[Spinal anaesthesia in day-case surgery. Optimisation of procedures]

Safety and effectiveness of prilocaine for spinal anesthesia in day surgery setting: a retrospective study on a sample of 3291 patients

Spinal anesthesia is considered safe and reliable for most surgical procedures involving the lower part of the body, but its use in the ambulatory setting requires drugs with rapid onset and regression of the motor and sensory block-like prilocaine.The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze data from 3291 procedures recorded in our institutional database, to better define the safety profile of spinal prilocaine and the incidence of complications and side effects.All clinical data, prospectively collected from 2011 to 2019 in an Italian tertiary hospital, of patients treated with spinal anesthesia performed with 40 mg of hyperbaric 2% prilocaine, according to our internal protocol of day surgery, were analyzed.Surgical procedures included saphenectomy (28.5%, n = 937), knee arthroscopy (26.8%, n = 882), proctologic surgery (15.16%, n = 499), and inguinal canal surgery (14.9%, n = 491).Anesthesia-related complication was represented by urinary retention (1.09%, n = 36), lipotimia (0.75%, n = 25), and postoperative nausea (0.33%, n = 11); arrhythmic events were uncommon (0.18%, n = 6). One case of persistent hypotension and 2 cases of persistent hypertension were reported.Persistent motor or sensory block (lasting more than 5 h) was experienced by 7 patients. One patient (0.03%), who underwent knee arthroscopy, experienced pelvic pain lasting for 6 h, compatible with a transient neurological symptom.Proctologic surgery was a factor associated with unplanned admission due to anesthesia-related complications (OR = 4.9; 95% CI: 2-14%).The number of complications related to the method was low as well as the need for hospitalization. This drug is valid and safe for the most performed day surgery procedures; however, further trials are needed to investigate the incidence of complications in the days following the procedure.

Intrathecal chloroprocaine or hyperbaric prilocaine for ambulatory knee surgery? A prospective randomized study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare intrathecal 1% chloroprocaine with 2% hyperbaric prilocaine in the setting of ambulatory knee arthroscopy. We hypothesized that complete resolution of the sensory block was faster with chloroprocaine.

Methods

Eighty patients scheduled for knee arthroscopy were included in this prospective randomized double-blind study. Spinal anesthesia was performed with either chloroprocaine (50 mg) or hyperbaric prilocaine (50 mg). Characteristics of sensory and motor blocks and side effects were recorded.

Results

Mean time to full sensory block recovery was shorter with chloroprocaine (169 (56.1) min vs 248 (59.4)). The characteristics of the sensory blocks were similar at the T12 dermatome level between the two groups. Differences appeared at T10: the percentage of patients with a sensory block was higher, onset quicker and duration longer with hyperbaric prilocaine. The number of patients with a sensory block at T4 dermatome level in both groups was minimal. Times to full motor recovery were identical in both groups (85 (70–99) vs 86 (76–111) min). Time to spontaneous voiding was shorter with chloroprocaine (203 (57.6) min vs 287.3 (47.2) min). Incidence of side effects was low in both groups.

Conclusions

When considering the characteristics of the sensory block, the use of chloroprocaine may allow an earlier discharge of patients. Cephalic extension was to a higher dermatomal level and the sensory block at T10 level was of prolonged duration with hyperbaric prilocaine, suggesting that the choice between the two drugs should also be performed based on the level of the sensory block requested by the surgery.

This study is registered in the US National Clinical Trials Registry, registration number: NCT030389, the first of February 2017, Retrospectively registered.

Using chloroprocaine for spinal anaesthesia in outpatient knee-arthroscopy results in earlier discharge and improved operating room efficiency compared to mepivacaine and prilocaine

PURPOSE

Knee arthroscopies are regularly carried out in an outpatient setting. The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to investigate the impact of different local anaesthetics for spinal anaesthesia on operating room efficiency (perioperative process times) and postoperative recovery. This study aims to determine the optimal LA for SPA in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy at a day-surgery centre.

METHODS

Anaesthesia records of all patients undergoing knee arthroscopy under spinal anaesthesia from 2010 until 2017 were analysed. Patients were categorised as having received spinal anaesthesia with prilocaine, mepivacaine or chloroprocaine.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and nine patients were included. Postoperative recovery was significantly faster for chloroprocaine 1% compared with both other local anaesthetics regarding all stages of recovery until discharge. Perioperative processes and surgery time were significantly shorter when chloroprocaine was used. Early postoperative pain occurred more frequently and earlier after spinal anaesthesia with chloroprocaine. Nevertheless, pain intensity did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anaesthesia provides reliable blocks for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Considerations on the choice of local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia must include not only the recovery profile, but also the impact on operating room efficiency. Due to a superior recovery profile, low incidences of adverse side effects and raised operating room efficiency, chloroprocaine is the recommendable local anaesthetic for spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy in an ambulatory setting. Since the frequency of SPA in patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy is rising yearly, the results of this study are of high clinical relevance. The use of chloroprocaine leads to improved recovery, optimized perioperative processes and consecutively to a raised OR efficiency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Prilocaine hydrochloride 2% hyperbaric solution for intrathecal injection: a clinical review

