Neuraxial versus general anesthesia for perioperative outcomes and resource utilization following knee arthroplasty: experience from a large national database

Comparative effectiveness of neuraxial versus general anesthesia in total joint replacement surgery: an updated retrospective analysis using more recent data

INTRODUCTION

Over a decade ago, our study group showed improved outcomes among total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) patients given neuraxial versus general anesthesia. As the use of neuraxial anesthesia has increased and anesthesia practices evolve, updated analyses are critical to ensure if previously found differences still persist.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included elective THA/TKAs from 2006 to 2021 as recorded in the all-payor Premier Healthcare Database. Multivariable regression models measured the association between anesthesia type (neuraxial, general, combined) and several adverse outcomes (pulmonary embolism, cerebrovascular events, pulmonary compromise, cardiac complications, acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, all infections, acute renal failure, gastrointestinal complications, postoperative mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admissions, and blood transfusions); models were run separately by period (2006-2015 and 2016-2021) and THA/TKA.

RESULTS

We identified 587,919 and 499,484 THAs for 2006-2015 and 2016-2021, respectively; this was 1,186,483 and 803,324 for TKAs. Among THAs, neuraxial anesthesia use increased from 10.7% in 2006 to 25.7% in 2021; during both time periods, specifically neuraxial versus general anesthesia was associated with lower odds for most adverse outcomes, with sometimes stronger (protective) effect estimates observed for 2016-2021 versus 2006-2015 (eg, acute renal failure OR 0.72 CI 0.65 to 0.80 vs OR 0.56 CI 0.50 to 0.63 and blood transfusion OR 0.91 CI 0.89 to 0.94 vs OR 0.44 CI 0.41 to 0.47, respectively; all p<0.001). Similar patterns existed for TKAs.

CONCLUSION

These findings re-confirm our study group's decade-old study using more recent data and offer additional evidence toward the sustained benefit of neuraxial anesthesia in major orthopedic surgery.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Outpatient Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Matched-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Spinal anesthesia is the predominant regimen in outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA), but induction often is unsuccessful, unobtainable, or against patient preference. We compared outcomes of same-day discharge (SDD) TJA with spinal versus general anesthesia in a free-standing ambulatory surgery center (ASC).

METHODS

We took 105 general anesthesia TJA and one-to-one nearest-neighbor matched them to 105 spinal anesthesia TJA over 7 years at 1 ASC. The rate of successful SDD, minutes to discharge, postoperative pain and nausea, and 90-day complications were compared. Postanesthesia care unit outcomes were additionally stratified by spinal anesthetic (mepivacaine versus bupivacaine).

RESULTS

All spinal anesthetic patients underwent SDD compared with 103 (98%) general anesthetic patients (P = .498). Mepivacaine spinal anesthesia patients spent the fewest minutes in postanesthesia care unit prior to discharge from the facility (206), followed by general anesthesia (227), and bupivacaine spinal anesthesia (291; P < .001). General anesthesia patients had the highest levels of pain at 1 hour (5.2 versus 1.5 versus 1.5) and 2 hours (3.2 versus 2.0 versus 1.3) postoperatively, and rates of nausea (48 versus 22 versus 28%) compared with mepivacaine and bupivacaine spinal anesthesia, respectively. The 90-day complications (6 versus 7), admissions (1 versus 3), and reoperations (5 versus 2) were similar among spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (P ≥ .445).

CONCLUSIONS

Both spinal and general anesthesia led to reliable SDD with similar 90-day complication rates. General anesthesia facilitated faster discharge from the ASC compared with bupivacaine spinal anesthesia but led to higher levels of pain and incidence of nausea postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3, Retrospective Cohort Comparison.