Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported. OBJECTIVE: To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia. DESIGN: Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505). SETTING: 46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery. INTERVENTION: Spinal or general anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care. RESULTS: A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups. LIMITATION: Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

A prospective, randomized comparison of ultrasonographic visualization of proximal intercostal block vs paravertebral block.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic paravertebral blockade is an accepted anesthetic and analgesic technique for breast surgery. However, real-time ultrasound visualization of landmarks in the paravertebral space remains challenging. We aimed to compare ultrasound-image quality, performance times, and clinical outcomes between the traditional parasagittal ultrasound-guided paravertebral block and a modified approach, the ultrasound-guided proximal intercostal block. METHODS: Women with breast cancer undergoing mastectomy (n = 20) were randomized to receive either paravertebral (n = 26) or proximal intercostal blocks (n = 32) under ultrasound-guidance with 2.5 mg/kg ropivacaine prior to surgery. Block ultrasound images before and after needle placement, and anesthetic injection videoclips were saved, and these images and vidoes independently rated by separate novice and expert reviewers for quality of visualization of bony elements, pleura, relevant ligament/membrane, needle, and injectate spread. Block performance times, postoperative pain scores, and opioid consumption were also recorded. RESULTS: Composite visualization scores were superior for proximal intercostal compared to paravertebral nerve block, as rated by both expert (p = 0.008) and novice (p = 0.01) reviewers. Notably, both expert and novice rated pleural visualization superior for proximal intercostal nerve block, and expert additionally rated bony landmark and injectate spread visualization as superior for proximal intercostal block. Block performance times, needle depth, opioid consumption and postoperative pain scores were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal intercostal block yielded superior visualization of key anatomical landmarks, possibly offering technical advantages over traditional paravertebral nerve block. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02911168. Registred on the 22nd of September 2016.