Administration of Low-dose Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for Spinal Anesthesia in the Setting of Outpatient Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: With the rise of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), rapid motor and sensory recovery after anesthesia is crucial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of low-dose single-shot hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia (SA) for patients undergoing outpatient arthroplasty. METHODS: Data were reviewed from a single ASC from 2018 to 2020 for two arthroplasty-trained surgeons for all patients with primary arthroplasties that had administration of low-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine. Data collected from the ASC records were then further evaluated for total spinal block time, length of blockade, time to discharge criteria, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-seven patients undergoing 244 primary arthroplasties received SA with low-dose hyperbaric bupivacaine. The volume of 0.75% bupivacaine varied: 115 patients received 0.8 mL (6 mg), 111 patients received 1.0 mL (7.5 mg), and 17 patients received 1.2 mL (9 mg). Total SA time averaged 144 minutes with a mean of 30 minutes from post anesthesia care unit arrival to motor recovery. The mean time from post anesthesia care unit arrival to discharge criteria was 89 minutes. The average VAS at discharge was 1.44; the average VAS on POD1 was 3.0. No episodes of urinary retention and no reports of transient neurologic symptoms were noted in the study population. CONCLUSION: Low-dose, single-shot hyperbaric bupivacaine SA is an effective option in the ASC for arthroplasty, providing a fast return of motor function, facilitating rapid discharge, and is safe with a relatively low-risk profile.

Hyperbaric bupivacaine versus prilocaine for spinal anesthesia combined with total intravenous anesthesia during oncological colon surgery in a 23-hour stay enhanced recovery protocol: A non-randomized study.

After the success of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, perioperative care has been further optimized in accelerated enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs), where optimal pain management is crucial. Spinal anesthesia was introduced as adjunct to general anesthesia to reduce postoperative pain and facilitate mobility. This study aimed to determine which spinal anesthetic agent provides best pain relief in accelerated ERP for colon carcinoma. This single center study was a secondary analysis conducted among patients included in the aCcelerated 23-Hour erAS care for colon surgEry study who underwent elective laparoscopic colon surgery. The first 30 patients included received total intravenous anesthesia combined with spinal anesthesia with prilocaine, the 30 patients subsequently included received spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine. Primary endpoint of this study was the total amount of morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered during hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were amounts of MMEs administered in the recovery room and surgical ward, pain score using the numeric rating scale, complication rates and length of hospital stay. Compared to prilocaine, the total amount of MMEs administered was significantly lower in the bupivacaine group (n = 60, 16.3 vs 6.3, P = .049). Also, the amount of MMEs administered and median pain scores were significantly lower after intrathecal bupivacaine in the recovery room (MMEs 11.0 vs 0.0, P = .012 and numeric rating scale 2.0 vs 1.5, P = .004). On the surgical ward, median MMEs administered, and pain scores were comparable. Postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups. Spinal anesthesia with hyperbaric bupivacaine was associated with less opioid use and better pain reduction immediately after surgery compared to prilocaine within an accelerated ERP for elective, oncological colon surgery.

My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

Ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block to position the patient for neuraxial anaesthesia in acetabular surgery - a randomized controlled pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Neuraxial anaesthesia is a common choice for most hip and lower limb operations. Pain associated with positioning is often a deterrent, and the vast literature suggests different regional blocks and opioids for these patients. Patients with acetabular fractures may experience increased pain, and thus are more difficult to position for the neuraxial block. We conducted a randomized controlled pilot study to assess and compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided suprainguinal fascia iliaca block (SFICB) versus systemic fentanyl to facilitate positioning for combined spinal epidural (CSE) anaesthesia in patients undergoing acetabular fracture surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients referred for surgical repair of acetabular fractures were randomly assigned to receive either ultrasound-guided SFICB (group B) or intravenous fentanyl (group F). Changes in visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in supine and sitting position, improvement in sitting angle (SA), positioning quality, rescue analgesic requirement, total opioid consumption, comfort VAS scores, and complications were noted to compare both groups. RESULTS: The post-intervention VAS score in the sitting position was significantly lower in group B than in group F (5.9 ± 2.1 vs. 3.5 ± 1.5, P = 0.01). Group B also had more significant improvement in SA (27.5° (20.75-36.5°), in comparison to group F (10 (5-18.75), P = 0.006). The positioning quality was better in group B, with 70% of patients achieving an optimal position compared to only 10% in group F ( P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided SFICB, as compared to systemic fentanyl, provided better analgesia and helped to achieve a better and more comfortable position to perform the neuraxial block.

