Epidural Anesthesia-Analgesia and Recurrence-free Survival after Lung Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduce the stress response to surgery and decrease the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids, thereby preserving cancer-specific immune defenses. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combining epidural anesthesia-analgesia with general anesthesia improves recurrence-free survival after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resections were randomized 1:1 to general anesthesia and intravenous opioid analgesia or combined epidural-general anesthesia and epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (time from surgery to the earliest date of recurrence/metastasis or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (time from surgery to all-cause death) and cancer-specific survival (time from surgery to cancer-specific death). Long-term outcome assessors were blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and November 2017, 400 patients were enrolled and randomized to general anesthesia alone (n = 200) or combined epidural-general anesthesia (n = 200). All were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (interquartile range, 24 to 48). Recurrence-free survival was similar in each group, with 54 events (27%) with general anesthesia alone versus 48 events (24%) with combined epidural-general anesthesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35; P = 0.608). Overall survival was also similar with 25 events (13%) versus 31 (16%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.96; P = 0.697). There was also no significant difference in cancer-specific survival with 24 events (12%) versus 29 (15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.91; P = 0.802). Patients assigned to combined epidural-general had more intraoperative hypotension: 94 patients (47%) versus 121 (61%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.55; P = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural anesthesia-analgesia for major lung cancer surgery did not improve recurrence-free, overall, or cancer-specific survival compared with general anesthesia alone, although the CI included both substantial benefit and harm.

Short-term outcomes of combined neuraxial and general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia alone for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: retrospective population-based cohort study†.

BACKGROUND: Use of neuraxial anaesthesia for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is postulated to reduce mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to determine the 90-day outcomes after elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients receiving combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia vs general anaesthesia alone. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted from 2003 to 2016. All patients ≥40 yr old undergoing open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair were included. The propensity score was used to construct inverse probability of treatment weighted regression models to assess differences in 90-day outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 10 447 elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs were identified; 9003 (86%) patients received combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia and 1444 (14%) received general anaesthesia alone. Combined anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower hazards for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.61) and major adverse cardiovascular events (HR=0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.86). Combined patients were at lower odds for acute kidney injury (odds ratio [OR]=0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.89), respiratory failure (OR=0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.47), and limb complications (OR=0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.37), with higher odds of being discharged home (OR=1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.51). Combined anaesthesia was also associated with significant mechanical ventilation and ICU and hospital length of stay benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Combined general and neuraxial anaesthesia in elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair is associated with reduced 90-day mortality and morbidity. Neuraxial anaesthesia should be considered as a routine adjunct to general anaesthesia for elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Does Anesthesia Type Matter?

BACKGROUND: Given the various types of anesthesia used for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), we sought to determine the effect of anesthesia type in the outcomes of elective EVAR in a large multiinstitutional healthcare maintenance organization. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all elective EVAR conducted from August 2010 to August 2017 in 14 regional hospitals of Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients undergoing emergent, nonelective abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs, thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair, requiring conversion to open surgery or general anesthesia were excluded from the study. Basic demographic information, medical risk factors, anesthesia type, operative data, and postoperative morbidity and mortality data were obtained for univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,536 patients underwent EVAR, of which 1,206 met inclusion criteria. A total of 788 patients underwent general anesthesia, 164 patients underwent spinal anesthesia, 82 patients underwent epidural anesthesia, and 172 patients underwent local and monitored anesthesia care (AC). There was a significant difference in length of stay and operative time when comparing local/monitored AC to general anesthesia. No significant difference was noted in 30-day morbidity or mortality among the anesthesia groups. CONCLUSIONS: Local and regional anesthesia is a safe and effective approach for elective EVAR.

Association between Anaesthetic Technique and Oncological Outcomes after Colorectal Carcinoma Liver Metastasis Resection.

