Effects of neuraxial anesthesia in sitting and lateral positions on maternal hemodynamics in cesarean section: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: During cesarean section, hypotension is a frequent side effect of spinal anesthesia. As a sitting or lateral position is required for spinal anesthesia performance, which of these two positions is more likely to cause intraoperative nausea, vomiting, and hypotension is still unknown. This meta-analysis compared the effects of these two positions on maternal hemodynamics and intraoperative nausea and vomiting. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: This study included 803 patients from 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). INTERVENTIONS: Neuraxial anesthesia in sitting position vs. lateral position. MEASUREMENTS: We chose RCTs comparing the effects of spinal anesthesia in the sitting and lateral positions on maternal hemodynamics by thoroughly searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for articles published from database inception until October 31, 2022. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the methodological quality of each RCT; the results were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software; and the Egger test was used to assess publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: 12 randomised controlled trials with 803 participants were ultimately included in the final analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two positions in terms of the incidence of hypotension(RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16; P = 0.26; I2 = 66%), lowest systolic blood pressure(MD, -0.81; 95% CI, -7.38-5.75; P = 0.81; I2 = 86%), the dose of ephedrine(MD, -1.19; 95% CI, -4.91-2.52; P = 0.53; I2 = 83%), and number of parturients requiring ephedrine(RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.64-1.46; P = 0.88; I2 = 74%). For the incidence of intraoperative nausea and vomiting, there was no statistical difference between the two positions. CONCLUSION: Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia in the sitting or lateral position experienced similar incidence of hypotension, and there were no significant differences between these two positions in terms of the amount of ephedrine administered or the number of patients needing ephedrine. In both positions, the frequency of nausea and vomiting was comparable. The ideal position for anesthesia can be chosen based on the preferences and individual circumstances of the parturient and anesthesiologist.

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.

Intrathecal Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts to Bupivacaine in Elective Cesarean Section: A Case Series.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the combination of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia is effective for reducing nausea, vomiting, shivering, and pain. A retrospective review of records was used to examine the outcomes of patients undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, and bupivacaine. The records of 11 consecutive patients who underwent cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine were evaluated. Data collected included patient demographics, medications and fluids administered, presence of nausea, vomiting, shivering, intraoperative breakthrough pain, and postoperative pain. There were no reported complications related to the administration of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine in this case series of patients. No patients required treatment for intraoperative vomiting, shivering, or breakthrough pain. One patient required opioid pain medication postoperatively. This case series demonstrates that the administration of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine for patients undergoing elective cesarean section appears to be safe and offers some advantages as to traditional methods of intrathecal delivery for this surgical procedure.

Dose-Response Study of Phenylephrine for Preventing Spinal-Induced Hypotension During Cesarean Delivery with Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia Under the Effect of Prophylactic Intravenous Ondansetron.

Background: Ondansetron reduces the median effective dose (ED50) of prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent spinal-induced hypotension (SIH) during cesarean delivery. However, the exact dose response of phenylephrine in combination with prophylactic ondansetron for preventing SIH is unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the dose-response of phenylephrine to prevent SIH in cesarean delivery when 4 mg of ondansetron was used as a preventive method. Methods: A total of 80 parturients were enrolled and divided randomly into four groups (n = 20 in each group) who received either 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5 µg/kg/min of prophylactic phenylephrine. Ten minutes before the initiation of spinal induction, 4 mg prophylactic ondansetron was administered. The effective dose of prophylactic phenylephrine was defined as the dose required to prevent hypotension after the period of intrathecal injection and up to neonatal delivery. The ED50 and ED90 of prophylactic phenylephrine and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using probit analysis. Results: The ED50 and ED90 for prophylactic phenylephrine to prevent SIH were 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.30), and 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.59) µg/kg/min, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the side effects and neonatal outcomes between the four groups. Conclusion: The administration of 4 mg of prophylactic ondansetron was associated with an ED50 of 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15~0.30) and ED90 of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39~0.59) µg/kg/min for phenylephrine to prevent SIH.

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.

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.

Do you mind the role of spinal sensory block duration in a crucial endocrine disorder of diabetes mellitus? A prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus, per se, is a global health concern, which is often accompanied by complications such as diabetic neuropathy. This prospective observational study purposed to assess the durations of spinal sensory block and motor blocks in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus who had undergone spinal anesthesia. METHODS: This study incorporated 80 cases, which were evenly divided into spinal sensory block without diabetes mellitus and spinal sensory block with diabetes mellitus. Various parameters were recorded at different time points, including heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, SpO2, and spinal block characteristics. Notable measures included maximum spinal sensory block onset time, time to reach the 10th thoracic vertebra (T10), maximal spinal sensory block, time for Bromage scores, and block regression while controlling for age-related variations. RESULTS: Patients in the diabetic group exhibited extended block durations, with significant differences in heart rate noted at specific time points. Regarding the spinal block characteristics, the "maximum onset of SSB" and the "time to reach the T10" were more prolonged in the SSBwDM without significance. Maximum sensory spinal sensory block did not differ. However, some cases in the SSBwDM displayed blocks extending up to the T6. The times to achieve Bromage motor block scores 1-3 were shorter in SSBwDM and lost significance regarding age. Notably, the regression time was longer in SSBwDM, which held significance for both parameters. CONCLUSION: Diabetic cases commonly encounter prolonged block durations post-subarachnoid intervention, potentially linked to nerve sensitivity, age-related changes, and glycemic control. As such, attenuated local doses for diabetic neuropathic cases may enhance early mobilization, attenuate thromboembolic events, and expedite gastrointestinal recovery.