Evaluation of neuraxial analgesia on outcomes for patients undergoing robot assisted abdominal surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Following robot assisted abdominal surgery, the pain can be moderate in severity. Neuraxial analgesia may decrease the activity of the detrusor muscle, reduce the incidence of bladder spasm and provide effective somatic and visceral analgesia. In this systematic review, we assessed the role of neuraxial analgesia in robot assisted abdominal surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTINGS: Robot assisted abdominal surgery. PATIENTS: Adults. INTERVENTIONS: Subsequent to a search of the electronic databases, observational studies and randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of neuraxial analgesia instituted at induction of anesthesia or intraoperatively in adult and robot assisted abdominal surgery were considered for inclusion. The outcomes of observational studies as well as randomized controlled trials which were not subjected to meta-analysis were presented in descriptive terms. Meta-analysis was conducted if an outcome of interest was reported by two or more randomized controlled trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 and 11 studies that investigated spinal and epidural analgesia in adults, respectively. The coprimary outcomes were the pain score at rest at 24 h and the cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h. Spinal analgesia with long acting neuraxial opioid did not decrease the pain score at rest at 24 h although it reduced the cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h by a mean difference (95%CI) of 14.88 mg (-22.13--7.63; p < 0.0001, I2 = 50%) with a low and moderate quality of evidence, respectively, on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Spinal analgesia with long acting neuraxial opioid had a beneficial effect on analgesic indices till the second postoperative day and a positive influence on opioid consumption up to and including the 72 h time point. The majority of studies demonstrated the use of spinal analgesia with long acting neuraxial opioid to lead to no difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and the occurrence of pruritus was found to be increased with spinal analgesia with long acting neuraxial opioid in recovery but not at later time points. No difference was revealed in the incidence of urinary retention. The evidence in regard to the quality of recovery-15 score at 24 h and hospital length of stay was not fully consistent, although most studies indicated no difference between spinal analgesia and control for these outcomes. Epidural analgesia in robot assisted abdominal surgery was shown to decrease the pain on movement at 12 h but it had not been studied with respect to its influence on the pain score at rest at 24 h or the cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24 h. It did not reduce the pain on movement at later time points and the evidence related to the hospital length of stay was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal analgesia with long acting neuraxial opioid had a favourable effect on analgesic indices and opioid consumption, and is recommended by the authors, but the evidence for spinal analgesia with short acting neuraxial opioid and epidural analgesia was limited.

Comparative analysis of combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective study on surgical team and operating room personnel satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the efficacy and complications of combined spinalepidural anesthesia and general anesthesia in percutaneous stone surgery prospectively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study prospectively included patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy with general anesthesia (Group.1) or combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (Group.2) at the Department of Urology, Training and Research Hospital, Karabuk University. between December 2018 and December 2019. The effect of the anesthesia technique on the comfort and satisfaction of the operating room personnel, surgeon and anesthesia team were prospectively evaluated and recorded. RESULTS: During the postoperative period, the spinal anesthesia group had a significantly lower visual analog score than the general anesthesia group. No patient in either group required narcotic analgesics during the postoperative period. In terms of overall satisfaction scores, the surgeon performing the surgical procedure had a significantly higher satisfaction score in the general anesthesia group than in the CSEA group. The score was considered good in the general anesthesia group and moderate in the CSEA group. Personnel satisfaction was higher in the patient group that underwent CSEA. In the general anesthesia group, the score was considered to be average. In the CSEA group, the satisfaction score was considered good, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). The anesthesia team's satisfaction score was moderate, with no significant difference between the CSEA and general anesthesia groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PCNL under CSEA can be performed safely in certain individuals. Different anesthetic techniques may have varied levels of satisfaction among the surgical team.