Background: Recently published studies suggest that the anaesthetic technique used during oncologic surgery can improve patient outcomes. Therefore, the authors evaluated the survival of patients with resected colorectal carcinoma liver metastases (CRCLMs) who received either EGA (general anaesthesia [GA] combined with epidural anaesthesia [EA]) or GA alone. Methods: We conducted an ambispective cohort study including 225 post-surgical CRCLM patients between May 2007 and July 2012 and performed a follow-up investigation of survival in July 2017. Results: The basic characteristics in the two groups were largely similar. The median (quartiles) recurrence interval for all patients was 10 (2.5, 23) months, and the median (quartiles) survival for CRCLM patients post-surgically was 37 (30.5, 51.5) months. Perioperative EA was associated with survival (P =0.039, log-rank test), with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.737 (95% CI 0.551-0.985) in the univariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival for GA and EGA suggested that GA might provide better outcomes than EGA [P=0.028, hazard ratio of 0.7328 (95% CI 0.5433-0.9884)]. Significant differences in anaesthesia techniques were found (P=0.048), with an adjusted estimated hazard ratio of 0.741 (95% CI 0.550-0.998) in the multivariate analysis. Subgroup analyses of patients in different age groups (< 40, ≥ 40 but <60, and ≥ 60 years old) suggested that no significant differences existed among all three subgroups. Conclusions: Compared with EGA, GA may provide a better survival outcome for CRCLM patients. The benefits of anaesthetic techniques in oncological surgery are most likely related to certain cancer types.

Neuraxial and Combined Neuraxial/General Anesthesia Compared to General Anesthesia for Major Truncal and Lower Limb Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Neuraxial anesthesia may improve perioperative outcomes when compared to general anesthesia; however, this is controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using randomized controlled trials and population-based observational studies identified in MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE from 2010 to May 31, 2016. Studies were included for adult patients undergoing major surgery of the trunk and lower extremity that reported: 30-day mortality (primary outcome), cardiopulmonary morbidity, surgical site infection, thromboembolic events, blood transfusion, and resource use. Perioperative outcomes were compared with general anesthesia for the following subgroups: combined neuraxial-general anesthesia and neuraxial anesthesia alone. Odds ratios (ORs) and 99% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify the impact of anesthetic technique on outcomes. Twenty-seven observational studies and 11 randomized control trials were identified. This analysis comprises 1,082,965 records from observational studies or databases and 1134 patients from randomized controlled trials. There was no difference in 30-day mortality identified when combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia (OR 0.88; 99% CI, 0.77-1.01), or when neuraxial anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia (OR 0.98; 99% CI, 0.92-1.04). When combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was compared with general anesthesia, combined neuraxial-general anesthesia was associated with a reduced odds of pulmonary complication (OR 0.84; 99% CI, 0.79-0.88), surgical site infection (OR 0.93; 99% CI, 0.88-0.98), blood transfusion (OR 0.90; 99% CI, 0.87-0.93), thromboembolic events (OR 0.84; 99% CI, 0.73-0.98), length of stay (mean difference -0.16 days; 99% CI, -0.17 to -0.15), and intensive care unit admission (OR 0.77; 99% CI, 0.73-0.81). For the combined neuraxial-general anesthesia subgroup, there were increased odds of myocardial infarction (OR 1.18; 99% CI, 1.01-1.37). There was no difference identified in the odds of pneumonia (OR 0.94; 99% CI, 0.87-1.02) or cardiac complications (OR 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00-1.09) for the combined neuraxial-general anesthesia subgroup. When neuraxial anesthesia was compared to general anesthesia, there was a decreased odds of any pulmonary complication (OR 0.38; 99% CI, 0.36-0.40), surgical site infection (OR 0.76; 99% CI, 0.71-0.82), blood transfusion (OR 0.85; 99% CI, 0.82-0.88), thromboembolic events (OR 0.79; 99% CI, 0.68-0.91), length of stay (mean difference -0.29 days; 99% CI, -0.29 to -0.28), and intensive care unit admission (OR 0.50; 99% CI, 0.48-0.53). There was no difference in the odds of cardiac complications (OR 0.99; 99% CI, 0.94-1.03), myocardial infarction (OR 0.91; 99% CI, 0.81-1.02), or pneumonia (OR 0.92; 99% CI, 0.84-1.01). Randomized control trials revealed no difference in requirement for blood transfusion (RR 1.05; 99% CI, 0.65-1.71) and a decreased length of stay (mean difference -0.15 days; 99% CI, -0.27 to -0.04). Neuraxial anesthesia when combined with general anesthesia or when used alone was not associated with decreased 30-day mortality. Neuraxial anesthesia may improve pulmonary outcomes and reduce resource use when compared with general anesthesia. However, because observational studies were included in this analysis, there is a risk of residual confounding and therefore these results should be interpreted with caution.

