Sandra L. Kopp

Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Third Edition).

The actual incidence of neurologic dysfunction resulting from hemorrhagic complications associated with neuraxial blockade is unknown. Although the incidence cited in the literature is estimated to be less than 1 in 150,000 epidural and less than 1 in 220,000 spinal anesthetics, recent epidemiologic surveys suggest that the frequency is increasing and may be as high as 1 in 3000 in some patient populations. Overall, the risk of clinically significant bleeding increase with age, associated abnormalities of the spinal cord or vertebral column, the presence of an underlying coagulopathy, difficulty during needle placement, and an indwelling neuraxial catheter during sustained anticoagulation (particularly with standard heparin or low-molecular weight heparin). The need for prompt diagnosis and intervention to optimize is also consistently reported. In response to these patient safety issues, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) convened its Third Consensus Conference on Regional Anesthesia and Anticoagulation. Practice guidelines or recommendations summarize evidence-based reviews. However, the rarity of spinal hematoma defies a prospective randomized study, and there is no current laboratory model. As a result, the ASRA consensus statements represent the collective experience of recognized experts in the field of neuraxial anesthesia and anticoagulation. These are based on case reports, clinical series, pharmacology, hematology, and risk factors for surgical bleeding. An understanding of the complexity of this issue is essential to patient management.

Analgesia for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Multimodal Pathway Featuring Peripheral Nerve Block

Patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty experience substantial and sustained postoperative pain. Inadequate analgesia may impede physical therapy and rehabilitative efforts and delay hospital dismissal. Traditionally, postoperative analgesia after total joint replacement was provided by either intravenous patient-controlled analgesia or epidural analgesia. Each, however, had disadvantages as well as advantages. Peripheral nerve blockade of the lumbosacral plexus has emerged as an alternative analgesic approach. In several studies, unilateral peripheral block provided a quality of analgesia and functional outcomes similar to those of continuous epidural analgesia and superior to those of systemic analgesia, but with fewer side effects because of their opioid-sparing properties. Peripheral nerve block techniques may be the optimal analgesic method following total joint arthroplasty.

A Comprehensive Anesthesia Protocol That Emphasizes Peripheral Nerve Blockade for Total Knee and Total Hip Arthroplasty

R ecently, advances in radiographic imaging and surgical instrumentation have allowed experienced orthopaedic surgeons to perform total hip and total knee replacement surgery with surgical exposures that are less extensive than those associated with traditional techniques1,2. Commonly referred to as “minimally invasive total hip and total knee arthroplasty,” these techniques are now being touted as important surgical advancements. The introduction of minimally invasive total hip and total knee techniques has been accompanied by substantial concomitant changes in perioperative anesthetic techniques, rapid rehabilitation protocols, and changes in patient education and expectations. However, the specific contribution of each of these changes to observed improvements after contemporary total hip and total knee arthroplasty remains unclear. Tremendous strides in anesthesiology and perioperative pain management have been made with regard to the understanding of pain mechanisms and the importance of perioperative analgesia. The consequences of uncontrolled pain and medication-related side effects include the inability to actively participate in rehabilitation, delayed recovery, poor or suboptimal surgical outcome, prolonged hospitalization, and greater use of health-care resources3. Traditionally, the administration of intravenous opioids has been the mainstay for postoperative analgesia following total hip or total knee arthroplasty. However, parenteral opioids are commonly associated with inadequate pain relief, generalized sedation, and adverse side effects such as nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal ileus, and pruritus. In response, some anesthesiologists have embraced the concept of “preemptive multimodal perioperative analgesia.” Preemptive analgesia involves the administration of analgesics prior to painful stimuli in order to prevent central sensitization and thus the amplification of pain4. Multimodal analgesia refers to the use of combined analgesic regimens for the treatment of postoperative pain. For example, low-dose opioids, local anesthetic infiltration, peripheral nerve blockade, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, clonidine, and cryotherapy all have been used in various combinations to manage postoperative …

