Spinal versus general anesthesia for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study

Utility of spinal anesthesia in plastic surgery and other surgical subspecialties: A literature review

INTRODUCTION

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is commonly used within the specialties of orthopedic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, spine surgery, and general surgery, and offers several benefits over general anesthesia (GA). However, SA is used much less frequently in plastic surgery. This review analyzed currently existing data on SA use across various surgical specialties and compared the benefits and complications of SA to those of GA, to assess its utility and potential for more widespread use in plastic surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to evaluate the utility of SA in plastic surgery. Indications, contraindications, and data on the use of SA across various surgical specialties were reviewed. Benefits, complications, and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Finally, the utility of SA in plastic surgery was evaluated based on the available literature.

RESULTS

SA has been shown to yield several benefits and fewer risks than GA, including a higher possibility of early discharge, decreased costs, better pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting control, and decreased risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

CONCLUSION

Although commonly used for procedures across various surgical specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, urology, and orthopedic surgery, SA is less frequently used within plastic surgery. Plastic surgery procedures that would benefit from the use of SA include those below the umbilicus such as liposuction, lower extremity procedures, and perineal procedures, and owing to its benefits, we recommend that SA be used more often within plastic surgery under appropriate clinical circumstances.

Regional anaesthesia for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, visceral, non-oncological surgery a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management following laparoscopic, non-oncological visceral surgery in adults is challenging. Regional anaesthesia could be a promising component in multimodal pain management.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with GRADE assessment. Primary outcomes were postoperative acute pain intensity at rest/during movement after 24 h, the number of patients with block-related adverse events and the number of patients with postoperative paralytic ileus.

RESULTS

82 trials were included. Peripheral regional anaesthesia combined with general anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia may result in a slight reduction of pain intensity at rest at 24 h (mean difference (MD) - 0.72 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.91 to - 0.54; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), which was not clinically relevant. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect on pain intensity during activity at 24 h (MD -0.8 points; 95%CI - 1.17 to - 0.42; I2 = 99%; very low-certainty evidence) and on the incidence of block-related adverse events. In contrast, neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) may reduce postoperative pain intensity at rest in a clinical relevant matter (MD - 1.19 points; 95%CI - 1.99 to - 0.39; I2 = 97%; low-certainty evidence), but the effect is uncertain during activity (MD - 1.13 points; 95%CI - 2.31 to 0.06; I2 = 95%; very low-certainty evidence). There is uncertain evidence, that neuraxial regional analgesia combined with general anaesthesia (versus general anaesthesia) increases the risk for block-related adverse events (relative risk (RR) 5.11; 95%CI 1.13 to 23.03; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirms that regional anaesthesia might be an important part of multimodal postoperative analgesia in laparoscopic visceral surgery, e.g. in patients at risk for severe postoperative pain, and with large differences between surgical procedures and settings. Further research is required to evaluate the use of adjuvants and the additional benefit of regional anaesthesia in ERAS programmes.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021258281.

Epidural versus general anesthesia for laparo-endoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

This study compares outcomes after LESS cholecystectomy utilizing epidural versus general anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LESS Cholecystectomy were randomized into receiving epidural or general anesthesia by protocol. Patients used a Visual Analog Scale to rate pain from 0 (no pain) to 10 (severe pain). Data presented as median (mean ± standard deviation).

RESULTS

75 patients underwent LESS cholecystectomy with general anesthesia [32 patients (22% men) after five patients withdrew consent] or epidural anesthesia [23 patients (22% men) after 15 patients withdrew consent]. Respectively, they were of age 38 years (41 ± 15.1) and 47 years (48 ± 13.9), BMI 29 (28 ± 4.9) kg/m2 and 28 (28 ± 3.8) kg/m2, and ASA 2 (2 ± 0.5) and 2 (2 ± 0.3) (p > 0.05 for all). LOS for patients receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia was 72 min (122 ± 104.4) vs. 95 min (113 ± 77.5) (p = 0.25). On POD 0, patients receiving general anesthesia rated pain as 4 (4 ± 2.9) vs. 0 (1 ± 2.2) for epidural anesthesia (p = 0.02). On POD 1, they rated pain as 6 (5 ± 2.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.9) (p = 0.68). On POD 6, patients rated pain as 3 (3 ± 2.7) vs. 4 (3 ± 2.2) (p = 1.00). For patient satisfaction with incisional scars for those receiving general vs. epidural anesthesia, patients rated their scars to be 10 (8 ± 3.6) vs. 10 (9 ± 1.2) (p = 0.21). Total costs for the hospital using general vs. epidural anesthesia were found $6,909 (7,167 ± 2,083.8) vs. $6,225 (5,848 ± 1530.1) (p = 0.014), respectively. Patients self-assessed satisfaction on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best) as a 5 (5 ± 0).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing LESS cholecystectomy with general vs. epidural anesthesia had similar demographics, LOS, and pain scores. Patients that received epidural anesthesia reported less pain and incurred less cost. Utilization of epidural anesthesia in lieu of general anesthesia for LESS cholecystectomy is safe, reduces pain, and offers potential cost savings.

Spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery

Spinal anesthesia is a safe alternative to general anesthesia but remains underrepresented in the ambulatory setting. Most concerns relate to low flexibility of spinal anesthesia duration and the management of urinary retention in the outpatient setting. This review focuses on the characterization and safety of the local anesthetics that are available to adapt spinal anesthesia very flexibly to the needs of ambulatory surgery. Furthermore, recent studies on the management of postoperative urinary retention provide evidence for safe, but report wider discharge criteria and much lower hospital admission rates. With the local anesthetics that have current approval for usage in spinal anesthesia, most requirements for ambulatory surgeries can be met. The reported evidence on local anesthetics without approval supports clinically established off-label use and can improve the results even further.

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.

Segmental Thoracic Spinal Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with the "Hypobaric" Technique: A Case Series

Purpose

Several studies have applied lumbar spinal anesthesia (SA) with isobaric/hyperbaric bupivacaine and opioids in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), documenting a superiority of the methodic over general anesthesia (GA) in terms of perioperative pain, nausea, and vomiting, though with a notable incidence of intraoperative right shoulder pain, potentially responsible for conversion to GA. This case series presents an opioid-free scheme of segmental thoracic spinal anesthesia (STSA) with hypobaric ropivacaine, reporting its benefits mainly in terms of shoulder pain occurrence.

Patients and Methods

Hypobaric STSA was performed in nine patients undergoing elective LC between May 1 and September 1, 2022. The level of the needle insertion was included between T8 and T9, via a median or a paramedian approach. Midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) and Ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) were used as adjuvants for intrathecal sedation, followed by the administration of hypobaric ropivacaine 0.25% at a dose of 5 mg and then isobaric ropivacaine at a dose of 10 mg. Patients were placed in anti-Trendelenburg position for the entire duration of surgery. LC was conducted through the standard 3 or 4 ports technique with pneumoperitoneum maintained at a pressure of 8-10 mmHg.

Results

Mean patient age was 75.7 (±17.5) years, with a mean ASA score and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of 2.7 (±0.7) and 4.9 (±2.7), respectively. STSA was completed without complications in all patients, with no need for conversion to GA. Mean operative time and SA duration were 37.5 (±8.7) and 145.2 (±21.8) min, respectively. Intraoperatively, no shoulder or abdominal pain and nausea were reported, with only four and two patients requiring vasopressor and sedative intravenous drugs, respectively. Postoperatively, overall mean VAS pain score and within the first 12 hafter surgery were 3 (±2) and 4 (±2), respectively. Median length of stay was 2 (range = 1-3) days.

Conclusion

Hypobaric opioid-free STSA appears to be a promising approach for laparoscopic surgeries, with minimal to null occurrence of shoulder pain. Larger prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

Awake laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most widely practiced surgical procedures in abdominal surgery. Patients undergo LC during general anaesthesia; however, in recent years, several studies have suggested the ability to perform LC in patients who are awake. We report a case of awake LC and a literature review.

CASE SUMMARY

A 69-year-old patient with severe pulmonary disease affected by cholelithiasis was scheduled for LC under regional anaesthesia. We first performed peridural anaesthesia at the T8-T9 level and then spinal anaesthesia at the T12-L1 level. The procedure was managed in total comfort for both the patient and the surgeon. The intra-abdominal pressure was 8 mmHg. The patient remained stable throughout the procedure, and the postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Evidence has warranted the safe use of spinal and epidural anaesthesia, with minimal side effects easily managed with medications. Regional anaesthesia in selected patients may provide some advantages over general anaesthesia, such as no airway manipulation, maintenance of spontaneous breathing, effective postoperative analgesia, less nausea and vomiting, and early recovery. However, this technique for LC is not widely used in Europe; this is the first case reported in Italy in the literature. Regional anaesthesia is feasible and safe in performing some types of laparoscopic procedures. Further studies should be carried out to introduce this type of anaesthesia in routine clinical practice.

Laparoscopic versus Open Inguinal Hernia Repair Is Feasible in Infants with Caudal Anesthesia and Spontaneous Respiration

INTRODUCTION

 Minimally invasive surgery (i.e., laparoscopy) and minimally invasive anesthesia (i.e., caudal anesthesia with spontaneous respiration) have separately shown benefits for inguinal hernia repair in infants, yet to what degree these techniques can be combined remains unknown. This study investigated whether laparoscopy impacts the feasibility of performing caudal anesthesia with spontaneous respiration in infants.

METHODS

 Prospectively collected data of all infants less than 12 months old and over 3 kg weight who underwent laparoscopic indirect hernia repair (LAP) at our department from 2019 to 2021 were compared with a historical control-matched group of infants who underwent open repair (OPEN) from 2017 to 2021. We assessed the patients' characteristics, anesthesia, and surgical data as well as intra- and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

 A total of 87 infants were included (LAP n = 29, OPEN n = 58). Caudal anesthesia with spontaneous respiration was feasible in 62.1% of cases (LAP n = 55.2%, OPEN n = 65.5%; nonsignificant). Neither group registered anesthetic intra- or postoperative complications. Sedatives were utilized in 97% of LAP patients versus 56.9% of OPEN patients (p < 0.00001). The airway was secured with a laryngeal mask in 89.7% of patients during LAP versus 41.4% during OPEN (p < 0.00001). No significant differences were found regarding the use frequency of opioids (48.3% LAP vs. 34.5% OPEN; nonsignificant) or neuromuscular blockers (6.9% LAP vs. 5.2% OPEN; nonsignificant).