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.

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.

Super-refractory status epilepticus, rhabdomyolysis, central hyperthermia and cardiomyopathy attributable to spinal anesthesia: a case report and review of literature.

BACKGROUND: There are only six past reports of super-refractory status epilepticus induced by spinal anesthesia. None of those patients have died. Only < 15 mg of bupivacaine was administered to all six of them and to our case. Pathophysiology ensuing such cases remains unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: A 27 year old gravida 2, para 1, mother at 37 weeks of gestation came to the operating theater for an elective cesarean section. She had no significant medical history other than controlled hypothyroidism and one episode of food allergy. Her current pregnancy was uneventful. Her American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was 2. She underwent spinal anesthesia and adequate anesthesia was achieved. After 5-7 min she developed a progressive myoclonus. After delivery of a healthy baby, she developed generalized tonic clonic seizures that continued despite the induction of general anesthesia. She had rhabdomyolysis, one brief cardiac arrest and resuscitation, followed by stress cardiomyopathy and central hyperthermia. She died on day four. There were no significant macroscopic or histopathological changes in her brain that explain her super refractory status epilepticus. Heavy bupivacaine samples of the same batch used for this patient were analyzed by two specialized laboratories. National Medicines Quality Assurance Laboratory of Sri Lanka reported that samples failed to confirm United States Pharmacopeia (USP) dextrose specifications and passed other tests. Subsequently, Therapeutic Goods Administration of Australia reported that the drug passed all standard USP quality tests applied to it. Nonetheless, they have detected an unidentified impurity in the medicine. CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing relevant literature, we believe that direct neurotoxicity by bupivacaine is the most probable cause of super-refractory status epilepticus. Super-refractory status epilepticus would have led to her other complications and death. We discuss probable patient factors that would have made her susceptible to neurotoxicity. The impurity in the drug detected by one laboratory also would have contributed to her status epilepticus. We propose several possible mechanisms that would have led to status epilepticus and her death. We discuss the factors that shall guide investigators on future such cases. We suggest ways to minimize similar future incidents. This is an idiosyncratic reaction as well.

Ultrasound-Assisted Spinal Anesthesia in a Patient with a Preexisting Lumbar Interspinous Spacer: A Case Report.

An interspinous spacer is a minimally invasive implantable device for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis. The in situ implant may prevent safe and successful spinal anesthesia because its position can obstruct the path of the spinal needle. Lumbar neuraxial ultrasonography has been shown to aid in performance of neuraxial anesthesia in patients with challenging anatomy. Currently, there are no reported cases of ultrasound-assisted spinal anesthesia in patients with interspinous spacers. We present a case in which ultrasonography assisted the successful administration of a spinal anesthetic by avoiding an indwelling lumbar interspinous spacer.

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.

Ultrasound-guided intersphincteric space block combined with spinal anesthesia for hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the analgesic effects and incidence of urinary retention between ultrasound-guided intersphincteric space block combined with low-dose ropivacaine spinal anesthesia and conventional-dose ropivacaine spinal anesthesia post-hemorrhoidectomy. METHODS: Fifty patients aged 20-65 years who underwent elective hemorrhoidectomy were stochastically assigned to one of two groups. Spinal anesthesia was induced with 8 mg ropivacaine, combined with ultrasound-guided intersphincteric space block in the treatment group. Spinal anesthesia was induced with 12 mg ropivacaine in the control group. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score, measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours and at the first defecation postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included urinary retention, extent of anal sphincter relaxation, and the time required to lift the lower limbs out of bed postoperatively. RESULTS: The treatment group showed markedly lower VAS scores than those of the control group at 8, 12, 24, and 48 h, and at the first postoperative defecation time (P<0.05). The incidence of urinary retention was considerably lower in the treatment group than in the control group (24% vs. 52%, P=0.04). No remarkable difference in the degree of anal sphincter relaxation was observed between the two groups (P=0.556). The time taken by the treatment group patients to lift their lower limbs off the bed was much shorter than that in the control group (1.3±0.6 h vs. 3.2±1.2 h, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound-guided intersphincteric space block combined with low-dose ropivacaine spinal anesthesia provides good anesthesia and analgesia for hemorrhoidectomy.