Falls and major orthopaedic surgery with peripheral nerve blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the risk for falls after major orthopaedic surgery with peripheral nerve blockade. Electronic databases from inception through January 2012 were searched. Eligible studies evaluated falls after peripheral nerve blockade in adult patients undergoing major lower extremity orthopaedic surgery. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. The Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated from each study that compared continuous lumbar plexus blockade with non-continuous blockade or no blockade using a fixed effects model. Ten studies (4014 patients) evaluated the number of falls as an outcome. Five studies did not contain comparison groups. The meta-analysis of five studies [four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one cohort] compared continuous lumbar plexus blockade (631 patients) with non-continuous blockade or no blockade (964 patients). Fourteen falls occurred in the continuous lumbar plexus block group when compared with five falls within the non-continuous block or no block group (attributable risk 1.7%; number needed to harm 59). Continuous lumbar plexus blockade was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk for falls [Peto OR 3.85; 95% CI (1.52, 9.72); P=0.005; I(2)=0%]. Evidence was low (cohort) to high (RCTs) quality. Continuous lumbar plexus blockade in adult patients undergoing major lower extremity orthopaedic surgery increases the risk for postoperative falls compared with non-continuous blockade or no blockade. However, attributable risk was not outside the expected probability of postoperative falls after orthopaedic surgery.

Neurologic complications after neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia in patients with preexisting peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy or diabetic polyneuropathy.

BACKGROUND: The risk of severe neurologic injury after neuraxial blockade is extremely rare among the general population. However, patients with preexisting neural compromise may be at increased risk of further neurologic sequelae after neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 567 patients with a preexisting peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy or diabetic polyneuropathy who subsequently underwent neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia. Patient demographics, neurologic history, the indication and type of neuraxial blockade, complications, and block outcome were collected for each patient. RESULTS: The majority of patients had chronically stable neurologic signs or symptoms at the time of block placement, with very few reporting progression of their symptoms within the last 6 mo. The type of neuraxial technique included spinal anesthesia in 325 (57%) patients, epidural anesthesia or analgesia in 214 (38%) patients, continuous spinal anesthesia in 24 (4%) patients, and a combined spinal-epidural technique in four (1%) patients. Overall, two (0.4%; 95% CI 0.1%–1.3%) patients experienced new or progressive postoperative neurologic deficits, in the setting of an uneventful neuraxial technique. In these patients, the neuraxial block may have contributed to the injury secondary to direct trauma or local anesthetic neurotoxicity around an already vulnerable nerve. Sixty-five (11.5%) technical complications occurred in 63 patients. The most common complication was unintentional elicitation of a paresthesia (7.6%), followed by traumatic (evidence of blood) needle placement (1.6%) and unplanned dural puncture (0.9%). There were no infectious or hematologic complications. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of severe postoperative neurologic dysfunction in patients with peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy or diabetic polyneuropathy undergoing neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia was found to be 0.4% (95% CI 0.1%–1.3%). Clinicians should be aware of this potentially high-risk subgroup of patients when developing and implementing a regional anesthetic care plan.

Cardiac arrest during neuraxial anesthesia: frequency and predisposing factors associated with survival.

The frequency and predisposing factors associated with cardiac arrest during neuraxial anesthesia remain undefined, and the survival outcome data are contradictory. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the frequency of cardiac arrest, as well as the association of preexisting medical conditions and periarrest events with survival after cardiac arrest during neuraxial anesthesia between 1983 and 2002. To assess whether survival after cardiac arrest differs for patients who arrest during neuraxial versus general anesthesia, data were also obtained for patients who experienced cardiac arrest under general anesthesia during similar surgical procedures during the same time interval. Over the 20-yr study period at the Mayo Clinic, there were 26 cardiac arrests during neuraxial blockade and 29 during general anesthesia. The overall frequency of cardiac arrest during neuraxial anesthesia for 1988 to 2002 was 1.8 per 10,000 patients, with more arrests in patients receiving spinal versus epidural anesthesia (2.9 versus 0.9 per 10,000; P = 0.041). In 14 (54%) of the 26 patients who arrested during a neuraxial technique, the anesthetic contributed directly to the arrest (high sympathectomy or respiratory depression after sedative administration), whereas in 12 (46%) patients, the arrest was associated with a specific surgical event (cementing of joint components, spermatic cord manipulation, reaming of the femur, and rupture of amniotic membranes). Patients who arrested during general anesthesia had a higher ASA classification than those who arrested during a neuraxial block (P = 0.031). Hospital survival was significantly improved for patients who arrested during neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia (65% vs 31%; P = 0.013). The association of improved survival with neuraxial anesthesia remained statistically significant after adjusting for all patient/procedural characteristics, with the exception of ASA classification and emergency procedures. We conclude that a cardiac arrest during neuraxial anesthesia is associated with an equal or better likelihood of survival than a cardiac arrest during general anesthesia.