CONCLUSION

 This is the first comparative study on caudal anesthesia and spontaneous respiration in infants undergoing laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia surgery. Laparoscopy increased the need for ventilatory support and sedatives but did not significantly impair the feasibility of caudal anesthesia and spontaneous respiration.

Defining the role of thoracic spinal anaesthesia in the 21st century: a narrative review

Since the performance of the first thoracic spinal anaesthetic in early 1908 many anaesthetists have gained interest in this unorthodox neuraxial anaesthetic technique. The main rationale justifying its use is to prevent complications related to general anaesthesia in high-risk patient populations. There is, however, significant debate regarding this practice around the world. The main concerns are fear of iatrogenic injury to the spinal cord, cephalad spread of local anaesthetic causing a complete spinal block, and haemodynamic instability owing to blockade of cardioaccelerator sympathetic fibres. The purpose of this narrative review is to appraise the literature critically regarding thoracic spinal anaesthesia, to synthesise the available information, and to provide a summary of evidence justifying its use in modern anaesthesia.

Underused approach: subarachnoid block for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A case report and discussion of anaesthetic and surgical considerations

We present a case of laparoscopic cholecystectomy with subarachnoid block (SAB) in an opioid-tolerant patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A 64-year-old woman presented to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain of biliary colic. Surgery was delayed in favour of conservative management given that she was considered high risk for general anaesthesia. Due to refractory pain, she successfully proceeded to have laparoscopic cholecystectomy with SAB. This case is a timely reminder that SAB is feasible and safe in patients with severe COPD, with the added benefit of increased analgesic effects, fewer postoperative pulmonary complications and quick recovery time.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized evidence comparing general anesthesia vs regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In an effort to further reduce the morbidity and mortality profile of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the outcomes of such procedure under regional anesthesia (RA) have been evaluated. In the context of cholecystectomy, combining a minimally invasive surgical procedure with a minimally invasive anesthetic technique can potentially be associated with less postoperative pain and earlier ambulation.

AIM

To evaluate comparative outcomes of RA and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials enrolling 1111 patients were included. The study populations in the RA and GA groups were of comparable age (P = 0.41), gender (P = 0.98) and body mass index (P = 0.24). The conversion rate from RA to GA was 2.3%. RA was associated with significantly less postoperative pain at 4 h [mean difference (MD): - 2.22, P < 0.00001], 8 h (MD: -1.53, P = 0.0006), 12 h (MD: -2.08, P < 0.00001), and 24 h (MD: -0.90, P < 0.00001) compared to GA. Moreover, it was associated with significantly lower rate of nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR): 0.40, P < 0.0001]. However, RA significantly increased postoperative headaches (RR: 4.69, P = 0.03), and urinary retention (RR: 2.73, P = 0.03). The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis was conclusive for most outcomes, with the exception of a risk of type 1 error for headache and urinary retention and a risk of type 2 error for total procedure time.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that RA may be an attractive anesthetic modality for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy considering its associated lower postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting compared to GA. However, its associated risk of urinary retention and headache and lack of knowledge on its impact on procedure-related outcomes do not justify using RA as the first line anesthetic choice for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Pudendal Nerve Block in Hemorrhoid Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain represents an important issue in traditional hemorrhoidectomy. Optimal pain control is mandatory, especially in a surgical day care setting.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the use of pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched up to December 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials evaluating the pudendal nerve block effect in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemorrhoidectomy under general or spinal anesthesia with or without pudendal nerve block was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Opioid consumption, pain on the visual analogue scale, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate were the main outcomes of interest and were plotted by using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

The literature search revealed 749 articles, of which 14 were deemed eligible. A total of 1214 patients were included, of whom 565 received the pudendal nerve block. After hemorrhoidectomy, patients in the pudendal nerve block group received opioids less frequently (relative risk, 0.364; 95% CI, 0.292-0.454, p < 0.001) and in a lower cumulative dose (standardized mean difference, -0.935; 95% CI, -1.280 to -0.591, p < 0.001). Moreover, these patients experienced less pain at 24 hours (standardized mean difference, -1.862; 95% CI, -2.495 to -1.228, p < 0.001), had a shorter length of hospital stay (standardized mean difference, -0.742; 95% CI, -1.145 to -0.338, p < 0.001), and had a lower readmission rate (relative risk, 0.239; 95% CI, 0.062-0.916, p = 0.037). Sensitivity analysis excluded the occurrence of publication bias on the primary end point, and the overall evidence quality was judged "high."

LIMITATIONS

Occurrence of publication bias among some secondary end points and heterogeneity are the main limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis show significant advantages of pudendal nerve block use. A reduction in opioid consumption, postoperative pain, complications, and length of stay can be demonstrated. Despite the limitations, pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing hemorrhoidectomy should be considered.

Ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

In this double-blind randomized trial, we aimed to compare the postoperative pain, complications, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia with or without the pudendal nerve block.

METHODS

Patients undergoing Milligan-Morgan hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia were randomized to undergo a pudendal nerve block or no intervention. Postoperative pain on the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h; opioid administration; and length of hospital stay were recorded and analyzed.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 49 patients were included and 23 randomized in the treatment arm. No differences in terms of age, gender, and preoperative risk factors were noted between groups. The pain on the VAS at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h was 2.8 vs. 4.6 (p = 0.046), 3.4 vs. 4.7 (p = 0.697), 1.4 vs. 3.1 (p = 0.016), and 1.0 vs. 2.1 (p = 0.288) in the treatment and control groups respectively. No differences in opioids use or complications were noted. Length of hospital stay was 1.2 vs. 1.8 days respectively (p = 0.046). No complications directly associated to the pudendal nerve block were observed. Multivariate analysis revealed that the pudendal nerve block was an independent factor reducing the postoperative pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The ultrasound-guided pudendal nerve block in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy under spinal anesthesia showed a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pain and length of hospital stay. The proposed technique appeared to be safe and feasible and may be recommendable in patients undergoing open hemorrhoidectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04251884.

Laparoscopic surgery for benign adnexal conditions under spinal anaesthesia: Towards a multidisciplinary minimally invasive approach

•

In general surgery locoregional anaesthesia increased laparoscopy advantages.

•

28 women submitted to gynaecological laparoscopy for benign adnexal conditions.

•

13 patients under spinal anaesthesia, 15 under general anaesthesia.

•

Less postoperative pain and reduced need f opioids in the spinal anaesthesia arm.

•

Earlier mobilization and return of bowel function in the spinal anaesthesia arm.

Background

Laparoscopic gynaecological surgery is commonly performed under general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. In general surgery, locoregional anaesthesia was applied to laparoscopic procedures, increasing minimally invasive surgery advantages.

Aims

To assess and compare postoperative pain after laparoscopic adnexal procedures for benign conditions under spinal anaesthesia (SA) versus general anaesthesia (GA). Furthermore, anaesthesiologic, surgical and clinical data were evaluated in both groups.

Materials and Methods

This is a prospective cohort study performed in a tertiary level referral centre for minimally invasive gynaecological surgery (Gynaecology and Human Reproduction Physiopathology, University of Bologna). Women scheduled for adnexal laparoscopic surgery for benign conditions between February and May 2019 were assigned to receive either SA or GA with endotracheal intubation. A sample size of 13 women per group was needed to detect a 2-point difference in pain scores.

Main findings

13 women were enrolled in the SA arm, 15 in the GA arm. In the SA cohort, the most common intraoperative adverse event was shoulder pain, reported by 3/12 women. At 1, 8, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery pain was significantly lower in the SA arm (p < .05). Patients submitted to SA experienced no need for opioid drugs administration, unlike those receiving GA. Patients’ mobilization and return of bowel function were noted significantly earlier in the SA group (p < .05).

Conclusions

SA is a feasible, safe and effective anaesthesiologic technique for laparoscopic gynaecological procedures for benign conditions, allowing a better control of postoperative pain. Women undergoing SA achieve earlier mobilization and bowel canalization. During the Covid-19 pandemics, SA could be useful in reducing the need for invasive procedures on respiratory tract.

High-Volume, Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Study in Emergency Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blinded, Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) often results in postoperative pain, especially in the abdomen. Intraperitoneal local anesthesia (IPLA) reduces pain after LC. Acute cholecystitis-associated inflammation, increased gallbladder wall thickness, dissection difficulties, and a longer operative time are several reasons for assuming a benefit in pain scores in urgent LC with IPLA application. The aim was to determine the postoperative analgesic efficacy of high-volume, low-dose intraperitoneal bupivacaine in urgent LC. Materials and Methods. Fifty-seven patients who were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II were randomly assigned to receive either normal saline (control group) or intraperitoneal bupivacaine (test group) at the beginning or end of urgent LC. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The secondary outcomes included Visual Rating Prince Henry Scale (VRS), patient satisfaction, and analgesic consumption. Results. Postoperative VAS scores at the first and fourth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001). Postoperative VRS scores at the first, fourth, and eighth hours were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group (P < .001, P = .002, P = .004, respectively). Analgesic use was significantly higher in the control group at the first postoperative hour (P < .001). Shoulder pain was significantly lower, and patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the test group relative to the control group (both P < .001). Conclusion. High-volume, low-concentration intraperitoneal bupivacaine resulted in better postoperative pain control and reduced incidence of shoulder pain and analgesic consumption in urgent LC.

Factors Determining the Choice of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery: Results of a Multicenter Observational Study

Introduction

Available short-acting intrathecal anesthetic agents (chloroprocaine and prilocaine) offer an alternative to general anesthesia for short-duration surgical procedures, especially ambulatory surgeries. Factors determining the choice of anesthesia for short-duration procedures have not been previously identified.