Hypotensive Epidural Anesthesia Reduces Blood Loss in Pelvic and Sacral Bone Tumor Resections.

BACKGROUND: Resection of pelvic and sacral tumors can cause severe blood loss, complications, and even postoperative death. Hypotensive epidural anesthesia has been used to mitigate blood loss after elective arthroplasty, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied as an approach that might make resection of pelvic and sacral tumors safer. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the blood loss and blood product use for patients undergoing pelvic and sacral tumor surgery under standard anesthesia or hypotensive epidural anesthesia; (2) to assess the frequency of end-organ damage with the two techniques; and (3) to compare 90-day mortality between the two techniques. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2014, 285 major pelvic and sacral resections were performed at one center. A total of 174 (61%) had complete data sets for analysis of blood loss, transfusion use, complications, and mortality at 90 days. Of those, 102 (59%) underwent hypotensive epidural anesthesia, whereas the remainder received standard anesthetic care. The anesthetic approach was determined by the anesthetists in charge of the case with hypotensive epidural anesthesia exclusively performed by one of two subspecialty trained anesthetists as their routine for major pelvic or sacral surgery. The groups were comparable in terms of potential confounding variables such as age, gender, tumor volume, and operation performed. Hypotensive epidural anesthesia was defined as a technique using an extensive epidural block up to T2-3 dermatome, peripherally administered low-concentration intravenous adrenaline infusion, and using unimpeded spontaneous respiration to achieve controlled hypotension, precise rate control of the heart, and enhanced velocity of venous return, all aggregated thus to minimize blood loss during pelvic surgery while preserving vital perfusion. The groups were assessed for perioperative blood loss calculated from pre- and postsurgery hemoglobin and transfusion use as well as postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: There was less mean blood loss in the hypotensive epidural anesthesia group (1457 mL, SD 1721, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1114-1801 versus 2421 mL, SD 2297, 95% CI, 1877-2965; p = 0.003). Patients in the hypotensive epidural anesthesia group on average received fewer packed red cell transfusions (2.7 units, SD 2.9, 95% CI, 2.1-3.2 versus 3.9 units, SD 4.4, 95% CI, 2.9-5.0; p = 0.03). There were no differences in the proportions of patients experiencing end-organ injury (7%, n = seven of 102 versus 6%, n = four of 72; p = 0.72). With the numbers available, there was no difference in 90-day mortality rate between groups (1.9%, n = two of 102 versus 1.3%, n = one of 72; p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: We found that hypotensive epidural anesthesia resulted in less blood loss, fewer transfusions, and no apparent increase in serious complications in pelvic and sacral tumor surgery performed in the setting of a high-volume tertiary sarcoma referral hospital. We recommend that further collaborative studies be undertaken to confirm our results with hypotensive epidural anesthesia in surgery for pelvic tumors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Paravertebral block versus thoracic epidural for patients undergoing thoracotomy.

