Spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery: current controversies and concerns.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: General anesthesia is a popular choice for ambulatory surgery. Spinal anesthesia is often avoided because of perceived delays due to time required to administer it and prolonged onset, as well as concerns of delayed offset, which may delay recovery and discharge home. However, the reports of improved outcomes in hospitalized patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty have renewed the interest in spinal anesthesia. This review article critically assesses the role of spinal anesthesia in comparison with fast-track general anesthesia for the outpatient setting. RECENT FINDINGS: The purported benefits of spinal anesthesia include avoidance of airway manipulation and the adverse effects of drugs used to provide general anesthesia, improved postoperative pain, and reduced postoperative opioid requirements. Improved postoperative outcomes after spinal anesthesia in hospitalized patients may not apply to the outpatient population that tends to be relatively healthier. Also, it is unclear if spinal anesthesia is superior to fast-track general anesthesia techniques, which includes avoidance of benzodiazepine premedication, avoidance of deep anesthesia, use of an opioid-sparing approach, and minimization of neuromuscular blocking agents with appropriate reversal of residual paralysis. SUMMARY: The benefits of spinal anesthesia in the outpatient setting remain questionable at best. Further studies should seek clarification of these goals and outcomes.

Factors Determining the Choice of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery: Results of a Multicenter Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available short-acting intrathecal anesthetic agents (chloroprocaine and prilocaine) offer an alternative to general anesthesia for short-duration surgical procedures, especially ambulatory surgeries. Factors determining the choice of anesthesia for short-duration procedures have not been previously identified. METHODS: This observational, prospective, multicenter, cohort study was conducted between July 2015 and July 2016, in 33 private or public hospitals performing ambulatory surgery. The primary objective was to determine the factors influencing the choice of anesthetic technique (spinal or general anesthesia). Secondary outcomes included efficacy of the anesthesia, time to hospital discharge, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Among 592 patients enrolled, 309 received spinal anesthesia and 283 underwent general anesthesia. In both study arms, the most frequently performed surgical procedures were orthopedic and urologic (43.3% and 30.7%, respectively); 66.1% of patients were free to choose their type of anesthesia, 21.8% chose one of the techniques because they were afraid of the other, 16.8% based their choice on the expected ease of recovery, 19.2% considered their degree of anxiety/stress, and 16.9% chose the technique on the basis of its efficacy. The median times to micturition and to unassisted ambulation were significantly shorter in the general anesthesia arm compared with the spinal anesthesia arm (225.5 [98; 560] min vs. 259.0 [109; 789] min; p = 0.0011 and 215.0 [30; 545] min vs. 240.0 [40; 1420]; p = 0.0115, respectively). The median time to hospital discharge was equivalent in both study arms. In the spinal anesthesia arm, patients who received chloroprocaine and prilocaine recovered faster than patients who received bupivacaine. The time to ambulation and the time to hospital discharge were shorter (p < 0.001). The overall success rate of spinal anesthesia was 91.6%, and no significant difference was observed between chloroprocaine, prilocaine, and bupivacaine. The patients' global satisfaction with anesthesia and surgery was over 90% in both study arms. CONCLUSIONS: Patient's choice, patient fear of the alternative technique, patient stress/anxiety, the expected ease of recovery, and the efficacy of the technique were identified as the main factors influencing patient choice of short-acting local anesthesia or general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetics was preferred to general anesthesia in ambulatory surgeries and was associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02529501. Registered on June 23, 2015. Date of enrollment of the first participant July 21, 2015.

Case report: difficulty in diagnosis of delayed spinal epidural hematoma in puerperal women after combined spinal epidural anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Spinal epidural hematoma is a rare but serious complication of epidural anaesthesia and neurological impairment. Epidural hematoma usually becomes evident within a few hours of the procedure. Delayed clinical presentation of spinal epidural hematoma is even rarer and insidious. CASE PRESENTATION: We reported a case of a 44-year-old woman who underwent a caesarean section for a twin pregnancy during which a delayed dorsal spinal epidural hematoma occurred. Symptoms were reported 5 days after surgery and 72 h after removal of the epidural catheter. An MRI scan showed a dorsal epidural hematoma. The patient was moved to the Neurosurgical Department and underwent decompression surgery. CONCLUSION: The possibility of the delayed onset of a spinal epidural hematoma in a pregnant woman who undergoes epidural anaesthesia in labour must always be taken into consideration. In order to achieve the best clinical result, we stress the importance of a timely diagnosis and prompt surgical treatment.