Methods

This observational, prospective, multicenter, cohort study was conducted between July 2015 and July 2016, in 33 private or public hospitals performing ambulatory surgery. The primary objective was to determine the factors influencing the choice of anesthetic technique (spinal or general anesthesia). Secondary outcomes included efficacy of the anesthesia, time to hospital discharge, and patient satisfaction.

Results

Among 592 patients enrolled, 309 received spinal anesthesia and 283 underwent general anesthesia. In both study arms, the most frequently performed surgical procedures were orthopedic and urologic (43.3% and 30.7%, respectively); 66.1% of patients were free to choose their type of anesthesia, 21.8% chose one of the techniques because they were afraid of the other, 16.8% based their choice on the expected ease of recovery, 19.2% considered their degree of anxiety/stress, and 16.9% chose the technique on the basis of its efficacy. The median times to micturition and to unassisted ambulation were significantly shorter in the general anesthesia arm compared with the spinal anesthesia arm (225.5 [98; 560] min vs. 259.0 [109; 789] min; p = 0.0011 and 215.0 [30; 545] min vs. 240.0 [40; 1420]; p = 0.0115, respectively). The median time to hospital discharge was equivalent in both study arms. In the spinal anesthesia arm, patients who received chloroprocaine and prilocaine recovered faster than patients who received bupivacaine. The time to ambulation and the time to hospital discharge were shorter (p < 0.001). The overall success rate of spinal anesthesia was 91.6%, and no significant difference was observed between chloroprocaine, prilocaine, and bupivacaine. The patients’ global satisfaction with anesthesia and surgery was over 90% in both study arms.

Conclusions

Patient’s choice, patient fear of the alternative technique, patient stress/anxiety, the expected ease of recovery, and the efficacy of the technique were identified as the main factors influencing patient choice of short-acting local anesthesia or general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetics was preferred to general anesthesia in ambulatory surgeries and was associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02529501. Registered on June 23, 2015. Date of enrollment of the first participant July 21, 2015.

Comparison of General Anesthesia with Spinal Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Operations

Objective

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) operations are being performed under general anesthesia (GA). Further studies are needed on the issue whether these operations can be performed under spinal anesthesia (SA). In this study we aimed to compare SA with (GA) in terms of efficacy and complications in patients who will undergo LC operations, and to investigate the effects of preemptive analgesia on the development of shoulder pain, transition to general anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.

Method

Sixty patients in ASA I-II risk group between 18-65 years of age undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into general anesthesia (GA, n=30) and spinal anesthesia (SA, n=30) groups. Patients were premedicated with i.v. midazolam and fentanyl preoperatively. Anesthesia was induced with propofol in the GA group, and maintained with Desflurane and remifentanil. In the SA group, spinal anesthesia was provided with intratechal administration of 15 mg bupivacaine at L2-3 level, and block level was increased to T4 by keeping the patient in Trendelenburg position for 7-10 minutes. Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, operation time, visual analog scale (VAS) scores at postoperative 0^th,1^st, 4^th, 8^th,12^th and 24^th hours, patient-surgeon satisfaction, side effects, and occurrence of right shoulder pain in SA group were inquired and recorded.

Results

Effective anesthesia was produced in both groups. Hypotension was observed in 5, bradycardia requiring atropin administration in 4, and perioperative shoulder pain in 9 patients in Group SA, but none of them required general anesthesia. Hypotension developed in one patient in Group GA. The postoperative VAS scores were significantly lower in Group SA at 0^th,1^st, 4^th hours. Patient satisfection scores were higher in Group SA.

Conclusion

We concluded that spinal anesthesia may be an alternative method to general anesthesia in patients who will undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations especially when the risk of general anesthesia is too high.

Regional Catheters for Outpatient Surgery-a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes and discusses the history of continuous catheter blockade (CCB), its current applications, clinical considerations, economic benefits, potential complications, patient education, and best practice techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Regional catheters for outpatient surgery have greatly impacted acute post-operative pain management and recovery. Prior to development, options for acute pain management were limited to the use of opioid pain medications, NSAIDS, neuropathic agents, and the like as local anesthetic duration of action is limited to 4-8 h. Moreover, delivery of opioids post-operatively has been associated with respiratory and central nervous depression, development of opioid use disorder, and many other potential adverse effects. CCB allows for faster recovery time, decreased rates of opioid abuse, and better pain control in patients post-operatively. Outpatient surgical settings continue to focus on efficiency, quality, and safety, including strategies to prevent post-operative nausea, vomiting, and pain. Regional catheters are a valuable tool and help achieve all of the well-established endpoints of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). CCB is growing in popularity with wide indications for a variety of surgeries, and has demonstrated improved patient satisfaction, outcomes, and reductions in many unwanted adverse effects in the outpatient setting.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under neuraxial anesthesia compared with general anesthesia: Systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) can cause hypercapnia, hypoxemia, hemodynamic changes and shoulder pain. General anesthesia (GA) enables the control of intraoperative pain and ventilation. The need for GA has been questioned by studies suggesting that neuraxial anesthesia (NA) is adequate for LC.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To quantify the prevalence of intraoperative pain and to verify whether evidence on the maintenance of ventilation, circulation and surgical anesthesia during NA compared with GA is consistent.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analyses.