The Second ASRA Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications Associated With Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine: Executive Summary 2015.

Neurologic injury associated with regional anesthetic or pain medicine procedures is extremely rare. The Second American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications Associated With Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine focuses on those complications associated with mechanical, ischemic, or neurotoxic injury of the neuraxis or peripheral nervous system. As with the first advisory, this iteration does not focus on hemorrhagic or infectious complications or local anesthetic systemic toxicity, all of which are the subjects of separate practice advisories. The current advisory offers recommendations to aid in the understanding and potential limitation of rare neurologic complications that may arise during the practice of regional anesthesia and/or interventional pain medicine. What’s New The Second American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications Associated With Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine updates information that was originally presented at the Society’s first open forum on this subject (2005) and published in 2008. Portions of the second advisory were presented in an open forum (2012) and are herein updated, with attention to those topics subject to evolving knowledge since the first and second advisory conferences. The second advisory briefly summarizes recommendations that have not changed substantially. New to this iteration of the advisory is information related to the risk of nerve injury inherent to common orthopedic surgical procedures. Recommendations are expanded regarding the preventive role of various monitoring technologies such as ultrasound guidance and injection pressure monitoring. New clinical recommendations focus on emerging concerns including spinal stenosis and vertebral canal pathologies, blood pressure management during neuraxial anesthesia, administering blocks in anesthetized or deeply sedated patients, patients with preexisting neurologic disease, and inflammatory neuropathies. An updated diagnostic and treatment algorithm is presented.

Neuraxial anesthesia for the prevention of postoperative mortality and major morbidity: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND:This analysis summarized Cochrane reviews that assess the effects of neuraxial anesthesia on perioperative rates of death, chest infections, and myocardial infarction. METHODS:A search was performed in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on July 13, 2012. We have included all Cochrane systematic reviews that examined subjects of any age undergoing any type of surgical (open or endoscopic) procedure, compared neuraxial anesthesia to general anesthesia alone for the surgical anesthesia, or neuraxial anesthesia plus general anesthesia to general anesthesia alone for the surgical anesthesia, and included death, chest infections, myocardial infarction, and/or serious adverse events as outcomes. Studies included in these reviews were selected on the same criteria. RESULTS:Nine Cochrane reviews were selected for this overview. Their scores on the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire varied from 4 to 6 of a maximal possible score of 7. Compared with general anesthesia, neuraxial anesthesia reduced the 0- to-30-day mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53–0.94; I2 = 0%) based on 20 studies that included 3006 participants. Neuraxial anesthesia also decreased the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26–0.79; I2 = 0%) based on 5 studies that included 400 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between the 2 techniques (RR 1.17; 95% CI, 0.57–2.37; I2 = 0%) based on 6 studies with 849 participants. Compared with general anesthesia alone, adding neuraxial anesthesia to general anesthesia did not affect the 0- to-30-day mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.76–1.51; I2 = 0%) based on 18 studies with 3228 participants. No difference was detected in the risk of myocardial infarction between combined neuraxial anesthesia–general anesthesia and general anesthesia alone (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.44–1.09; I2 = 0%) based on 8 studies that included 1580 participants. Adding a neuraxial anesthesia to general anesthesia reduced the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.98; I2 = 9%) after adjustment for publication bias and based on 9 studies that included 2433 participants. The quality of the evidence was judged as moderate for all 6 comparisons. The quality of the reporting score of complications related to neuraxial blocks was 9 (4 to 12 [median {range}]) for a possible maximum score of 14. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with general anesthesia, neuraxial anesthesia may reduce the 0-to-30-day mortality for patients undergoing a surgery with an intermediate-to-high cardiac risk (level of evidence moderate). Large randomized controlled trials on the difference in death and major outcomes between regional and general anesthesia are required.