Effect of local infiltration analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, general and spinal anesthesia on early functional recovery and pain control in total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain control and enhanced mobilization, muscle strength and range of motion following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are pivotal requisites to optimize rehabilitation and early recovery. The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of local infiltration analgesia (LIA), peripheral nerve blocks, general and spinal anesthesia on early functional recovery and pain control in primary total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Between January 2016 until August 2016, 280 patients underwent primary TKA and were subdivided into four groups according to their concomitant pain and anesthetic procedure with catheter-based techniques of femoral and sciatic nerve block (group GA&FNB, n = 81) or epidural catheter (group SP&EPI, n = 51) in combination with general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia, respectively, and LIA combined with general anesthesia (group GA&LIA, n = 86) or spinal anesthesia (group SP&LIA, n = 61). Outcome parameters focused on the evaluation of pain (NRS scores), mobilization, muscle strength and range of motion up to 7 days postoperatively. The cumulative consumption of (rescue) pain medication was analyzed. RESULTS: Pain relief was similar in all groups, while the use of opioid medication was significantly lower (up to 58%) in combination with spinal anesthesia, especially in SP&EPI. The LIA groups, in contrast, revealed significant higher mobilization (up to 26%) and muscle strength (up to 20%) in the early postoperative period. No analgesic technique-related or surgery-related complications occurred within the first 7 days. Due to insufficient pain relief, 8.4% of the patients in the catheter-based groups and 12.2% in the LIA groups resulted in a change of the anesthetics pain management. CONCLUSIONS: The LIA technique offers a safe and effective treatment option concerning early functional recovery and pain control in TKA. Significant advantages were shown for mobilization and muscle strength in the early postoperative period while pain relief was comparable within the groups.

Effect of local infiltration analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, general and spinal anesthesia on early functional recovery and pain control in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of local infiltration analgesia (LIA), peripheral nerve blocks, general and spinal anesthesia on early functional recovery and pain control in primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: Between January 2016 until August 2016, 134 patients underwent primary UKA and were subdivided into four groups according to their concomitant pain and anesthetic procedure with catheter-based techniques of femoral and sciatic nerve block (group GA&FNB, n = 38) or epidural catheter (group SP&EPI, n = 20) in combination with general anesthesia or spinal anesthesia, respectively, and LIA combined with general anesthesia (group GA&LIA, n = 46) or spinal anesthesia (group SP&LIA, n = 30). Outcome parameters focused on the evaluation of pain (NRS scores), mobilization, muscle strength and range of motion up to 7 days postoperatively. The cumulative consumption of (rescue) pain medication was analyzed. RESULTS: The LIA groups revealed significantly lower (about 50%) mean NRS scores (at rest) compared to the catheter-based groups at the day of surgery. In the early postoperative period, the dose of hydromorphone as rescue pain medication was significantly lower (up to 68%) in patients with SP&EPI compared to all other groups. No significant differences could be detected with regard to grade of mobilization, muscle strength and range of motion. However, there seemed to be a trend towards improved mobilization and muscle strength with general anesthesia and LIA, whereof general anesthesia generally tended to ameliorate mobilization. CONCLUSIONS: Except for a significant lower NRS score at rest in the LIA groups at day of surgery, pain relief was comparable in all groups without clinically relevant differences, while the use of opioids was significantly lower in patients with SP&EPI. A clear clinically relevant benefit for LIA in UKA cannot be stated. However, LIA offers a safe and effective treatment option comparable to the well-established conventional procedures.

