Effects of Spinal Anesthesia in Geriatric Hip Fracture: A Propensity-Matched Study

Comparing perioperative outcomes between regional anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Nearly all patients with hip fractures undergo surgical treatment. The use of different anesthesia techniques during surgery may influence the clinical outcomes. The optimal anesthetic technique for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery is still controversial. We performed this updated systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing hip fracture surgery with different anesthesia techniques.

SOURCE

Articles published from 2000 to May 2023 were included from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing general anesthesia (GA) with regional anesthesia (RA) for the outcomes of 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and length of surgery in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. Subgroup analyses were performed for the outcomes based on study design (randomized controlled trials or observational studies). We used a random-effects model for all analyses.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

In this meta-analysis, we included 12 randomized controlled trials. There was no difference in postoperative 30-day mortality between the two groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 1.74; I2 = 0%). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension was lower in patients who received RA vs GA (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.72; I2 = 0%). No significant differences were observed in 90-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, postoperative delirium, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, length of surgery, and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

In this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, RA did not reduce postoperative 30-day mortality in hip fracture surgery patients compared to GA. Fewer patients receiving RA had intraoperative hypotension than those receiving GA did. Apart from intraoperative hypotension, the data showed no differences in complications between the two anesthetic techniques.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42023411854); registered 7 April 2023.

Comparison of the Analgesic Efficacy between Levobupivacaine 0.25% and Ropivacaine 0.375% for PENG (Pericapsular Nerve Group) Block in the Context of Hip Fracture Surgery of Elderly Patients: A Single-Center, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial

Previous studies have compared levobupivacaine versus ropivacaine in various peripheral nerve blocks in terms of block duration, quality of analgesia, and onset time, but this has not occurred in the PENG block. Here, a single-center, randomized, and controlled clinical trial is presented. One hundred and twenty patients older than 65 years suffering from hip fractures and surgically treated at our institution under spinal anesthesia were eligible for participation; of them, one hundred and eight were analyzed. Patients were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided PENG blocks using 20 mL of either 0.25% levobupivacaine or 0.375% ropivacaine (both of which are equipotent concentrations). The primary endpoint was to compare the analgesic duration (time to first rescue) and analgesic quality (pain scores using the VAS, PAINAD, and AlgoPlus scales) between the groups. Secondary endpoints included comparing the onset time, describing the need for and type of rescue analgesics, and possible associated adverse effects. There were no statistically significant differences in analgesic duration between levobupivacaine (median 861.0, IQR 960) and ropivacaine (median 1205.0, IQR 1379; p = 0.069). Likewise, the quality of analgesia and onset time were comparable among the groups. A small number of patients required opioids as rescue analgesics (4.6%). The possible associated adverse effects included postoperative infection (11.1%) and delirium (2.8%).

Improved outcomes for spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a retrospective cohort study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of consensus in the literature as to whether anesthetic modality influences perioperative complications in hip fracture surgery. The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent hip fracture surgery using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP).

METHODS

We used the ACS NSQIP to identify patients aged 50 and older who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019. Propensity-score matching was performed to control for clinically relevant covariates. The primary outcome of interest was the combined incidence of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay and operative time.

RESULTS

Among the 40 527 patients aged 50 and over who received either spinal or general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery from 2016 to 2019, 7358 spinal anesthesia cases were matched to general anesthesia cases. General anesthesia was associated with a higher incidence of combined 30-day stroke, MI or death compared with spinal anesthesia (OR 1.219 (95% CI 1.076 to 1.381); p=0.002). General anesthesia was also associated with a higher frequency of 30-day mortality (OR 1.276 (95% CI 1.099 to 1.481); p=0.001) and longer operative time (64.73 vs 60.28 min; p<0.001). Spinal anesthesia had a longer average hospital length of stay (6.29 vs 5.73 days; p=0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our propensity-matched analysis suggests that spinal anesthesia as compared with general anesthesia is associated with lower postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.