Use of neuraxial anesthesia for hybrid lower extremity revascularization is associated with reduced perioperative morbidity

Efficacy of Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Lower Extremity Microvascular Reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

Some surgeons have raised concerns regarding the sympathectomy-like effect of epidural anesthesia during lower limb microvascular reconstruction. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthetic technique incorporates several benefits of spinal and epidural techniques in a single approach. The aim of this study was to analyze the postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing soft-tissue reconstruction of the lower limb by implementing the CSE anesthesia approach.

METHODS

We reviewed medical records from patients who underwent lower limb reconstructive procedures under CSE anesthesia with free tissue transfer from January 2017 to December 2020. We evaluated the postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients underwent microvascular reconstructive procedures of the lower extremity over the study period. The average age and BMI were 38.4-year and 28 kg/m2. All patients only had one postoperative rescue dose with epidural anesthesia. The most common type of flap used was the anterolateral thigh flap (53%). The average splinting time and length of stay (LoS) were 8.4 days and 18.4 days, respectively. Donor-site complications included wound dehiscence (3%) and surgical site infection (3%). Recipient-site complications included partial flap loss (8%) and total flap loss (10%). No pro re nata morphine analgesia was used. Tramadol and/or ketoprofen were administered for postoperative analgesia. The average time to start physiotherapy and to resume daily activities were 10 days and 29 days, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CSE anesthesia for microvascular reconstruction of the lower limb demonstrated a similar success rate compared to historical records. CSE provided adequate pain management and none of the patients required postoperative monitoring in the ICU.

Anesthetic management for lower extremity vascular bypass procedures: The impact of general or regional anesthesia on clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

Postoperative complications after major surgery, especially vascular procedures, are associated with a significant increase in costs and mortality. Previous studies evaluating general anesthesia versus regional or neuraxial anesthesia for infrainguinal bypass have produced conflicting results. The main aim of the present study is to review current evidence on the application of regional or general anesthesia in patients undergoing infrainguinal bypass surgery and its potential favorable effects on postoperative outcomes.

CONTENTS

Patients undergoing vascular surgery often have multiple comorbidities, and it is important to outline both benefits and risks of regional anesthesia techniques. Neuraxial anesthesia in vascular surgery allows overall avoidance of general anesthesia and does provide short-term benefits beyond analgesia. Previous observational studies suggest that neuraxial anesthesia for lower limb revascularization may reduce morbidity and length of stay. However, evidence of long-term benefits is lacking in most procedures and further work is still warranted.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuraxial anesthesia is usually an effective anesthesia technique for infrainguinal bypass surgery. Elderly patients and those with underlying respiratory problems may display some benefit from neuraxial anesthesia. Further evaluation within institutions should be performed to identify which patients would most benefit from regional techniques. Notably, systemic antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy is common among this population and may affect anesthetic choices.

Current indications for spinal anesthesia-a narrative review

Spinal anesthesia is a commonly performed regional anesthesia technique by most anesthesiologists worldwide. This technique is learned early during training and is relatively easy to master. Despite being an old technique, spinal anesthesia has evolved and developed in various aspects. This review attempts to highlight the current indications of this technique. Understanding the finer aspects and knowledge gaps will help postgraduates and practicing anesthesiologists in designing patient-specific techniques and interventions.

Cross-leg free flaps and cross-leg vascular cable bridge flaps for lower limb salvage: experience before and after COVID-19

Background

Previous reports have evidenced the disruptive effect of the COVID-19 in microsurgical and reconstructive departments. We report our experience with cross-leg free flaps and (CLFF) and cross-leg vascular cable bridge flaps (CLVCBF) for lower limb salvage, technical consideration to decrease morbidity, and some structural modifications to our protocols for standard of care adapted to the COVID-19.

Methods

We retrospectively included consecutive patients undergoing reconstruction with CLFFs and CLVCBFs for lower limb salvage from January 2003 to May 2022. We extracted data on baseline demographic characteristics, mechanism of trauma, and surgical outcomes.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included, 11 (45.8%) underwent reconstruction with CLFF while 13 had CLVCBFs (54.2%). Fifteen patients (62.5%) underwent lower limb reconstruction under general anesthesia while 9 (37.5%) had combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. During COVID-19 pandemic, six CLFF cases were performed under S-E (25%). The average time for pedicle transection of muscle CLFFs and muscle CLVCBFs was comparable between groups (60 days versus 62 days, p = 0.864). A significantly shorter average time was evidenced for pedicle division of fasciocutaneous flaps in the CLFF group when compared to CLVCBFs (45 days versus 59 days, p = 0.002).

Conclusions

In selected patients, CLFFs and CLVCBFs offer an optimal alternative for lower limb salvage using recipient vessels out of the zone of injury from the contralateral limb. Modification in the surgical protocols can decrease improve resource allocation in the setting of severely ill patients during COVID-19.Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic.

Outcomes After Neuraxial or Regional Anaesthesia Instead of General Anaesthesia for Lower Limb Revascularisation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anaesthesia instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery affects patient outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

After protocol registration, the data sources were searched for randomised and non-randomised studies comparing neuraxial or regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Data were pooled using random effects models. GRADE was used to assess certainty in cumulative evidence.