Readiness for Discharge After Foot and Ankle Surgery Using Peripheral Nerve Blocks: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Spinal and General Anesthesia as Supplements to Nerve Blocks.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial anesthesia is often viewed as superior to general anesthesia but may delay discharge. Comparisons do not typically use multimodal analgesics and nerve blockade. Combining nerve blockade with general anesthesia may reduce pain, opioid consumption, and nausea. We hypothesized that general anesthesia (with nerve blocks) would lead to earlier readiness for discharge, compared to spinal anesthesia (with nerve blocks). METHODS: All patients underwent ambulatory foot and ankle surgery, with a predicted case duration of 1-3 hours. All patients received popliteal and adductor canal nerve blocks using bupivacaine and dexamethasone. No intraoperative opioids were administered. All patients received ondansetron, dexamethasone, ketamine, and ketorolac. Patients, data collectors, and the data analyst were not informed of group assignment. Patients were randomized to spinal or general anesthesia with concealed allocation. Spinal anesthesia was performed with mepivacaine and accompanied with propofol sedation. After general anesthesia was induced with propofol, a laryngeal mask airway was inserted, followed by sevoflurane and propofol. Time until ready for discharge, the primary outcome, was compared between groups after adjusting for age and surgery time using multivariable unconditional quantile regression. Secondary outcomes compared at multiple timepoints were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm-Bonferroni step-down procedure. RESULTS: General anesthesia patients were ready for discharge at a median of 39 minutes earlier (95% confidence interval, 2-75; P = .038) versus spinal anesthesia patients. Patients in both groups met readiness criteria for discharge substantially before actual discharge. Pain scores at rest were higher among general anesthesia patients 1 hour after leaving the operating room (adjusted difference in means, 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.2]; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes (including opioid use, opioid side effects, nausea, headache, sore throat, and back pain) were not different. CONCLUSIONS: General anesthesia was associated with earlier readiness for discharge, but the difference may not be clinically significant and did not lead to earlier actual discharge. Most secondary outcomes were not different between groups. The choice of spinal or general anesthesia as an adjunct to peripheral nerve blockade can reflect patient, clinician, and institutional preferences.

The Influence of Age on Sensitivity to Dexmedetomidine Sedation During Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgery.

To investigate the influence of age on sensitivity to dexmedetomidine sedation in adult patients, we selected 79 patients scheduled for lower limb orthopedic surgery under spinal anesthesia to identify the dexmedetomidine ED50 for adequate sedation among different age groups. After a spinal anesthetic was placed, a dose of dexmedetomidine determined by the Dixon up-and-down method was administered over 15 minutes. The ED50 in the elderly group was lower than in the other 2 groups (elderly: 0.88 ± 0.07; middle aged: 1.16 ± 0.08; young: 1.21 ± 0.06 µg/kg; both P < .001). There was no difference between the young and middle-aged groups (P = .160).

Neuraxial Anesthesia Reduces Lymphatic Flow: Proof-of-Concept in First In-Human Study.

Dilation of lymphatic vessels may contribute to iatrogenic dissemination of cancer cells during surgery. We sought to determine whether neuraxial anesthesia reduces regional lymphatic flow. Using nuclear lymphoscintigraphy, 5 participants receiving spinal anesthesia for brachytherapy had lower extremity lymph flow at rest compared with flow under conditions of spinal anesthesia. Six limbs were analyzed. Four limbs were excluded because of failure to demonstrate lymph flow (1 patient, 2 limbs), colloid injection error (1 limb), and undiagnosed deep vein thrombosis (1 limb). All analyzed limbs showed reduced lymph flow washout from the pedal injection site (range 62%-100%) due to neuraxial anesthesia. Lymph flow was abolished in 3 limbs. We report proof-of-concept that neuraxial anesthesia reduces lymphatic flow through a likely mechanism of sympathectomy.

Effect of different anesthesia techniques on the serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels.

OBJECTIVE: Serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) levels are associated with neurotransmission and cognitive functions. The goal of this study was to examine the effect of general anesthesia on BDNF levels. It was also to reveal whether this effect had a relationship with the surgical stress response or not. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 50 male patients, age 20-40, who were scheduled to have inguinoscrotal surgery, and who were in the ASA I-II risk group. The patients were divided into two groups according to the anesthesia techniques used: general (GA) and spinal (SA). In order to measure serum BDNF, cortisol, insulin and glucose levels, blood samples were taken at four different times: before and after anesthesia, end of the surgery, and before transferal from the recovery room. RESULTS: Serum BDNF levels were significantly low (p < 0.01), cortisol and glucose levels were higher (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01) in Group GA compared with Group SA. No significant difference was detected between the groups in terms of serum insulin levels. There was no correlation between serum BDNF and the stress hormones. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggested that general anesthetics had an effect on serum BDNF levels independent of the stress response. In future, BDNF could be used as biochemical parameters of anesthesia levels, but studies with a greater scope should be carried out to present the relationship between anesthesia and neurotrophins.

