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.

The Bezold-Jarisch reflex and anaesthesia.

Spinal anaesthesia is considered an effective and safe method for providing pain relief during procedures below the waist. However, in a small subset of patients, life-threatening vasovagal reactions may develop leading to severe bradycardia and hypotension or ultimately asystole and complete circulatory collapse. Early recognition and prompt treatment of this condition can be lifesaving as illustrated in this case report where the patient developed asystole for ten seconds shortly after placing the spinal anaesthetic.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Pericapsular Nerve Group Block for Hip Fracture Surgery under Spinal Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block for hip fracture surgery under spinal anesthesia. Methods: This meta-analysis was registered on INPLASY (INPLASY202270005). PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CNKI, and Wanfang databases were searched to collect the randomized controlled trials of the PENG block applied to hip fracture surgery in the setting of spinal anesthesia, with the search period from inception to 1 May 2023. Two independent researchers gradually screened the literature, evaluated the quality, extracted the data, and eventually pooled data using RevMan 5.4. Results: Fifteen articles with 890 patients were enrolled. The combined results showed that the PENG block reduced pain scores during position placement (SMD = -0.35; 95% CI [-0.67, 0.02]; P=0.04; I2 = 0%). Subgroup analyses showed that compared to the unblocked group, the PENG block reduced pain scores at 12 h, 24 h, and 48 h postoperatively. The incidence of postoperative hypokinesia was reduced (RR = 0.11; 95% CI [0.01, 0.86]; P=0.04; I2 = 0.00%). The time to first walking was advanced (SMD = -0.90; 95% CI [-1.17, 0.63]; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: The PENG block can reduce postoperative pain and pain during spinal anesthesia positioning, which is helpful to improve the operability and comfort of spinal anesthesia and facilitate postoperative muscle strength recovery and early activity.

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.

Effects of propofol, desflurane, and spinal anesthesia on intraocular pressure during lumbar disc herniation surgery: a randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effects of total intravenous anesthesia (propofol), volatile anesthesia (desflurane), and spinal anesthesia on intraocular pressure (IOP) during lumbar disc herniation surgery in the prone position. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted between January 2022 and January 2023. The study included 75 patients with lumbar disc herniation between the ages of 18-75, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 1-2. The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups: propofol, desflurane, and spinal. IOP was measured at 5-time points throughout surgery, including baseline (T1), 10 minutes after anesthesia (T2), 10 minutes after prone positioning (T3: early prone), 30 minutes after prone positioning (T4: late prone), and 10 minutes after returning to the supine position (T5). Hemodynamic parameters were measured at these time points. Hemoglobin and hematocrit values were measured preoperatively and on the first postoperative day. RESULTS: There were 25 patients in each group. The groups were similar in terms of all characteristics except for weight and body mass index, which were lower in the spinal group. Propofol recipients had significantly higher T3 (prone) IOP compared to desflurane recipients (p = 0.001). We found no significant differences between groups in terms of T1, T2, T4, and T5 IOP. Multivariable linear regression revealed that diabetes mellitus (p = 0.016) and high T1 IOP (p = 0.001) were independently associated with higher T3 IOP. In addition, we found that the desflurane (p < 0.001) and spinal (p = 0.002) groups had significantly lower T3 IOP compared to propofol recipients after adjusting for diabetes mellitus and T1 IOP. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that volatile anesthesia (desflurane) and spinal anesthesia are linked to lower IOP in the prone position among patients undergoing spinal surgery, in comparison to those receiving total intravenous anesthesia. There is a need to test the results with more comprehensive, population-based studies in different patient groups. ClinicalTrials gov ID: NCT06070480.

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 .

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.

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.