphine at 24 h, had significantly less postoperative nausea and vomiting at 2 h and 24 h, and had increased blood glucose at 24 h. Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Intravenous dexamethasone did not prolong the sensory block of spinal anaesthesia with isobaric bupivacaine. However, it reduced morphine consumption and rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 h, at the expense of an increased blood glucose. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03527576 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Quality of recovery after pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia: a randomised controlled observer-blinded trial.

BACKGROUND: The pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block is a novel regional anaesthesia technique that has been proposed as an effective motor-sparing block for total hip arthroplasty. Recent randomised studies show conflicting results regarding the analgesic efficacy of the PENG block for total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a randomised controlled observer-blinded single-centre superiority trial comparing the efficacy of the PENG block with no block for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. All subjects received multimodal analgesia consisting of paracetamol and celecoxib. The primary outcome was quality of recovery (QoR) at 24 h as measured by the QoR-15 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 112 participants (56 in each group) were included in the analysis. The median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) 24-h QoR-15 scores were higher in subjects who received a PENG block (132 [116-138]) compared with subjects who did not (103 [97-112]) with a median difference of 26 (95% confidence interval, 18-31; P<0.001). Similarly, QoR-15 at 48 h was higher in the PENG group, and opioid use at 24 and 48 h postoperatively was significantly lower in the PENG group. However, we did not find significant differences in pain score, distance to ambulation, or anti-emetic use at any time point. We did not observe any PENG block-related complications. CONCLUSION: Adding a PENG block to a multimodal analgesia regimen that includes paracetamol and celecoxib improves the quality of recovery and reduces opioid requirements for patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty under spinal anaesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04591353.

Incidence of conversion to general anaesthesia and need for intravenous supplementation in parturients undergoing caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Conversion from spinal anaesthesia to general anaesthesia (GA) was shown to be associated with more complications. It has been postulated that spinal injection of a low dose of local anaesthetic is a risk factor. We aimed to discover the rate of conversion from spinal anaesthesia to GA in women who received at least 10 mg heavy bupivacaine and opioids and assess its risk factors. METHODS: All women that underwent spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2020 were included in this analysis. Spinal anaesthesia was performed according to department protocol using heavy bupivacaine 0.5% 10-13 mg, fentanyl 20 µg, and morphine 0.1 mg. We examined rate of conversion from spinal anaesthesia to GA and rate of need for analgesia/sedation. RESULTS: There were 1.7% of women that required conversion to GA. Bupivacaine dose (OR 0.54 [95% CI 0.38 to 0.75], p < 0.001), surgery time (OR 1.03 [95% CI 1.02 to 1.04], p < 0.001), emergency caesarean section (OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.16 to 3.76], p = 0.015), and postpartum haemorrhage (OR 5.96 [95% CI 1.09 to 25.18], p = 0.025) were independent predictors of need for conversion to GA. Of the women who had CS under spinal anaesthesia, 4.1% of parturients required intraoperative analgesics/sedatives and 9.1% required anxiolysis. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of women required conversion to GA. This conversion occurred especially with emergency caesarean section and when low spinal bupivacaine doses were used.