BACKGROUND: Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung lining) and muscular damage, costovertebral joint (ribcage) disruption and intercostal nerve (nerves that run along the ribs) damage during surgery. Poor pain relief after surgery can impede recovery and increase the risks of developing complications such as lung collapse, chest infections and blood clots due to ineffective breathing and clearing of secretions. Effective management of acute pain following thoracotomy may prevent these complications and reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. A multi-modal approach to analgesia is widely employed by thoracic anaesthetists using a combination of regional anaesthetic blockade and systemic analgesia, with both non-opioid and opioid medications and local anaesthesia blockade.There is some evidence that blocking the nerves as they emerge from the spinal column (paravertebral block, PVB) may be associated with a lower risk of major complications in thoracic surgery but the majority of thoracic anaesthetists still prefer to use a thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) as analgesia for their patients undergoing thoracotomy. In order to bring about a change in practice, anaesthetists need a review that evaluates the risk of all major complications associated with thoracic epidural and paravertebral block in thoracotomy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the two regional techniques of TEB and PVB in adults undergoing elective thoracotomy with respect to:1. analgesic efficacy;2. the incidence of major complications (including mortality);3. the incidence of minor complications;4. length of hospital stay;5. cost effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to 16 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 16 October 2013); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1982 to 16 October 2013); and reference lists of retrieved studies. We handsearched the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (16 October 2013). We reran the search on 31st January 2015. We found one additional study which is awaiting classification and will be addressed when we update the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PVB with TEB in thoracotomy, including upper gastrointestinal surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JY and SG) independently assessed the studies for inclusion and then extracted data as eligible for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with a total of 698 participants undergoing thoracotomy. There are two studies awaiting classification. The studies demonstrated high heterogeneity in insertion and use of both regional techniques, reflecting real-world differences in the anaesthesia techniques. Overall, the included studies have a moderate to high potential for bias, lacking details of randomization, group allocation concealment or arrangements to blind participants or outcome assessors. There was low to very low-quality evidence that showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2 studies, 125 participants. risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 4.23, P value = 0.68) and major complications (cardiovascular: 2 studies, 114 participants. Hypotension RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.62, P value = 0.45; arrhythmias RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.29, P value = 0.36, myocardial infarction RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13, 76.42, P value = 0.47); respiratory: 5 studies, 280 participants. RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.52, P value = 0.30). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed comparable analgesic efficacy across all time points both at rest and after coughing or physiotherapy (14 studies, 698 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed PVB had a better minor complication profile than TEB including hypotension (8 studies, 445 participants. RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38, P value < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (6 studies, 345 participants. RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75, P value = 0.001), pruritis (5 studies, 249 participants. RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, P value = 0.0005) and urinary retention (5 studies, 258 participants. RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, P value < 0.0001). There was insufficient data in chronic pain (six or 12 months). There was no difference found in and length of hospital stay (3 studies, 124 participants). We found no studies that reported costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Paravertebral blockade reduced the risks of developing minor complications compared to thoracic epidural blockade. Paravertebral blockade was as effective as thoracic epidural blockade in controlling acute pain. There was a lack of evidence in other outcomes. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, major complications, or length of hospital stay. There was insufficient data on chronic pain and costs. Results from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of reliable evidence. Future studies in this area need well-conducted, adequately-powered RCTs that focus not only on acute pain but also on major complications, chronic pain, length of stay and costs.

The impact of anesthetic techniques on survival for patients with colorectal cancer: evidence based on six studies.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Epidural-supplemented general anesthesia is perceived as a more beneficial method over general anesthesia since it reduces incidence of side effects, provides better postoperative pain relief and lowers the possibility to use immunosuppressive anesthetics. However, previous prospective and retrospective studies reported conflicting results in the effects of epidural anesthesia on post-operative outcomes of colorectal cancer surgery. Therefore, this study aims to pool available evidence to assess the association between epidural anesthesia and the post- operative outcomes in this group of patients. METHODOLOGY: Relevant studies were searched in databases and a meta-analysis was performed to estimate the association between epidural anesthesia and overall survival and recurrence free survival. RESULTS: Compared with the anesthetic choice without epidural anesthesia, epidural-supplemented anesthesia is associated with significantly longer overall survival (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55-0.94, p = 0.01) but not with prolonged recurrence free survival (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96-1.16, p = 0.23). These results showed a highlevel of robustness in sensitive test. CONCLUSION: Although epidural anesthesia might not lead to improved recurrence free survival, it had significant benefit in improving overall survival and reducing all-cause of death. It might be a useful anesthetic technique for colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery. However, prospective studies are required to confirm whether this benefit is causative with epidural anesthesia.

