Mode of anesthesia, mortality and outcome in geriatric patients.

BACKGROUND: In older non-cardiac surgery patients, the influence of the mode of anesthesia on late-term outcome (rehabilitation, mobility, independence) is a controversial issue in the medical literature. In light of an aging society, this review assessed the association between regional (RA), local (LA) and general anesthesia (GA) and mortality and morbidity. METHODS: A literature search within the PubMed and Cochrane databases yielded 47 clinical trials and 35 reviews/meta-analyses published between 1965 and 2013. Potential outcome-influencing factors such as mortality, risk factors, early complications (e.g. postoperative confusion, aspiration, vomiting), adverse events (e.g. deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism), discharge, rehabilitation and mobilization were evaluated in relation to the mode of anesthesia (RA, LA or GA). RESULTS: The current literature contains 82 references covering 74,476 non-cardiac surgery patients. Analysis shows that the particular mode of anesthesia influences mortality and morbidity. RA is associated with reduced early mortality and morbidity, e.g. fewer incidents of deep vein thrombosis and less acute postoperative confusion, as well as a tendency toward fewer myocardial infarctions and fatal pulmonary embolisms. GA has the advantages of a lower incidence of hypotension and reduced surgery time. CONCLUSION: Strictly speaking, true anesthesia-related complications appear to be rare and many adverse outcomes may be multifactorial. Postoperative complications are largely related to the perioperative procedure and not to the anesthesia itself. GA and RA are both useful for older non-cardiac patients, but for some procedures, e.g. hip fracture surgery, RA seems to be the technique of choice. The mode of anesthesia may only play a secondary role in mobility, rehabilitation and discharge destination. In general, due to the many different possible outcomes--which are often very difficult or impossible to compare--no other specific recommendations can be made with regard to the type of anesthesia to be preferred for older non-cardiac patients.

Functional outcome and mortality in geriatric distal femoral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are a major health care problem worldwide. Due to the ageing population an increase of distal femoral fractures is to be expected. We studied the long-term functional outcome and their influencing factors in geriatric patients with LISS-plated distal femoral fractures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cohort study with functional long-term follow up examination was carried out in a level one trauma centre on distal femoral fracture patients 65 years and older. Of 53 consecutive patients who were treated in our hospital, 43 patients with a mean age of 80 years met our inclusion criteria. 48.8% died within the study period of 5.3 years. On the remaining patients the residential status, the Barthel index and the Parker score were assessed. RESULTS: The mean Barthel index was 47.7 and the mean Parker score was 3.5. 23% were found to be totally housebound and 26% were not able to perform any social activity. Only 18% were able to walk unaided. Patients with any medical complication had significantly higher mortality rates. Patients with extraarticular fractures had better mobility scores. Nursing home residents showed higher mortality rates but compared to patients coming from their own home the difference regarding Barthel and Parker scores remained non-significant. CONCLUSION: This study documents the poor functional long-term outcome of geriatric patients with distal femoral fractures. In comparison to other fragility fracture patients it seems that this population is at higher risk to die in-hospital during their perioperative course. Medical complications have to be avoided as they were found to be associated with worse functional outcome and higher mortality rates. An osteoporosis therapy may be associated with reduced mortality rates also in these patients.

Neuroaxial versus general anaesthesia in geriatric patients for hip fracture surgery: does it matter?

The influence of the mode of anaesthesia on outcome of geriatric patients with hip fractures is a controversial issue in the medical literature. In the light of an ageing society, a conclusive answer to this question is of growing importance. The purpose of this review was to assess the effect of neuroaxial and general anaesthesia on mortality and morbidity in geriatric patients sustaining a hip fracture. Following a current literature search within the Pubmed and Cochrane database (1967-2010), 34 randomised controlled trials, 14 observational studies and eight reviews/meta-analysis publications were included. Potentially outcome-influencing factors such as mortality, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, postoperative confusion and other anaesthesia-related outcomes were evaluated. After analysing the current literature with 56 references, covering 18,715 patients with hip fracture, it can be concluded that spinal anaesthesia is associated with significantly reduced early mortality, fewer incidents of deep vein thrombosis, less acute postoperative confusion, a tendency to fewer myocardial infarctions, fewer cases of pneumonia, fatal pulmonary embolism and postoperative hypoxia. General anaesthesia has the advantages of having a lower incidence of hypotension and a tendency towards fewer cerebrovascular accidents compared to neuroaxial anaesthesia. Otherwise, general anaesthesia and respiratory diseases were significant predictors of morbidity in hip fracture patients. These data suggest that regional anaesthesia is the preferred technique, but the limited evidence available does not permit a definitive conclusion to be drawn for mortality or other outcomes. For hip fracture surgery, the choice of anaesthesia (general or neuroaxial) is made by the anaesthesiologist and is based on the patient's preference, comorbidities, potential general postoperative complications and the clinical experience of the anaesthesiologist. The overall therapeutic approach in hip fracture care should be determined jointly by the orthopaedic surgeon, the geriatrician and the anaesthesiologist (multidisciplinary approach).

Ortho-geriatric service--a literature review comparing different models.

In the fast-growing geriatric population, we are confronted with both osteoporosis, which makes fixation of fractures more and more challenging, and several comorbidities, which are most likely to cause postoperative complications. Several models of shared care for these patients are described, and the goal of our systematic literature research was to point out the differences of the individual models. A systematic electronic database search was performed, identifying articles that evaluate in a multidisciplinary approach the elderly hip fracture patients, including at least a geriatrician and an orthopedic surgeon focused on in-hospital treatment. The different investigations were categorized into four groups defined by the type of intervention. The main outcome parameters were pooled across the studies and weighted by sample size. Out of 656 potentially relevant citations, 21 could be extracted and categorized into four groups. Regarding the main outcome parameters, the group with integrated care could show the lowest in-hospital mortality rate (1.14%), the lowest length of stay (7.39 days), and the lowest mean time to surgery (1.43 days). No clear statement could be found for the medical complication rates and the activities of daily living due to their inhomogeneity when comparing the models. The review of these investigations cannot tell us the best model, but there is a trend toward more recent models using an integrated approach. Integrated care summarizes all the positive features reported in the various investigations like integration of a Geriatrician in the trauma unit, having a multidisciplinary team, prioritizing the geriatric fracture patients, and developing guidelines for the patients' treatment. Each hospital implementing a special model for geriatric hip fracture patients should collect detailed data about the patients, process of care, and outcomes to be able to participate in audit processes and avoid peerlessness.