Dynamics of heart rate variability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus during spinal anaesthesia: prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the changes in autonomic function during spinal anaesthesia in type 2 diabetic patients. The purpose of the study was to assess the influence of spinal anaesthesia on the heart rate variability in type 2 diabetic patients according to the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level. METHODS: Sixty-six patients who were scheduled for elective orthostatic lower limb surgery were assigned to three groups (n = 22, each) according to HbA1c; controlled diabetes mellitus (HbA1c < 7 %), uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (HbA1c > 7 %) and the control group. The heart rate variability was measured 10 min before (T0), and at10 min (T1), 20 min (T2) and 30 min (T3) after spinal anaesthesia. RESULTS: Before spinal anaesthesia, total, low-and high-frequency power were significantly lower in the uncontrolled diabetec group than in other group (p < 0.05). During spinal anaesthesia, total, low- and high-frequency powers were did not change in the uncontrolled diabetec group while the low-frequency power in the controlled diabetec group was significantly depressed (p < 0.05). The ratio of low-to high-frequency was comparable among the groups, while it was reduced at T1-2 than at T0 in all the groups. The blood pressures were higher in the uncontrolled diabetec group than in the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal anaesthesia had an influence on the cardiac autonomic modulation in controlled diabetec patients, but not in uncontrolled diabetec patients. There were no differences in all haemodynamic variables during an adequate level of spinal anaesthesia in controlled and uncontrolled type 2 DM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02137057.

Predictors of Failure of Awake Regional Anesthesia for Neonatal Hernia Repair: Data from the General Anesthesia Compared to Spinal Anesthesia Study--Comparing Apnea and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Awake regional anesthesia (RA) is a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Benefits include lower incidence of postoperative apnea and avoidance of anesthetic agents that may increase neuroapoptosis and worsen neurocognitive outcomes. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia study compares neurodevelopmental outcomes after awake RA or GA in otherwise healthy infants. The aim of the study is to describe success and failure rates of RA and report factors associated with failure. METHODS: This was a nested cohort study within a prospective, randomized, controlled, observer-blind, equivalence trial. Seven hundred twenty-two infants 60 weeks or less postmenstrual age scheduled for herniorrhaphy under anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive RA (spinal, caudal epidural, or combined spinal caudal anesthetic) or GA with sevoflurane. The data of 339 infants, where spinal or combined spinal caudal anesthetic was attempted, were analyzed. Possible predictors of failure were assessed including patient factors, technique, experience of site and anesthetist, and type of local anesthetic. RESULTS: RA was sufficient for the completion of surgery in 83.2% of patients. Spinal anesthesia was successful in 86.9% of cases and combined spinal caudal anesthetic in 76.1%. Thirty-four patients required conversion to GA, and an additional 23 patients (6.8%) required brief sedation. Bloody tap on the first attempt at lumbar puncture was the only risk factor significantly associated with block failure (odds ratio = 2.46). CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of spinal anesthesia was low. Variability in application of combined spinal caudal anesthetic limited attempts to compare the success of this technique to spinal alone.

Spinal anesthesia in infants: recent developments.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spinal anesthesia has long been described as a well-tolerated and effective means of providing anesthesia for infants undergoing lower abdominal surgery. Now, spinal anesthetics are being used for an increasing variety of surgeries previously believed to require a general anesthetic. This, along with increasing concerns over the neurocognitive effects of general anesthetics on developing brains, suggests that further exploration into this technique and its effects is essential. RECENT FINDINGS: Exposure to spinal anesthesia in infancy has not shown the same suggestions of neurocognitive detriment as those resulting from general anesthesia. Ultrasound guidance has enhanced spinal technique by providing real-time guidance into the intrathecal space and confirming medication administration location, as well as helping avoid adverse outcomes by identifying aberrant anatomy. Spinal anesthesia provides benefits over general anesthesia, including cardiorespiratory stability, shorter postoperative recovery, and faster return of gastrointestinal function. SUMMARY: Early findings of spinal anesthesia exposure in infancy have shown it to have no independent effect on neurocognitive delay as well as to provide sound cardiorespiratory stability. With safer means of administering a spinal anesthetic, such as with ultrasound guidance, it is a readily available and desirable tool for those providing anesthesia to infants.

Assessing the height of block for caesarean section over the past three decades: trends from the literature.