One-week postoperative patency of lower extremity in situ bypass graft comparing epidural and general anesthesia: retrospective study of 822 patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether anesthesia affects graft patency after lower extremity arterial in situ bypass surgery. METHODS: This investigation was a retrospective study using a national database on vascular surgical patients at a single medical institution. We assessed a total of 822 patients exposed to infrainguinal in situ bypass vascular surgery over the period of January 2000 to September 2010. RESULTS: All patients included in the study (age [mean ± SD] 70.8 ± 9.7 years) underwent infrainguinal in situ bypass (n = 885) for lower extremity revascularization under epidural (n = 386) or general (n = 499) anesthesia. Thirty-day mortality (3.4% for epidural anesthesia versus 4.4% general anesthesia; P = 0.414) and comorbidity were comparable in the 2 groups. Graft occlusion within 7 days after surgery was reported in 93 patients, with a similar incidence in the epidural (10.1%) and general (10.8%) anesthesia groups (P = 0.730). When examining a subgroup of patients (n = 242) exposed to surgery on smaller vessels (femorodistal in situ bypass procedures, n = 253), the incidence of graft occlusion was also similar in the 2 groups at 14.0% and 9.4%, respectively (P = 0.262). CONCLUSION: This retrospective study has shown that when graft patency is evaluated 7 days after surgery, anesthetic choice (epidural or general anesthesia) does not influence outcome.

Neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Taking the outcome of mortality into consideration, there is controversy about the beneficial effects of neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review at Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 10, 2012), PubMed (1966 to November 2012), Lilacs (1982 to November 2012), SciELO, EMBASE (1974 to November 2012) and reference lists of the studies included. Only randomized controlled trials were included. RESULTS: Out of 5,032 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (risk difference, RD: -0.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.04 to 0.01; n = 1903), stroke (RD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.08; n = 259), myocardial infarction (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.02; n = 291), length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI: -0.69 to 0.58; n = 870), postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.05; n = 479) or pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.49; n = 167). CONCLUSION: So far, the evidence available from the studies included is insufficient to prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. However, this systematic review does not rule out clinically important differences with regard to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, postoperative cognitive dysfunction or pneumonia.

Neuraxial anaesthesia for lower-limb revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Lower-limb revascularization is a surgical procedure that is performed to restore an adequate blood supply to the limbs. Lower-limb revascularization surgery is used to reduce pain and sometimes to improve lower-limb function. Neuraxial anaesthesia is an anaesthetic technique that uses local anaesthetics next to the spinal cord to block nerve function. Neuraxial anaesthesia may lead to improved survival. This systematic review was originally published in 2010 and was first updated in 2011 and again in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rates of death and major complications associated with spinal and epidural anaesthesia as compared with other types of anaesthesia for lower-limb revascularization in patients aged 18 years or older who are affected by obstruction of lower-limb vessels. SEARCH METHODS: The original review was published in 2010 and was based on a search until June 2008. In 2011 we reran the search until February 2011 and updated the review. For this second updated version of the review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and Web of Science from 2011 to April 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing neuraxial anaesthesia (spinal or epidural anaesthesia) versus other types of anaesthesia in adults (18 years or older) with arterial vascular obstruction undergoing lower-limb revascularization surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed data extraction and assessed trial quality. We pooled the data on mortality, myocardial infarction, lower-limb amputation and pneumonia. We summarized dichotomous data as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated version of the review, we found no new studies that met our inclusion criteria. We included in this review four studies that compared neuraxial anaesthesia with general anaesthesia. The total number of participants was 696, of whom 417 were allocated to neuraxial anaesthesia and 279 to general anaesthesia. Participants allocated to neuraxial anaesthesia had a mean age of 67 years, and 59% were men. Participants allocated to general anaesthesia had a mean age of 67 years, and 66% were men. Four studies had an unclear risk of bias. No difference was observed between participants allocated to neuraxial or general anaesthesia in mortality rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.07; 696 participants; four trials), myocardial infarction (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.70; 696 participants; four trials), and lower-limb amputation (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.84; 465 participants; three trials). Pneumonia was less common after neuraxial anaesthesia than after general anaesthesia (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.89; 201 participants; two trials). Evidence was insufficient for cerebral stroke, duration of hospital stay, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, complications in the anaesthetic recovery room and transfusion requirements. No data described nerve dysfunction, postoperative wound infection, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain score, claudication distance and pain at rest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence from included trials that compared neuraxial anaesthesia with general anaesthesia was insufficient to rule out clinically important differences for most clinical outcomes. Neuraxial anaesthesia may reduce pneumonia. No conclusions can be drawn with regard to mortality, myocardial infarction and rate of lower-limb amputation, or less common outcomes.

Neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials / Anestesia neuroaxial para cirurgia ortopedica: revisao sistematica e metanalise de ensaios clinicos randomizados

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Taking the outcome of mortality into consideration, there is controversy about the beneficial effects of neuraxial anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review at Universidade Federal de Alagoas. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 10, 2012), PubMed (1966 to November 2012), Lilacs (1982 to November 2012), SciELO, EMBASE (1974 to November 2012) and reference lists of the studies included. Only randomized controlled trials were included. RESULTS: Out of 5,032 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (risk difference, RD: -0.01; 95% confidence interval, CI: -0.04 to 0.01; n = 1903), stroke (RD: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.08; n = 259), myocardial infarction (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.02; n = 291), length of hospitalization (mean difference, -0.05; 95% CI: -0.69 to 0.58; n = 870), postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.05; n = 479) or pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.49; n = 167). CONCLUSION: So far, the evidence available from the studies included is insufficient to prove that neuraxial anesthesia is more effective and safer than general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery. However, this systematic review does not rule out clinically important differences with regard to mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, length of hospitalization, postoperative cognitive dysfunction or pneumonia. .

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Considerando o desfecho de mortalidade, existe controvérsia acerca dos efeitos benéficos da anestesia neuroaxial (AN) para cirurgias ortopédicas. O objetivo do estudo foi comparar efetividade e segurança da AN versus anestesia geral (AG) para cirurgias ortopédicas. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Revisão sistemática na Universidade Federal de Alagoas. MÉTODOS: Buscamos em Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012, volume 10), PubMed (1966 até novembro de 2012), Lilacs (1982 até novembro de 2012), SciELO, EMBASE (1974 até novembro de 2012) e listas de referências dos estudos incluídos. Apenas ensaios clínicos randomizados foram incluídos. RESULTADOS: Dentre 5.032 títulos e resumos, 17 estudos foram incluídos. Não houve diferença estatística em mortalidade (diferença de risco, DR: -0,01; intervalo de confiança de 95%, IC: -0,04 a 0.01; n = 1903), em acidente vascular encefálico (DR: 0,02; IC 95%: -0,04 a 0,08; n = 259, em infarto miocárdico (DR: -0.01; IC 95%: -0,04 a 0.02; n = 291), tempo de hospitalização (diferença média, -0,05; IC 95%: -0,69 a 0,58; n = 870), em disfunção cognitiva pós-operatória (DR: 0,00; IC 95%: -0,04 a 0,05; n = 479) e pneumonia (razão de chances, 0,61; IC 95%: 0,25 a 1,49; n = 167). CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, as evidências são insuficientes nos estudos incluídos para provar que AN é mais efetiva e segura do que AG para cirurgias ortopédicas. Esta revisão sistemática não descartou diferenças clínicas importantes para mortalidade, acidente vascular encefálico, infarto miocárdico, tempo de internação, disfunção cognitiva pós-operatória e pneumonia. .

Is there a benefit of awake thoracoscopic surgery in patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study was to retrospectively compare the outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery in awake and anesthetized patients in the treatment of secondary spontaneous pneumothorax. METHODS: A total of 57 consecutive patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery for secondary spontaneous pneumothorax was retrospectively analyzed. Of these patients, 15 underwent surgery under epidural and/or local anesthesia (ELA) and 42 under general anesthesia. Using propensity score matching, we identified comparable patient groups: the ELA group and general anesthesia group (n = 8 each). We compared the duration of operating room stay, operating time, postoperative hematologic data on postoperative day 1, postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and the incidence of hospital death between the ELA and general anesthesia groups. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the duration of operating room stay was significantly shorter in the ELA group (P = .006). The incidence of postoperative respiratory complications, including pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome, was lower in the ELA group (P = .02). The duration of postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of hospital death were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The ELA group had a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory complications. Awake video-assisted thoracic surgery can be performed with an acceptable overall morbidity for patients with secondary spontaneous pneumothorax.