Prilocaine is a local anesthetic characterized by intermediate potency and duration and fast onset of action. As hyperbaric formulation of 5% solution, it was introduced and has been successfully used for spinal anesthesia since 1960. A new formulation of 2% plain and hyperbaric solution is currently available in Europe. Because of its lower incidence of transient neurological symptoms, prilocaine is suggested as substitute to lidocaine and mepivacaine in spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery, as well as a suitable alternative to low doses of long-acting local anesthetics. The National Library of Medicine database, the Excerpta Medica database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database, were searched for the period 1970 to September 2016, with the aim to identify studies evaluating the intrathecal use of 2% prilocaine. A total of 13 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), 1 observational study, 2 dose finding, and 4 systematic reviews has been used for this review. The studies evaluated showed that 2% hyperbaric prilocaine due to a favorable anesthetic and safety profile is an alternative drug to lidocaine and mepivacaine for spinal anesthesia of intermediate or short duration. In comparison with plain solutions, hyperbaricity remarkably accelerates the onset and offset times of intrathecal 2% prilocaine. Literature suggests a dose ranging between 40 and 60 mg of prilocaine for lower extremities and lower abdominal procedures lasting up to 90 min, whereas a dose ranging from 10 to 30 mg is appropriate for perineal surgery. Readiness for discharge occurs in ~4 h from spinal administration.

Dosage finding for low-dose spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric prilocaine in patients undergoing perianal outpatient surgery

BACKGROUND

Hyperbaric prilocaine 20 mg/ml may be preferable for perianal outpatient surgery. The aim of this prospective, single-centre, randomised, single-blinded, controlled clinical trial was to determine the optimal dosage of hyperbaric prilocaine 20 mg/ml for a spinal anaesthesia (SPA) in patients undergoing perianal outpatient surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty patients (18-80 years/American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I-III) were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomised to receive 10, 20 or 30 mg of prilocaine for SPA. We measured expansion of the sensory and motor block, evaluated times to walk, void and being eligible for discharge, and determined the demand of analgesics.

RESULTS

116/120 patients were available for analysis. The expansion of the sensory block gained with an increasing dosage: 10 mg: 3(1-6) dermatomes; 20 mg: 4(2-6) dermatomes; 30 mg: 5(3-7) dermatomes (P < 0.0001). Dermatomes were counted upwards beginning with S(5). Also, the motor block gained with an increased dosage (Bromage score 1-3: 10 mg: n = 3, 20 mg: n = 8 and 30 mg: n = 18, P = 0.0002). Patients receiving 10 mg were ready for discharge earlier compared with both other groups (10 mg: 199 ± 39 min; 20 mg: 219 ± 47 min; 30 mg: 229 ± 32 min, P = 0.0039). Pain occurred earlier in the 10 mg group than in the 30 mg group (10 mg: 168 ± 36 min; 30 mg: 205 ± 33 min, P = 0.0427). The demand of additional analgesics was comparable in all dosage groups.

CONCLUSION

Hyperbaric prilocaine 20 mg/ml can be applied in dosages of 10, 20 and 30 mg for SPA in perianal surgery. Because of sufficient analgesia, missing motor block and shorter recovery times, 10 mg of hyperbaric prilocaine 20 mg/ml can be recommended for perianal outpatient surgery.

[Future-oriented design of ambulatory surgery. Organizational aspects and medical options]

Ambulatory surgery continues to grow and is slowly becoming routine in the majority of cases. Although the development of ambulatory surgery in Germany appears to be somewhat delayed, this is actually a chance to learn from worldwide experiences and avoid the mistakes others made earlier. This article investigates current trends and developments in day case surgery and discusses the extended role and influence of the anesthetist in the perioperative setting.

Is It Useful and Safe to Maintain the Sitting Position During Only One Minute before Position Change to the Jack-knife Position?

Background

Conventional spinal saddle block is performed with the patient in a sitting position, keeping the patient sitting for between 3 to 10 min after injection of a drug. This amount of time, however, is long enough to cause prolonged postoperative urinary retention. The trend in this block is to lower the dose of local anesthetics, providing a selective segmental block; however, an optimal dose and method are needed for adequate anesthesia in variable situations. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the question of whether only 1 min of sitting after drug injection would be sufficient and safe for minor anorectal surgery.

Methods

Two hundred and sixteen patients undergoing minor anorectal surgery under spinal anesthesia remained sitting for 1 min after completion of subarachnoid administration of 1 ml of a 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine solution (5 mg). They were then placed in the jack-knife position. After surgery, analgesia levels were assessed using loss of cold sensation in the supine position. The next day, urination and 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) for postoperative pain were assessed.

Results

None of the patients required additional analgesics during surgical manipulation. Postoperative sensory levels were T10 [T8-T12] in patients, and no significant differences were observed between sex (P = 0.857), height (P = 0.065), obesity (P = 0.873), or age (P = 0.138). Urinary retention developed in only 7 patients (3.2%). In this group, NRS was 5.0 ± 2.4 (P = 0.014).

Conclusions

The one-minute sitting position for spinal saddle block before the jack-knife position is a safe method for use with minor anorectal surgery and can reduce development of postoperative urinary retention.