SETTING

Anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

PATIENTS

We searched Medline, Cochrane and EBSCO databases up to 2016 for randomized controlled trials that compared LC in the two groups under study, neuraxial (subarachnoid or epidural) and general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the prevalence of intraoperative pain referred to the shoulder in the NA group. Hemodynamic and respiratory outcomes and adverse effects in both groups were also collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven comparative studies were considered eligible. The pooled prevalence of shoulder pain was 25%. Intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia occurred more frequently in patients who received NA, with a risk ratio of 4.61 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-12.48, p=0.003) and 6.67 (95% CI 2.02-21.96, p=0.002), respectively. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was more prevalent in patients who submitted to GA. The prevalence of postoperative urinary retention did not differ between the techniques. Postoperative headache was more prevalent in patients who received NA, while the postoperative pain intensity was lower in this group. Performing meta-analyses on hypertension, hypercapnia and hypoxemia was not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

NA as sole anesthetic technique, although feasible for LC, was associated with intraoperative pain referred to the shoulder, required anesthetic conversion in 3.4% of the cases and did not demonstrate evidence of respiratory benefits for patients with normal pulmonary function.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a prospective randomised study

Purpose

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC.

Methods

Forty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups.

Results

Anesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group.

Conclusion

CSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair of inguinal hernia: Interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia has been used as standard for laparoscopic hernia repair by the transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) approach. Regional anesthesia has been occasionally applied in high risk patients where general anesthesia is contraindicated. This randomized clinical trial compares spinal anesthesia with general anesthesia for TAPP inguinal hernia repair in non-high risk patients.

METHODS

Seventy adult American Society of Anesthesiologists I, II and III patients undergoing elective TAPP inguinal hernia repair were randomized to either general or spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Postoperative morphine consumption was significantly less immediately postoperatively (p < 0.001) in the spinal anesthesia group. Postoperative pain was also significantly decreased within the first 8 h postoperatively (p < 0.05) in the spinal anesthesia group.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal anesthesia offers some advantages in patient analgesia during the early postoperative period after TAPP inguinal hernia repair and can be proposed as an effective alternative method of anesthesia for TAPP repair.

Is segmental epidural anaesthesia an optimal technique for patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Background and Aims:

Neuraxial anaesthesia has recently become popular for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We conducted a study comparing general anaesthesia (GA) with segmental (T₆–T₁₂) epidural anaesthesia (SEA) for PCNL with respect to anaesthesia and surgical characteristics.

Methods:

Ninety American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status-I and II patients undergoing PCNL randomly received either GA or SEA. Overall patient satisfaction was the primary end point. Intraoperative haemodynamics, epidural block characteristics, post-operative pain, time to rescue analgesic, total analgesic consumption, discharge times from post-anaesthesia care unit, surgeon satisfaction scores and stone clearance were secondary end points. Parametric data were analysed by Student's t-test while non-parametric data were compared with Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results:

Group SEA reported better patient satisfaction (P = 0.005). Patients in group GA had significantly higher heart rates (P = 0.0001) and comparable mean arterial pressures (P = 0.24). Postoperatively, time to first rescue analgesic and total tramadol consumption was higher in Group GA (P = 0.001). Group SEA had lower pain scores (P = 0.001). Time to reach Aldrete's score of 9 was shorter in group SEA (P = 0.0001). The incidence of nausea was higher in group GA (P = 0.001); vomiting rates were comparable (P = 0.15). One patient in group SEA developed bradycardia which was successfully treated. Eight patients (18%) had hypertensive episodes in group GA versus none in group SEA (P = 0.0001). One patient in GA group had pleural injury and was managed with intercostal drain. Stone clearance and post-operative haemoglobin levels were comparable in both groups.

Conclusion:

PCNL under SEA has a role in selected patients, for short duration surgery and in expert hands.

Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.76; P = 0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I (2) = 13%; P = 0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-19.71; P = 0.02) without any heterogeneity (I (2) = 0%; P = 0.98). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.

Thoracic combined spinal epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been reserved for patients who are at high-risk under general anesthesia (GA). The aim of this study was to assess whether thoracic combined spinal epidural (CSE) anesthesia is a feasible option for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty ASA physical status I and II patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy received thoracic CSE anesthesia at T9-T10 or T10-T11 interspinous space using the midline approach. Two ml of isobaric levobupivacaine 0.5% with 25 μg of fentanyl was given intrathecally.