Comparing quality of recovery and satisfaction between spinal anesthesia and nerve block in orthopedic below-knee surgery: A prospective controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) and patient satisfaction have gained increasing significance in medical services. This study aimed to compare these 2 parameters between 2 types of regional anesthetics (spinal anesthesia and combined sciatic-femoral nerve block) in orthopedic lower knee surgery. METHODS: A total of 101 patients were classified into 2 groups (combined sciatic-femoral nerve block, group N; spinal anesthesia, group S) according to patient preference. In group N, sciatic and femoral nerve blocks were performed on the popliteal and groin regions, respectively, under ultrasound guidance. Spinal anesthesia was performed in group S. The primary outcomes were QoR and patient satisfaction. QoR was measured using the Korean translation of the QoR-15K. Patient satisfaction was assessed using an 11-point Likert scale (0-10) and a dichotomous question addressing anesthesia preferences for future surgeries. RESULTS: The physical independence of the postoperative QoR-15K was significantly higher in group N than in group S (14.2 vs 12.0, P = .04). On the 11-point Likert scale, group N scored 8.8, and group S scored 7.8 (P = .001). In the dichotomous question, 93.8% of the group N and 52.8% of the group S answered that they would like to choose the same anesthesia method for the next surgery (P < .001). In addition, fewer participants in group N complained of backache than those in group S, and the time to first urination after anesthesia was shorter in group N than in group S (P = .004, <.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Combined sciatic-femoral nerve block may provide better physical independence and satisfaction than spinal anesthesia in orthopedic below-knee surgeries.

Bupivacaine-fentanyl isobaric spinal anesthesia reduces the risk of ICU admission in elderly patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate if bupivacaine-fentanyl isobaric spinal anesthesia could reduce the risk of ICU admission compared with general anesthesia in elderly patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery. METHODS: This study comprised a retrospective review of all lower limb orthopedic surgeries performed at our hospital between January 2013 and December 2019. According to anesthesia methods, patients were divided into the spinal anesthesia group (n = 1,728) and the general anesthesia group (n = 188). The primary outcome evaluated was the occurrence of ICU admission. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic changes, postoperative complications, and mortality. RESULTS: Repeated measure analysis of variance indicated that the difference between the two groups in the systolic blood pressure (SBP) was not significant before anesthesia (T0), immediately after anesthesia (T1), and before leaving the operation room (T8) (P > 0.05), but significant (P < 0.01) from 5 min after anesthesia (T2) to after operation (T7). The proportions of ICU admission (6.4% vs. 23.8%, P < 0.01) and unplanned intubation (0.1% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.01) were significantly lower in the spinal anesthesia group compared with those in the general anesthesia group. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that after controlling for potential confounding factors, the odds of ICU admission for patients in the spinal anesthesia group was 0.240 times (95% CI 0.115-0.498; P < 0.01) than those in the general anesthesia group. CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine-fentanyl isobaric spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the risk of ICU admission and unplanned intubation, and provided better intraoperative hemodynamics in elderly patients undergoing lower limb orthopedic surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000033411).

Combined segmental spinal epidural for major spine surgery: a case report.

A woman in her mid-50s, hesitant about general anaesthesia due to a difficult airway, opted for neuraxial anaesthesia for L4 laminectomy with pedicle screw fixation (L3-L5). Preoperatively, she received 150 µg buprenorphine and 1 mg midazolam. In lateral position, a T8-T9 epidural catheter was placed, followed by segmental spinal anaesthesia (2.5 mL 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine+30 µg clonidine) at T10-T11. Prone positioning was executed using standard techniques. During the 6-7 hours surgery, three 7 mL epidural top-ups (2% lignocaine epinephrine) were administered at 90 min intervals. Haemodynamics remained stable with 2.5 L crystalloids, 350 mL packed red cells and three ephedrine doses (6 mg each). Sedation included 150 µg buprenorphine and two 1 mg midazolam doses. Postoperatively, she received epidural 0.25% bupivacaine for 2 days, systemic analgesics and was discharged on the sixth day.