There are multiple methods of assessing the height of block before caesarean section under regional anaesthesia, and surveys of practice suggest considerable variation in practice. So far, little emphasis has been placed on the guidance to be gained from published research literature or textbooks. We therefore set out to investigate the methods of block assessment documented in published articles and textbooks over the past 30 years. We performed two searches of PubMed for randomised clinical trials with caesarean section and either spinal anaesthesia or epidural anaesthesia as major Medical Subject Headings. A total of 284 papers, from 1984 to 2013, were analysed for methods of assessment of sensory and motor block, and the height of block deemed adequate for surgery. We also examined 45 editions of seven anaesthetic textbooks spanning 1950-2014 for recommended methods of assessment and height of block required for caesarean section. Analysis of published papers demonstrated a wide variation in techniques, though there has been a trend towards the increased use of touch, and an increased use of a block height of T5 over the study period. Only 115/284 (40.5%) papers described the method of assessing motor block, with most of those that did (102/115; 88.7%) describing it as the 'Bromage scale', although only five of these (4.9%) matched the original description by Bromage. The required height of block recommended by textbooks has risen over the last 30 years to T4, although only four textbooks made any recommendation about the preferred sensory modality. The variation in methods suggested by surveys of practice is reflected in variation in published trials, and there is little consensus or guidance in anaesthetic textbooks.

[Spinal anaesthesia in day case surgery--Old technique--new trends]. / Spinalanästhesie--Ambulante Spinalanästhesie--Neue Trends einer alten Technik.

Day case surgery is becoming more and more important. In order to perform these services cost-efficiently it is of primary importance to ensure that procedures can be scheduled with the largest possible patient satisfaction. Up to now spinal anaesthesia was of little importance in day case surgery due to prolonged nerve block and negative side effects especially when using long acting local anaesthetics. Since prilocaine and 2-chloroprocaine, two short acting local anaesthetics with a known low incidence of side effects, were recently introduced into clinical practice a reevaluation of spinal anaesthesia in a day case setting according to EMB guidelines still has to be done.

Fast-track anesthesia with remifentanil and spinal analgesia for cardiac surgery: the effect on pain control and quality of recovery.

OBJECTIVES: To assess pain intensity and quality of postoperative recovery in patients given fast-track anesthesia and spinal analgesia versus patients treated with standard anesthesia. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: A private institution. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-three patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: General anesthesia consisted of remifentanil and spinal analgesia (low-dose morphine and clonidine) for the fast-track group (FTG) and sufentanil without spinal analgesia for the control group (CG). During the postoperative period, paracetamol and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) with morphine were given. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Postoperative pain intensity was evaluated during 48 hours with visual analog scale scores and intravenous morphine consumption. Pain impact on quality of life was assessed with the brief pain inventory (BPI) score (days 1-8), and recovery was evaluated with the quality of recovery score (QoR-40, day 4). Compared with the CG, FTG pain intensity was significantly lower 0 to 4 (p < 0.01) and 6 to 12 hours (p < 0.05) after surgery, as was their cumulative intravenous PCA morphine consumption (p = 0.01). BPI scores supported that FTG patients had significantly (p < 0.01) less "pain at its worst" on days 1 and 2, their BPI-assessed pain interfered significantly less with daily life on day 1 (p < 0.001), and their global QoR-40 score (day 4) was significantly higher (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fast-track anesthesia combined with morphine-clonidine spinal analgesia controlled postoperative pain better and obtained a better QoR than conventional analgesia.

[Development and current status of combined spinal epidural anaesthesia]. / Entwicklung und gegenwärtiger Stand der kombinierten Spinal-Periduralanästhesie.

Combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia/analgesia is a method whereby drugs are applied intrathecally as a single dose and epidurally either continuously or intermittently via an epidural catheter. More than 50 years ago, first attempts were made to introduce this method into clinical practice but they found little general acceptance. Only during the last decades has tremendous progress been made in developing new, highly-sophisticated equipment: matching spinal and epidural needles and catheters, epidural needles with a separate conduit for the spinal needle or with an additional hole for the exit of the spinal needle as well as fixation devices for the spinal needle. A specific feature of the method is the only recently recognised epidural volume extension, which allows the use of low-dose drug combinations with sufficient analgetic properties but less cardiovascular compromise and fewer side-effects. This review describes the main and most important developmental steps and offers practical examples for its use in day-case surgery of the lower limb, in the "walking epidural" in obstetrics and in caesarean section. The method has become a valuable new tool in the armamentarium of the anaesthetist and part of daily routine in many clinics.