Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for spinal surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Whilst general anaesthesia is commonly used to undertake spine surgery, the use of neuraxial and peripheral regional anaesthesia techniques for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia is an evolving practice. Variations in practice have meant that it is difficult to know which modalities achieve optimal outcomes for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Our objective was to identify available evidence on the use of regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for adult patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: This study was conducted using a framework for scoping reviews. This included a search of six databases searching for articles published since January 1980. We included studies that involved adult patients undergoing spinal surgery with regional or neuraxial techniques used as the primary anaesthesia method or as part of an analgesic strategy. RESULTS: Seventy-eight articles were selected for final review. All original papers were included, including case reports, case series, clinical trials, or conference publications. We found that general anaesthesia remains the most common anaesthesia technique for this patient cohort. However, regional anaesthesia, especially non-neuraxial techniques such as fascial plane blocks, is an emerging practice and may have a role in terms of improving postoperative pain relief, quality of recovery, and patient satisfaction. In comparison with neuraxial techniques, the popularity of fascial plane blocks for spinal surgery has significantly increased since 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques have been used both to provide analgesia and anaesthesia for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Outcome metrics for the success of these techniques vary widely and more frequently use physiological outcome metrics more than patient-centred ones.

Protocol for a prospective, international cohort study on the Management and Outcomes of Perioperative Care among European Diabetic Patients (MOPED).

INTRODUCTION: Diabetes is common (about 20 million patients in Europe) and patients with diabetes have more surgical interventions than the general population. There are plausible pathophysiological and clinical mechanisms suggesting that patients with diabetes are at an increased risk of postoperative complications. When postoperative complications occur in the general population, they increase major adverse events and subsequently increase 1-year mortality. This is likely to be worse in patients with diabetes. There is variation in practice guidelines in different countries in the perioperative management of patients with diabetes undergoing major surgery and whether this may affect postoperative outcome has not been investigated on a large scale. Neither is it known whether different strata of preoperative glycaemic control affects outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective, observational, international, multicentre cohort study, recruiting 5000 patients with diabetes undergoing elective or emergency surgery in at least n=50 centres. Inclusion criteria are any patient with diabetes undergoing surgery under any substantive anaesthetic technique. Exclusion criteria are not being a confirmed diabetic patient and patients with diabetes undergoing procedures under monitored sedation or local anaesthetic infiltration only. Follow-up duration is 30 days after surgery. Primary outcome is days at home at 30 days. Secondary outcomes are Comprehensive Complications Index, Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score on Day 1 postoperatively, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay and incidence of specific major adverse events (Myocardial Infarction (MI), Myocardial Injury after Non-cardiac Surgery (MINS), Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPC), Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Pulmonary Embolism (PE), DVT, surgical site infection, postoperative pulmonary infection). Tertiary outcomes include time to resumption of normal diabetes therapy, incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia, incidence and duration of use of intravenous insulin infusion therapy and change in diabetic management at 30 days. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (amendment 2013) by the World Medical Association and the ICH-Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines E6(R2). Specific national and local regulatory authority requirements will be followed as applicable. Ethical approval has been granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Reference: 1/378/2167). As enrolment for this study is ongoing, ethical approval from additional centres is being added continuously. The main results of Management and Outcomes of Perioperative Care among European Diabetic Patients and its substudies will be published in peer-reviewed international medical journals and presented at Euroanaesthesia congress and other international and national meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04511312.

Efficacy of the erector spinae plane (ESP) block for quality of recovery in posterior thoraco-lumbar spinal decompression surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal surgery can be associated with significant postoperative pain. Erector spinae plane (ESP) block is a new regional anaesthesia technique, which promises effective postoperative analgesia compared with systemically administered opioids, but has never been evaluated in terms of patient-centred outcomes such as quality of recovery and overall morbidity after major thoraco-lumbar spinal surgery. METHODS: We are conducting a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial in two hospitals in the Republic of Ireland. The sample size will be 50 patients (25 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group). Randomisation will be done using computer-generated concealed envelopes. Both patients and investigators collecting outcome data will be masked to group allocation. Participants will be male or female, aged 18 years and over, capable of providing informed consent and ASA grade I-IV. Patients scheduled to undergo posterior approach thoraco-lumbar decompression surgery involving 2 or more levels will be recruited to the study. Participants randomised to the intervention arm of the study will receive bilateral ultrasound-guided ESP block totalling 40 ml 0.25% levo-bupivcaine (20 ml each side), post induction of general anaesthesia and before surgical incision. The control group will not receive an ESP block. Both groups will receive the same standardised analgesic protocol both intra- and postoperatively. The primary outcome will be the quality of recovery at 24 h postoperatively as determined by the QoR-15 score. This score is determined by a questionnaire which measures patient responses to 15 subjective parameters, each response graded on a scale from 0 to 10. The maximum score achievable is 150 with a potential minimum score of 0. Higher scores indicate a higher quality of recovery experience. Secondary outcomes will include area under the curve (AUC) of VRS pain versus time at rest and on movement up to 24 h postoperatively, 24 h opioid consumption, time to first analgesia in recovery, length of stay (LOS), incidence and severity of postoperative complications as measured by the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first randomised control trial to examine the efficacy and safety of the ESP block in terms of patient-centred outcomes in the setting of major spinal surgery. The QoR-15 is a validated means of assessing the quality of recovery after surgery and gives a more holistic assessment of the recovery experience from the patient's point of view. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is pre-registered on ClinicalTrials.gov reference number NCT04370951 . Registered on 30 April 2020. All items from the World Health Organisation Trial Registration Data Set have been included.

Managing Pain in the Older Cancer Patient.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper aims to give the specialist and non-specialist alike an overview of the considerations involved in the management of cancer-related pain in the older population. RECENT FINDINGS: Comprehensive guidelines on cancer pain management have been published recently by expert bodies. Cancer pain differs in many respects to other pain conditions and we are likely to encounter it more frequently in older patients in the future. The elderly are more sensitive to the effects of many analgesic medications. The elderly patient with cancer pain presents a unique challenge to the treating physician. The biological effects of ageing impact on the efficacy of many pain management strategies as well as its diagnosis and assessment. Treatment options can be broadly divided into pharmacological, non-pharmacological and interventional. A multidisciplinary approach and frequent re-assessment are essential in achieving favourable outcomes in this patient group.