Spinal Anesthesia Reduces Perioperative Polypharmacy and Opioid Burden in Patients Over 65 Who Undergo Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and opioid administration are thought to increase the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and delirium in elderly patients. Spinal anesthesia (SA) holds potential to reduce perioperative polypharmacy in spine surgery. As more geriatric patients undergo spine surgery, understanding how SA can reduce polypharmacy and opioid administration is warranted. We aim to compare the perioperative polypharmacy and dose of administered opioids in patients ≥65 years who undergo transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) under SA versus general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 200 patients receiving a single-surgeon TLIF procedure at a single academic center (2014-2021) was performed. Patients underwent the procedure with SA (n = 120) or GA (n = 80). Demographic, procedural, and medication data were extracted from the medical record. Opioid consumption was quantified as morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Statistical analyses included χ2 or Student's t-test. RESULTS: Patients receiving SA were administered 7.45 medications on average versus 12.7 for GA patients (P < 0.001). Average perioperative opioid consumption was 5.17 MME and 20.2 MME in SA and GA patients, respectively (P < 0.001). The number of patients receiving antiemetics and opioids remained comparable postoperatively, with a mean of 32.2 MME in the GA group versus 27.5 MME in the SA group (P = 0.14). Antiemetics were administered less often as a prophylactic in the SA group (32%) versus 86% in the GA group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SA reduces perioperative polypharmacy in patients ≥65 years undergoing TLIF procedures. Further research is necessary to determine if this reduction correlates to a decrease the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and delirium.

Principles for management of hip fracture for older adults taking direct oral anticoagulants: an international consensus statement.

Hip fracture is a common serious injury among older adults, yet the management of hip fractures for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants remains inconsistent worldwide. Drawing from a synthesis of available evidence and expert opinion, best practice approaches for managing patients with a hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants pre-operatively were considered by a working group of the Fragility Fracture Network Hip Fracture Audit Special Interest Group. The literature and related clinical guidelines were reviewed and a two-round modified Delphi study was conducted with a panel of experts from 16 countries and involved seven clinical specialities. Four consensus statements were achieved: peripheral nerve blocks can reasonably be performed on presentation for patients with hip fracture who are receiving direct oral anticoagulants; hip fracture surgery can reasonably be performed for patients taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose; general anaesthesia could reasonably be administered for patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants < 36 h from last dose (assuming eGFR > 60 ml.min-1.1.73 m-2); and it is generally reasonable to consider recommencing direct oral anticoagulants (considering blood loss and haemoglobin) < 48 h after hip fracture surgery. No consensus was achieved regarding timing of spinal anaesthesia. The consensus statements were developed to aid clinicians in their decision-making and to reduce practice variations in the management of patients with hip fracture and who are taking direct oral anticoagulants. Each statement will need to be considered specific to each individual patient's treatment.

Failed spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: prevention, identification and management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is an increasing awareness of the significance of intraoperative pain during cesarean delivery. Failure of spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery can occur preoperatively or intraoperatively. Testing of the neuraxial block can identify preoperative failure. Recognition of the risk of high neuraxial block in repeat spinal in case of preoperative failure is important. RECENT FINDING: Knowledge of risk factors for block failure facilitates prevention by selecting the most appropriate neuraxial procedure, adequate intrathecal doses and choice of technique. Intraoperative pain is not uncommon, and neither obstetricians nor anesthesiologists can adequately identify intraoperative pain. Early intraoperative pain should be treated differently from pain towards the end of surgery. SUMMARY: Block testing is crucial to identify preoperative failure of spinal anesthesia. Repeat neuraxial is possible but care must be taken with dosing. In this situation, switching to a combined spinal epidural or an epidural technique can be useful. Intraoperative pain must be acknowledged and adequately treated, including offering general anesthesia. Preoperative informed consent should include block failure and its management.

Oral midodrine for prophylaxis against post-spinal anesthesia hypotension during hip arthroplasty in elderly population: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of midodrine as a prophylaxis against post-spinal hypotension in elderly patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included elderly patients undergoing hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia. Ninety minutes before the procedure, patients were randomized to receive either 5-mg midodrine or placebo (metoclopramide). After spinal anesthesia, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate were monitored every 2 min for 20 min then every 5 min until the end of the procedure. Post-spinal hypotension (MAP < 80% baseline) was treated with 10 mg ephedrine. The primary outcome was intraoperative ephedrine consumption. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-spinal hypotension, bradycardia, and hypertension (MAP increased by > 20% of the baseline reading). RESULTS: We analyzed 29 patients in the midodrine group and 27 in the control group. The intraoperative ephedrine consumption was lower in the midodrine group than in the control group (median [quartiles]: 10 [0, 30] mg versus 30 [20, 43] mg, respectively, P-value: 0.002); and the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was lower in the midodrine group than that in the control group. The incidence of hypertension and bradycardia were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The use of 5 mg oral midodrine decreased the vasopressor requirements and incidence of hypotension after spinal anesthesia for hip surgery in elderly patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on September 22, 2022 at clinicaltrials.gov registry, NCT05548985, URL: https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT05548985 .