The effects of anesthetic technique on cancer recurrence in percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies report that the benefit of regional anesthesia on cancer recurrence may depend on the specific tumor type. We compared the association between anesthetic technique and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients with small HCC treated with RFA between August 1999 and December 2008. Patients receiving epidural anesthesia were compared with a group given general anesthesia. The end points were recurrence-free survival and overall survival, which were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier technique and compared using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model and an alternative model with inverse probability weights to adjust for propensity score. RESULTS: The hazard ratio for recurrence-free survival in the epidural anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia group was 3.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.59-5.15; P < 0.001) in the Cox regression model and 4.31 (95% CI, 2.24-8.29; P < 0.001) in the analysis adjusted for propensity score with inverse probability weights. The hazard ratio for overall survival in the epidural anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia group was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.50-1.18; P = 0.232) in the Cox regression model and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.81-1.97; P = 0.312) in the analysis adjusted for propensity score with inverse probability weights. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis suggests that treatment of small HCC by RFA under general anesthesia is associated with reduced risk of cancer recurrence. No effect of anesthetic technique on overall survival is detected. Prospective, randomized trials to evaluate this association are warranted.

[Anaesthics incidents - Injuries caused by regional anaesthesia - closed claims of the North German Arbitration Board]. / Anästhesiezwischenfälle - Schäden durch Regionalanästhesie - "closed claims" der Norddeutschen Schlichtungsstelle.

Injuries caused by regional anaesthesia are the second most common reason for a patient to apply to the North German Arbitration Board. Part of the reported injuries are mild and transient, while others are severe and permanent, e.g. a paraplegia after regional anaesthesia. In the majority of the reported cases, the Arbitration Board did not find a medical error as cause of the injury. Nevertheless, every possible effort needs to be made to reduce the number and the severity of the injuries due to regional anaesthesia. In order to reach that goal, medical treatment has to be applied with the appropriate care, including the strict adherence to the height of puncture for epidural and spinal anaesthesia below the Conus medullaris and the use of assisting devices like nerve stimulator and ultrasound-guided puncture. Using these measures, the frequency of injuries caused by regional anaesthesia will be reduced.

Role of thoracic epidural block in improving post-operative outcome for septic patients: a preliminary report.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is considered a relative contraindication for epidural blockade. Recent evidence indicates that thoracic epidural blockade may be of benefit during sepsis by improving gut perfusion. This study was planned to evaluate whether combining thoracic epidural blockade with general anaesthesia could decrease the post-operative mortality and morbidity in patients with sepsis due to perforation peritonitis. METHODS: This randomised non-blinded study included consenting adult patients of the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade II-III, undergoing emergency laparotomy for small intestinal perforation peritonitis. Severity of illness was evaluated using Mannheim Peritonitis Index, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score and clinical indicators of systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Patients were randomised into two groups depending on the anaesthetic technique [general anaesthesia combined with thoracic epidural block (group GT) and general anaesthesia (group GA), n = 33 each. The thoracic block was extended from T5 to T10 using 0.125% bupivacaine in aliquots of 2-3 ml, with 50 µg fentanyl. Post-operatively, patients were followed for occurrence of any major morbidity till discharge from hospital, and 30-day mortality. 'Major morbidity' included development of organ failure. Post-operative markers for gut motility and perfusion, that is, time to passage of flatus, stools, resumption of oral feeds and occurrence of anastomotic leak were also observed. Sample size was calculated at power of 80% and α error of 0.05, aiming to detect a decrease of 50% in the incidence of post-operative major morbidity or mortality. RESULTS: Patients in the two groups were similar with respect to demographic profile and severity of sepsis. The number of patients with major morbidity or 30-day mortality were statistically similar between the two groups (group GT, 0/33; group GA 4/33; P = 0.114). A significantly shorter time to pass stools and resume oral feeds in group GT (4 ± 2 vs. 3 ± 1 days) (P = 0.006 and 0.012, respectively) and lesser incidence of anastomotic leak (0/33 vs. 4/33; P = 0.114) showed earlier recovery of gut motility and perfusion in that group. CONCLUSION: Use of intra-operative segmental thoracic epidural blockade performed in addition to general anaesthesia suggested some benefit in improving post-operative mortality or major morbidity, but the trend was not significant, perhaps due to the small sample size. There was, however, a significantly earlier return of bowel motility and earlier discharge from hospital.