RESULTS

From 10 755 citations identified, five randomised (n = 970) and 13 non-randomised (n = 96 800) studies were included. Use of neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with no statistically significant reduction in short term (in hospital or 30 day) mortality in randomised studies (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 - 1.81; low certainty) and a statistically significant reduction in adjusted short term mortality in non-randomised studies (pooled OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.81; low certainty). Adults allocated to neuraxial anaesthesia in randomised studies had fewer pulmonary complications (pooled OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16 - 0.76; low certainty). In non-randomised studies, neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of any morbidity (pooled OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52 - 0.84), cardiac complications (pooled OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.79), pneumonia (pooled OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.64 - 1.02), prolonged mechanical ventilation (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.002 - 0.55), and bypass graft thrombosis (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.59 - 0.85), as well as a shorter operative duration (low certainty for all). Use of a nerve block instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of delirium (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 - 0.42) and a shorter operative duration (low certainty for both).

CONCLUSION

Randomised and non-randomised data suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery reduces morbidity and possibly mortality. Until randomised trials with a low risk of bias become available, this study supports use of neuraxial anaesthesia for these procedures where appropriate.

Outcomes After Receipt of Neuraxial or Regional Anesthesia Instead of General Anesthesia for Lower Limb Revascularization Surgery: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality and often have long hospital stays. Use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia may represent one approach to improving outcomes and reducing resource use among these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes and costs and a shorter length of hospitalization.

METHODS

We will search electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the seven databases in Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Google Scholar), review papers identified during the search, and included article bibliographies. We will include randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the use of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD. Two investigators will independently evaluate the risk of bias. The primary outcome will be short-term (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality. Secondary outcomes will include longer-term mortality; major adverse cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, and limb events; delirium; deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism; neuraxial or regional anesthesia-related complications; graft-related outcomes; length of operation and hospital stay; costs; and patient-reported or functional outcomes. We will calculate summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effects models. Heterogeneity will be explored using stratified meta-analyses and meta-regression. We will assess for publication bias using the Begg and Egger tests and use the trim-and-fill method to estimate the potential influence of this bias on summary estimates. Finally, we will use Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to make an overall rating of the quality of evidence in our effect estimates.

RESULTS

The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). We executed the peer-reviewed search strategy on March 2, 2021. We completed the review of titles and abstracts on July 30, 2021, and plan to complete the review of full-text papers by September 30, 2021. We will complete full-text study data extraction and the risk-of-bias assessment by November 15, 2021, and conduct qualitative and then quantitative data synthesis and GRADE assessment of results by January 1, 2022, before drafting the manuscript. We anticipate that we will be able to submit the manuscript for peer review by the end of February 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

This study will synthesize existing evidence regarding whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anesthesia instead of general anesthesia in adults undergoing lower limb revascularization surgery for PAD results in improved health outcomes, graft patency, and costs and a shorter length of hospital stay. Study results will be used to inform practice and future research, including creation of a pilot and then multicenter randomized controlled trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42021237060; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=237060.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/32170.

Modern Lower Extremity Bypass Outcomes by Anesthesia Type in the Veteran Population

BACKGROUND

Lower extremity bypass (LEB) revascularization can be performed under general (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). Studies show that the use of NA may decrease morbidity, 30-day mortality, and hospital length-of-stay (LOS). The goal of our analysis is to examine the differences in postsurgical outcomes following LEB between patients who undergo GA compared to NA in the Veteran Affairs Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP) database.

METHODS

After IRB approval, the VASQIP database was assessed for patients who underwent LEB between 1998-2018. Only infrainguinal bypass procedures and anesthesia type classified as "general," "epidural," or "spinal" were included. The neuraxial cohort includes both spinal and epidural anesthesia patients. The Risk Analysis Index (RAI), a validated measure of frailty, was additionally calculated for each patient. Chi squared, paired t-test, and binary logistic regression were used to compare the cohorts.

RESULTS

During this period, 22,960 veterans underwent LEB recorded in VASQIP. Compared to those who underwent surgery under GA, patients with procedures performed using NA were older (66.4 ± 9.6 years vs. 65.3 ± 9 years respectively; P <0.001) and more frail (average RAI score 25.7 ± 7.0 vs. 24.9 ± 6.7; P < 0.001). Operative time was shorter in the NA group (4.1 ± 1.7 hrs vs. 4.7 ± 3.0 hrs; P < 0.001) and fewer cases were emergent (1.55% vs. 4.13%; P <0.001). Patients in the GA group had higher rates of postoperative prolonged ileus (0.31% vs. 0.00%; P = 0.03), pneumonia (1.60% vs. 1.06%; P = 0.025), deep wound infection (2.67% vs. 2.61%; P = 0.01), sepsis (1.68% vs. 0.79%; P < 0.001), reintubation (1.80% vs. 1.30%) (P = 0.04),and number of packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfused intraoperatively (0.39 ± 1.21 units vs. 0.22 ± 0.79 units; P <0.001). There was no significant difference in rate of graft failure, return to the OR, myocardial infarction, death, or LOS. In regression analysis, those undergoing NA were less likely to require pRBC transfusion intraoperatively (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31-0.61; P < 0.001), however no other outcomes reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Although younger and less frail, veteran patients undergoing GA for lower extremity revascularization had higher rates of postoperative ileus, pneumonia, deep wound infection, sepsis, and need for transfusion as compared to those undergoing NA. There was no significant difference in the rate of other major complications, myocardial infarction, death or LOS. After adjustment, only intraoperative transfusion remained statistically significant, likely reflecting longer and more complex cases for those that undergo general anesthesia rather than the effect of anesthetic choice itself.