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.

Findings from the Use of Spinal Anesthesia in the Laparoscopic Treatment of Extrauterine Pregnancy: Could It Represent an Alternative to General Anesthesia?

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive procedures performed in laparoscopy, such as salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy, can be combined with a minimally invasive anesthesia. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for ectopic pregnancy under spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA) from the point of view of the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and patient. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed at DAI Materno Infantile of AOU Federico II of Naples, analyzing all medical records of women who met the inclusion criteria between April 2020 and April 2023. Eighty-two women (35 under SA in group A and 47 under GA in group B) undergone elective or emergency laparoscopic salpingectomy for ectopic tubal or ovarian pregnancy were included. RESULTS: Patients in group A reported less pain at 0 h (adjusted mean difference: -1.5; 95% CI: -2.3 to -0.7; p < 0.001) and after 6 h (adjusted mean difference: -1.1; 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.3; p = 0.01) while no statistically significant differences between the two groups at 12 and 24 h after surgery. No differences were observed among the type of analgesic and during the postoperative observation time, except for paracetamol at 0 h in group B. A faster resumption of bowel motility, patient's mobilization, and a shorter hospital stay were observed in group A compared to group B. Also greater odds of returning faster to daily activities emerged in group A (adjusted OR: 5.39; 95% CI: 1.77-16.37). A greater number of patients in group A were satisfied with the entire procedure compared to those of group B (33 [94.3%] vs. 37 [78.7%]). The general surgeon satisfaction was always very good or excellent in group A. Finally, all surgical steps were well tolerated in group A. CONCLUSION: In specific settings, SA is a feasible and safe procedure for the laparoscopic treatment of ectopic pregnancy.

Does spinal anesthesia for total hip or knee arthroplasty entail longer operating room occupancy compared to general anesthesia? Case-control study of 337 spinal versus 243 general anesthesias.

BACKGROUND: Treatment protocols, including anesthesia, are constantly progressing to improve rapid early postoperative recovery in lower-limb arthroplasty. To the best of our knowledge, however, no studies compared general versus spinal anesthesia (GA vs. SA) in the surgical pathway of patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA, THA). Better knowledge of the processes should improve efficacy in theater and optimize surgical planning. The present study comparing GA and SA in the operating room aimed to assess (1) theater occupancy times, and (2) times for each step in a surgery day according to type of anesthesia. HYPOTHESIS: SA leads to longer theater occupancy than GA in TKA and THA. METHODS: A single-center retrospective case-control study analyzed data for the period January 2019 to December 2020 in 303 TKAs (100 GA, 203 SA) and 277 THAs (143 GA, 134 SA), comparing times for all perioperative steps and particularly theater occupancy. RESULTS: In TKA, occupancy did not differ between GA and SA: 98±16min versus 98±14min respectively; Δ=0min (p=0.78). In THA, occupancy was shorter with SA than GA: 117±23min versus 123±26min respectively; Δ=-6min (p=0.02). In THA, time to perform SA was longer than induction of GA: 28±13min versus 23±12min respectively; Δ=+5min (p<0.001). In TKA, time to leaving the operating room was shorter with SA than GA: 8±5min versus 14±7min respectively; Δ=-6min (p<0.001). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: SA did not involve longer mean theater occupancy than GA for TKA, and reduced it by 6minutes for THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case-control study.

Spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia (SAGA) on recovery after hip and knee arthroplasty: A study protocol for three randomized, single-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trials.