The Median Effective Dose of Intrathecal Hyperbaric Bupivacaine for Cesarean Section at Moderately High-Altitude.

Objective: Alterations in altitude can lead to an augmented requirement for local anesthesia among patients. Nevertheless, the necessity for an elevated dosage of local anesthetic for parturients at moderately high altitudes during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section remains uninvestigated. This up-down sequential study endeavors to determine the ED50 dose of bupivacaine required for spinal anesthesia during cesarean sections at moderately high-altitude. Methods: Thirty singleton parturients at moderately high altitude underwent elective cesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. The up-and-down sequential method was employed, starting with an initial dose of 12mg (1.6mL) of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine for the first participant. The dose for the next case was adjusted up or down by 0.75mg based on the effectiveness of the previous participant. Effectiveness was defined as the bilateral sensory block reaching T6 within 15 minutes after spinal anesthesia injection, without the need for additional epidural anesthesia before fetal delivery. The ED50 dose and 95% confidence interval were calculated using the Dixon sequential method and isotonic regression, respectively. The incidence of maternal hypotension, nausea, and vomiting during the study period was also recorded. Results: The ED50 of hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in cesarean section was calculated as 8.23 mg (95% CI, 6.52-9.32 mg) using the Dixon up-and-down method. Further validation using isotonic regression yielded a value of 8.39 mg (95% CI, 7.48-9.30 mg), confirming the accuracy and sensitivity of the conclusion. During the operation, only 6 parturients experienced hypotension, and no adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and shivering were observed. Conclusion: The ED50 dose of 0.75% hyperbaric bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia during cesarean section at moderately high altitude is 8.23 mg, which exceeds the ED50 dose typically required by parturients at low altitude. Comprehensive investigations are warranted to ascertain the ED90 or ED95 dose of local anesthetics for cesarean section at moderately high altitudes, thereby offering enhanced guidance for clinical practice.

Continuing medical education for attending physicians in anesthesia: Feasibility of an innovative blended learning approach.

Continuing medical education plays a pivotal role in fostering and upholding the standard of excellence in medicine. Both SPOC (small private online course) and BOPPPS (bridge-in, learning objective, pretest, participatory learning, posttest, and summary) methodologies are rooted in the same educational and learning theories, emphasizing active student engagement, interaction, and feedback. Using ultrasound-guided spinal anesthesia as an exemplar, we aimed to investigate the feasibility of blended teaching (combination of BOPPPS and SPOC) for anesthesiology clinicians and explore trainees' and trainers' perspectives towards the innovative method. Twenty-seven attending anesthesiologists were randomly divided into experimental group (n = 14, blended teaching method) and control group (n = 13, traditional teaching method). The questionnaire was administered before and a week post-training. Their operative skills (measured by operation time) were assessed. The students' cognitive evaluation of the blended teaching mode was conducted in the experimental group. The experimental group demonstrated notably higher theoretical scores compared to the control group [(46.42 ±â€…5.345) vs (41.92 ±â€…5.219), t = 2.213, P < .05]. The operation time in the experimental group was significantly shorter than that in the control group [(84.79 ±â€…28.450) seconds vs (114.23 ±â€…35.607) seconds, t = -2.383, P < .05]. Most participants preferred blended learning as it was more effective than traditional learning. Suggestions for enhancement included enhanced online interactivity with trainers and the inclusion of case analysis. Integration of blended teaching incorporating BOPPPS and SPOC methodologies holds promise for enhancing the efficiency of skill training among anesthesiologists. Blended learning may become a viable and well-received option among anesthesia clinicians in China.

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.

Efficacy of local infiltration analgesia on recovery after total hip arthroplasty using direct anterior approach under spinal anaesthesia: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

The utilization of local infiltration analgesia (LIA) is a common practice in total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures to mitigate postoperative pain and diminish the necessity for opioids. However, contemporary literature reports conflicting results. Our working hypothesis was that LIA renders better postoperative VAS-scores and reduces the need for oral analgetics. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial aimed at examining the effectiveness of LIA in THA. A total of 90 patients were included for statistical analysis. Our primary endpoint was the Visual Analogue Scale, VAS, (0: no pain, 10: unbearable pain) preoperatively, at the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 12th hour postoperative intervals and at discharge. Our secondary endpoints included the postoperative opioid consumption, as well as patient satisfaction at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively, measured using the Numeric Rating Scale, NRS. LIA has a tendency for superior results regarding VAS- Scores at 3 and 4 hours postoperatively. There were no notable statistical distinctions observed in terms of patients necessitating rescue opioid consumption. Patient satisfaction using the NRS at both the 2-week and 6-week postoperatively did not differ significantly between both groups. The administration of LIA could offer advantages during the initial stages of postoperative recovery, which could be particularly valuable in rapid recovery programs.

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.