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.

Improved outcomes for spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a retrospective cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus in the literature as to whether anesthetic modality influences perioperative complications in hip fracture surgery. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP). METHODS: We used the ACS NSQIP to identify patients aged 50 and older who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019. Propensity-score matching was performed to control for clinically relevant covariates. The primary outcome of interest was the combined incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay and operative time. RESULTS: Among the 40 527 patients aged 50 and over who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019, 7358 spinal anesthesia cases were matched to general anesthesia cases. General anesthesia was associated with a higher incidence of combined 30-day stroke, MI or death compared with spinal anesthesia (OR 1.219 (95% CI 1.076 to 1.381); p=0.002). General anesthesia was also associated with a higher frequency of 30-day mortality (OR 1.276 (95% CI 1.099 to 1.481); p=0.001) and longer operative time (64.73 vs 60.28 min; p<0.001). Spinal anesthesia had a longer average hospital length of stay (6.29 vs 5.73 days; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Our propensity-matched analysis suggests that spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Efficacy of parasternal peripheral nerve catheters versus no block for median sternotomy: a single-centre retrospective study.

Background: Sternal pain after cardiac surgery results in considerable discomfort. Single-injection parasternal fascial plane blocks have been shown to reduce pain scores and opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery, but the efficacy of continuous infusion has not been evaluated. This retrospective cohort study examined the effect of a continuous infusion of local anaesthetic through parasternal catheters on the integrated Pain Intensity and Opioid Consumption (PIOC) score up to 72 h. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with median sternotomy at a single academic centre before and after the addition of parasternal nerve catheters to a standard multimodal analgesic protocol. Outcomes included PIOC score, total opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents, and time-weighted area under the curve pain scores up to 72 h after surgery. Results: Continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% through parasternal catheters resulted in a significant reduction in PIOC scores at 24 h (-62, 95% confidence interval -108 to -16; P<0.01) and 48 h (-50, 95% CI -97 to -2.2; P=0.04) compared with no block. A significant reduction in opioid consumption up to 72 h was the primary factor in reduction of PIOC. Conclusions: This study suggests that continuous infusion of local anaesthetic through parasternal catheters may be a useful addition to a multimodal analgesic protocol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with sternotomy. Further prospective study is warranted to determine the full benefits of continuous infusion compared with single injection or no block.

Dose-response relationship between local anesthetic volume and hemidiaphragmatic paresis following ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus blockade.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding what volume of local anesthetic should be used to achieve successful supraclavicular block while minimizing hemidiaphragmatic paresis (HDP). This study investigated the dose-response relationship between local anesthetic volume and HDP after ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block. METHODS: A dose escalation design was used to define the dose response curve for local anesthetic volume and incidence of HDP in subjects undergoing upper extremity surgery with supraclavicular block as the primary anesthetic. Dosing levels of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 mL of local anesthetic were administered in cohorts of three subjects per dose. Diaphragm function was assessed with M-mode ultrasound before and after block. Secondary objectives included assessment of negative inspiratory force (NIF), oxygen saturation, subjective dyspnea and extent of sensory and motor blockade. RESULTS: Twenty-one subjects completed the study. HDP was present at all doses, with an incidence of 33% at 5 mL to 100% at 30-35 mL. There was a significant decrease in NIF (7.5 cmH2O, IQR (22,0); p=0.01) and oxygen saturation on room air (1%, IQR (2,0); p=0.01) 30 min postblock in subjects experiencing HDP but not in those without HDP. There was no increase in dyspnea in subjects with or without HDP. No subject required respiratory intervention. Motor and sensory block improved with increasing dose, and subjects with HDP exhibited denser blocks than those without (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There is no clinically relevant volume of local anesthetic at which HDP can be avoided when performing a supraclavicular block. In our subject population free of respiratory disease, HDP was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03138577.

Comparison of the transarterial axillary block and the ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block for upper extremity surgery: a prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The transarterial axillary block and the ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block are both effective methods of anesthetizing the upper extremity. This study compares these methods with respect to subjective postoperative dysesthesias, block adequacy, patient comfort, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two patients were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block or a transarterial axillary block for upper extremity surgery. Block placement, motor and sensory testing, and block adequacy data were recorded. The subjects were contacted by a blinded research assistant at 2 and 10 days postoperatively to assess for the presence of dysesthesias and pain and to assess patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The 2 techniques were similar with respect to block performance time and adequacy of the block for surgery. There was no significant difference between the blocks in terms of postoperative dysesthesias (23.9% in the axillary group vs 17.1% in the infraclavicular group at 2 days, P = 0.216, and 11.0% vs 6.31% at 10 days, P = 0.214). None of the dysesthesias were permanent. The infraclavicular block had a lower incidence of paresthesias during placement (P = 0.035) and was associated with less pain at the block site (P = 0.010 at 2 days, P = 0.002 at 10 days). More patients were willing to undergo the infraclavicular block as a future anesthetic when compared with the axillary block (P = 0.025 at 10 days). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference between the 2 techniques in terms of adequacy for surgery and subjective postoperative dysesthesias. The ultrasound-guided infraclavicular block is associated with greater patient comfort and willingness to undergo the same anesthetic when compared with the transarterial axillary block.