Mobilisation difficulties, due to muscle weakness, and urinary retention are common reasons for prolonged admission following hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. Whether spinal anaesthesia is detrimental to early mobilisation is controversial. Previous studies have reported differences in post-operative recovery between spinal anaesthesia and general anaesthesia; however, up-to-date comparisons in fast-track setups are needed. Our randomized, single-blinded, multi-centre, clinical trials aim to compare the post-operative recovery after total hip (THA), total knee (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA) respectively when using either spinal anaesthesia (SA) or general anaesthesia (GA) in a fast-track setup. Included patients (74 THA, 74 TKA, and 74 UKA patients) are randomized (1:1) to receive either SA (2 mL 0.5% Bupivacaine) or GA (Induction: Propofol 1.0-2.0 mg/kg iv with Remifentanil 3-5 mcg/kg iv. Infusion: Propofol 3-5 mg/kg/h and Remifentanil 0.5 mcg/kg/min iv). Patients undergo standard primary unilateral hip and knee arthroplasty procedures in an optimized fast-track setup with intraoperative local infiltrative analgesia in TKA and UKA, post-operative multimodal opioid sparing analgesia, immediate mobilisation with full weightbearing, no drains and in-hospital only thromboprophylaxis. Data will be collected on the day of surgery and until patients are discharged. The primary outcome is the ability to be safely mobilised during a 5-m walking test within 6 h of surgery. Secondary outcomes include fulfilment of discharge criteria, post-operative pain, dizziness, and nausea as well as patient reported recovery and opioid related side effects. Data will also be gathered on all hospital contacts within 30-days of surgery. This study will offer insights into advantages and disadvantages of anaesthetic methods used in fast-track arthroplasty surgery.

The Effect of Warmed Serum on Shivering and Recovery Period of Patients Under General and Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Postoperative hypothermia followed by shivering is a common phenomenon in patients undergoing surgery under anesthesia, and should be prevented and treated in postoperative patient care units. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of warmed serum injection on postoperative shivering and recovery period of patients operated under general and spinal anesthesia. DESIGN: In this clinical trial, patients to be operated on under general and spinal anesthesia were randomly assigned into two groups of test and control. In the test group, patients received warmed intravenous fluids and blood products. All patients were monitored to record vital signs, incidences of hypothermia and shivering, and recovery period. METHODS: The collected data were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance to detect significant differences between groups and significant changes within groups over time. FINDINGS: The incidence of nausea, vomiting, and shivering in the intervention and control groups was (4.7%, 42%), (2.8%, 16.8%), and (6.6%, 43%), respectively. Patients in the intervention group had higher body temperature than the control group (<0.001). Also, patients under spinal anesthesia had higher body temperature than patients under general anesthesia (<0.001). Blood pressure reduction was also significantly higher in the control group than in the intervention group. The patients who received warm intravenous serum, and especially those who had received spinal anesthesia spent less time in the recovery room (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of warmed intravenous serum increased the patients' core temperature, reduced their postoperative shivering, and shortened their recovery period. Considering the potential risks associated with hypothermia, using such methods for hypothermia prevention can be highly effective in preventing shivering and prolongation of the recovery period and other potential complications. Anesthesia specialists and technicians are therefore encouraged to use this method as a preventive measure.

Paramedian versus midline approach of spinal anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: Midline approach of spinal anesthesia has been widely used for patients undergoing surgical procedures. However, it might not be effective for obstetric patients and elderly with degenerative spine changes. Primary objective was to examine the success rate at the first attempt between the paramedian and midline spinal anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery. METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their starting date until February 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the paramedian versus midline approach of spinal anesthesia were included. The primary outcome was the success rate at the first attempt of spinal anesthesia. RESULTS: Our review included 36 RCTs (n = 5379). Compared to the midline approach, paramedian approach may increase success rate at the first attempt but the evidence is very uncertain (OR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.82, ρ = 0.007, level of evidence:very low). Our pooled data indicates that the paramedian approach likely reduced incidence of post-spinal headache (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.51-2.84, ρ < 0.00001, level of evidence:moderate). The evidence suggests that the paramedian approach may result in a reduction in the occurrence of paresthesia (OR: 1.61, 95% CI 1.06-2.45, ρ = 0.03, level of evidence:low). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis of 36 RCTs showed that paramedian approach may result in little to no difference in success rate at the first attempt owing to its very low level of evidence. However, given the low level of evidence and studies with small sample sizes, these findings need to be interpreted with caveat. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023397781.

Anesthetic Methods for Hip Fracture.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the benefits, risks, and contraindications of traditional and new anesthesia approaches for hip fracture surgery and describe what is known about the impact of these approaches on postoperative outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: This review describes general and spinal anesthesia, peripheral nerve block techniques used for pain management, and novel, local anesthesia approaches which may provide significant benefit compared with traditional approaches by minimizing high-risk induction time and decreasing respiratory suppression and short- and long-term cognitive effects. Hip fracture surgery places a large physiologic stress on an already frail patient, and anesthesia choice plays an important role in managing risk of perioperative morbidity. New local anesthesia techniques may decrease morbidity and mortality, particularly in higher-risk patients.