Neuraxial blockade in patients with preexisting spinal stenosis, lumbar disk disease, or prior spine surgery: efficacy and neurologic complications.

BACKGROUND: Patients with spinal canal pathology, including spinal stenosis and lumbar disk disease, are often not considered candidates for neuraxial blockade because of the risk of exacerbating preexisting neurologic deficits or developing new neurologic dysfunction. In contrast, a history of spine surgery is thought to increase the likelihood of difficult or unsuccessful block. In this retrospective study we investigated the risk of neurologic complications and block efficacy in patients with preexisting spinal canal pathology, with or without a history of spine surgery, after neuraxial anesthesia. METHODS: During the 15-year study period, all patients with a history of spinal stenosis or lumbar radiculopathy undergoing a neuraxial technique were studied. Patient demographics, preoperative neurologic diagnoses and neurologic findings at the time of surgery/neuraxial block, details of the neuraxial block including technique (spinal vs. epidural, single injection vs. continuous), injectate, technical complications (paresthesia elicitation, bloody needle/catheter placement, inability to advance catheter, accidental dural puncture), and block success were noted. New or progressive neurologic deficits were identified. All patients were followed until resolution or last date of evaluation. RESULTS: There were 937 patients included, 207 (22%) of whom had undergone spinal surgery. A history of spinal stenosis was present in 187 (20%), lumbar radiculopathy in 570 (61%), and peripheral neuropathy in 210 (22%) patients; 180 patients (19%) had multiple neurologic diagnoses. A majority of patients had active but stable neurologic symptoms at the time of surgery. Overall block success was 97.2%. A history of spine surgery did not affect the success rate or frequency of technical complications. Ten (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5%–2.0%) patients experienced new deficits or worsening of existing symptoms. Three (1.4%) complications occurred in patients with a history of spinal surgery, and the remaining 7 (1.0%) in patients without prior surgical decompression or stabilization (P = NS). Although an orthopedic procedure was not a risk factor, in 5 of the 6 patients in which the surgery was a unilateral lower extremity procedure, the postoperative deficit involved the operative side. Likewise, in both patients undergoing bilateral orthopedic procedures who developed bilateral deficits, the outcome was worse on the previously affected side. A surgical cause was presumed to be the primary etiology in 4 (40%) of 10 patients. The primary etiology of the remaining 6 (60%) complications was judged to be nonsurgical (including anesthetic-related factors). The presence of a preoperative diagnosis of compressive radiculopathy (P = 0.0495) or multiple neurologic diagnoses (P = 0.005) increased the risk of neurologic complications postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patients with preexisting spinal canal pathology have a higher incidence of neurologic complications after neuraxial blockade (1.1%; 95% CI 0.5%–2.0%) than that previously reported for patients without such underlying pathology. However, in the absence of a control group of surgical patients with similar anatomic pathology undergoing general anesthesia, we cannot determine whether the higher incidence of neurologic injury is secondary to the surgical procedure, the anesthetic technique, the natural history of spinal pathology, or a combination of factors and the relative contributions of each.

Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research

BACKGROUND This systematic review evaluated the evidence comparing patient-important outcomes in spinal or epidural vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. METHODS MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until March 2015 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials or prospective comparative studies investigating mortality, major morbidity, and patient-experience outcomes directly comparing neuraxial (spinal or epidural) with general anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or both were included. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS We included 29 studies involving 10 488 patients. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia significantly reduced length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.40 days; 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.03; P=0.03; I2 73%; 12 studies). No statistically significant differences were found between neuraxial and general anaesthesia for mortality, surgical duration, surgical site or chest infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or thromboembolic disease when antithrombotic prophylaxis was used. Subgroup analyses failed to find statistically significant interactions (P>0.05) based on risk of bias, type of surgery, or type of neuraxial anaesthesia. CONCLUSION Neuraxial anaesthesia for total hip or total knee arthroplasty, or both appears equally effective without increased morbidity when compared with general anaesthesia. There is limited quantitative evidence to suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Future investigations should compare intermediate and long-term outcome differences to better inform anaesthesiologists, surgeons, and patients on importance of anaesthetic selection.