RESULTS

Surgery was conducted successfully in all except one patient. Thoracic CSE was performed at T9-T10 interspace in 25 patients and T10-T11 interspace in five patients. Paresthesia occurred in two patients (6.6%) transiently on Whitacre needle insertion that disappeared spontaneously. Dural puncture on epidural needle insertion occurred in one patient, and intrathecal placement of epidural catheter occurred in one. Ten patients (33%) complained of shoulder pain. Conversion to GA was done in one patient due to severe shoulder pain and anxiety. Hypotension occurred in 11 patients (36%) and all responded to single dose of mephenteramine 6 mg and fluid bolus. Bradycardia occurred in six patients (20%) which was managed in all with a single dose of atropine.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic CSE anesthesia can be used effectively for ASA I and II patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with significant postoperative benefits.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is conventionally performed under general anaesthesia (GA), but there are multiple studies which have found spinal anaesthesia (SA) as a safe alternative. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1, 2000 to December 1, 2014. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores) and secondary outcomes (operating time (OT) and postoperative complications) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Seven appropriate RCTs were identified from 912 published articles. Seven hundred and twelve patients were treated, 352 in SA group and 360 in GA group. LC under SA was superior to LC under GA in postoperative pain within 12 h (visual analogue score (VAS) in 2-4 h, WMD = -1.61, P = 0.000; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -1.277, P = 0.015) and postoperative complications (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) WMD = 0.427, P = 0.001; Overall Morbidity WMD = 0.691, P = 0.027). The GA group was superior to SA group in postoperative urinary retention (WMD = 4.273, P = 0.022). There were no significant differences in operating time (WMD = 0.184, P = 0.141) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SA as the sole anaesthesia technique is feasible, safe for elective LC.

Epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a case report

Background

Rapid and uneventful postoperative recovery following general anesthesia in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery may offer challenges to anesthesiologists. With improved surgical techniques and shorter pneumoperitoneum, regional anesthesia may be considered for this laparoscopic procedure in selected cases.

Case description

The first patient was a 60-year-old male (body mass index: 39 kg/m²) who was scheduled for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The second patient was a 46-year-old female (body mass index: 47 kg/m²) who was scheduled for laparoscopic gastric bypass. After standard intraoperative monitoring was applied, epidural anesthesia was performed at thoracic level T9–T10. Surgical technique modification included insufflation of CO₂ at a low flow rate and avoidance of orogastric tube use. During the procedure, both patients breathed spontaneously without difficulty. One hypotension episode occurred and was successfully treated with a 12-mg bolus of ephedrine in case 1. Shoulder pain occurred intraoperatively in case 2 and was successfully treated with a 50-μg bolus of fentanyl. Postoperatively, 2 mg epidural morphine was administered for postoperative analgesia. Both patients were satisfied with the anesthesia technique and was discharged uneventfully.

Discussion and evaluation

This anesthetic technique may maintain pre-operative respiratory function, increase alertness, and reduce the use of rescue analgesics, which is crucial for optimal outcomes in morbidly obese patients. Conversion of epidural anesthesia to general anesthesia may be required if patients can not tolerate the laparoscopic procedure (e.g. intolerable shoulder pain) or the increased respiratory rate during pneumoperitoneum leading to difficulty in performing laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are needed to elucidate this issue.

Conclusions

General anesthesia is widely used for laparoscopic bariatric surgery, but epidural anesthesia may be a viable alternative to general anesthesia in selected cases. Further prospective studies may be required to elucidate the relative advantages and disadvantages of epidural anesthesia in this surgical population.

Comparison between general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia in attenuation of stress response in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy though minimally invasive produces significant hemodynamic surge and neuroendocrine stress response. Though general anesthesia (GA) is the conventional technique, now-a-days, regional anesthesia has been accepted for laparoscopic diagnostic procedures, and its use is also being extended to laparoscopic surgeries.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the hemodynamic surge and neuroendocrine stress response during laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) under GA and spinal anesthesia (SA) in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) PS 1 patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty ASA physical status I patients, aged 18-65 years were randomly allocated into two equal groups of 15 each. Group A received GA with controlled ventilation. Patients were preoxygenated for 5 min with 100/5 oxygen, premedicated with midazolam 0.03 mg/kg intravenous (i.v), fentanyl 2 mcg/kg i.v; induction was done with thiopentone 3-5 mg/kg i.v; intubation was achieved after muscle relaxation with 0.5 mg/kg atracurium besylate i.v. Anesthesia was maintained with 1-2% sevoflurane and N2O:O2 (60:40) and intermittent i.v injection of atracurium besylate. Group B SA with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 25 μg fentanyl along with local anesthetic instillation in the subdiaphragmatic space. Mean arterial pressure, heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation, end tidal carbon-dioxide were recorded. Venous blood was collected for cortisol assay before induction and 30 min after pneumoperitoneum. All data were collected in Microsoft excel sheet and statistically analyzed using SPSS software version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All numerical data were analyzed using Student's t-test and paired t-test. Any value <0.05 was taken as significant.

RESULTS

Mean arterial pressure and mean HR and postpneumoperitoneum cortisol level were lower in group B than group A though the difference was not statistically significant in hemodynamic parameters but significant in case of cortisol.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia administered for LC maintained comparable hemodynamics compared to GA and did not produce any ventilatory depression. It also produced less neuroendocrine stress response as seen by reduction in the level of serum cortisol in ASA PS 1 patients put for LC.

Experience of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Thoracic Epidural Anaesthesia: Retrospective Analysis of 96 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Although the traditional anaesthesia method for laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been general anaesthesia, regional anaesthesia techniques are also successfully used today. In this paper, we aimed to report our experiences with thoracic epidural anaesthesia, including complications, postoperative analgesia, technical difficulties and side effects.

METHODS

Between December 2009 and November 2012, 90 patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were retrospectively analysed. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores, comorbidities, duration of operations, medications and doses used for sedation were reviewed.

RESULTS

The gender distribution of patients were recorded as 15 males (15%) and 81 females (85%). The patients had an average age of 46.74±13.28, an average height of 162.50±5.57 cm and a mean weight of 73.57±12.48 kg. ASA classifications were distributed as follows: ASA I: 63 (65%) patients, ASA II 28 (29%) patients and ASA III: 5 patients. We recorded 3 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 14 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and 22 patients with hypertension who got their diagnosis in the perioperative visit. During the operation, three patients had bradycardia (heart rate 50 min(-1)), and atropine was applied. Ephedrine and fluid resuscitation had been applied to 3 patients for the treatment of intraoperative hypotension. Midazolam, ketamine hydrochloride and propofol were administered to patients for sedation during the operations. Thoracic epidural anaesthesia was performed at the level of T7 -9 intervertebral space with the patients in the sitting position. Patients were given oxygen by a face mask at a rate of 3-4 L min(-1). The pneumoperitoneum was created by giving carbon dioxide at the standard pressure of 12 mmHg into the abdominal cavity in all patients. If needed, postoperative analgesia was provided by epidural local anaesthetic administration.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidural anaesthesia can be applied as an alternative to general anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Awake caudals and epidurals should be used more frequently in neonates and infants

The current literature provides fundamental insights regarding the neurotoxic potency of various general anesthetic drugs in neonates and small infants. Therefore, considerations to minimize the use of general anesthetic drugs in this age group are required. The use of caudal and epidural anesthesia under sedation is one possibility to minimize the use of general anesthetic drugs. A large number of surgical procedures can be managed with this anesthetic concept. Training, practical hand skills, good infrastructure, a well-defined indication, and a team approach including the entire operation room staff are the major prerequisites to implement these techniques in the daily clinical practice. This review article discusses all present aspects and possible future evolutions of caudal and epidural anesthesia under sedation.

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anaesthesia vs. General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomised Study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is conventionally performed under general anaesthesia (GA) in our institution. There are multiple studies which have found spinal anaesthesia as a safe alternative. We have conducted this study of LC, performed under spinal anesthesia to assess its safety and feasibility in comparison with GA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty patients with symptomatic gallstone disease and American Society of Anesthesiologists status I or II were randomised to have LC under spinal (n = 25) or general (n = 25) anesthesia. Intraoperative vitals, postoperative pain, complications, recovery, and surgeon satisfaction were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

In the SA group six patients (24%) complained of shoulder pain, two patients required conversion to GA (8%) as the pain did not subside with Fentanyl. None of the patients in the SA group had immediate postoperative pain at operated site. Only two (8%) patients had pain score of 4 at the operative site within eight hours requiring rescue analgesic. One patient had nausea but no vomiting (4%). All the patients (100%) in the GA group had pain at operated site immediately after surgery and their pain score ranged from 4-7, all patients received rescue analgesic before shifting to the ward. In the first 24h tramadol required as rescue in the GA group was 82±24 mg which was significantly higher than the SA group requiring only 30±33.16 mg. Although, the GA group had more patients experiencing postoperative nausea & vomiting it was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

SA as the sole anaesthesia technique is feasible, safe and cost effective for elective LC.

Fluid therapy in critical illness: a special focus on indication, the use of hydroxyethyl starch and its different raw materials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Fluid therapy is a complex intervention with insufficient resuscitation, as well as overinfusion and fluid accumulation being associated with adverse outcomes. Early goal-directed therapy with later conservative fluid management (i.e. prevention of positive fluid balance and weight gain) appears to markedly improve the survival of patients with severe sepsis. The impact of colloids in resuscitation of patients with sepsis has been the topic of several recently published studies. The purpose of the present review is to outline the indication of fluid administration in critically ill patients, discuss the recent findings of trials involving hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions and highlight the impact of different raw materials for HES synthesis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pragmatic trials of modern HES solutions versus crystalloids in critically ill patients show either no difference or adverse outcomes associated with HES infusion. However, fluid therapy was not protocolized in most of these studies and probably associated with overinfusion and hemodilution. Data on the use of waxy maize-derived 6% HES 130/0.4 during early goal-directed therapy show no evidence for harm and an improvement in microvascular blood flow. In addition, experimental data suggest that waxy maize-derived 6% HES 130/0.4 may have different biological effects compared to potato-derived 6% HES 130/0.42 with potentially reduced pulmonary inflammation.

SUMMARY

Adverse effects of fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients appear to be a consequence of dose and timing rather than the type of fluid itself. Modern waxy maize-derived 6% HES 130/0.4 may have advantages over crystalloids in the very early course of the disease. Clinical trials of early, goal-directed and protocolized therapy with innovative endpoints of resuscitation comparing balanced crystalloids and balanced, waxy maize-derived 6% HES 130/0.4 as the initial resuscitation fluid are warranted.