The use of low dose plain solutions of local anaesthetic agents for spinal anaesthesia in the prone position: bupivacaine compared with levobupivacaine

Saddle block anesthetic technique for benign outpatient anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Current American Society of Colorectal Surgery Clinical Practice Guidelines for Ambulatory Anorectal Surgery endorse use of monitored anesthesia care, general anesthesia, or spinal anesthesia based on physician and patient preference. Although several studies support the use of monitored anesthesia care over general anesthesia, the literature regarding spinal anesthesia is limited and heterogenous due to small sample sizes and disparate spinal anesthesia techniques. Saddle block anesthesia is a form of spinal anesthesia that localizes to the lowermost sacral spinal segments allowing for preservation of lower extremity motor function and faster recovery. We accrued one of the largest reported cohort of anorectal procedures using saddle block anesthesia, as such, we sought to evaluate our institutional 12-year experience.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a benign anorectal procedure at our outpatient surgery center between July 2008-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, surgical factors, perioperative times, and adverse events were collected from the electronic medical records. Saddle block anesthesia was generally performed in the preoperative area using a spinal needle (25-27 gauge) and a single injection technique of a 1:1 ratio local anesthetic mixed with 10% dextrose solution. Between 2.5-5 mg of hyperbaric anesthetic was injected intrathecally in the sitting position and the patient remained upright for 3-10 minutes. This technique of saddle block anesthesia provides analgesia for approximately 1-3 hours.

RESULTS

In the study, 859 saddle block anesthesia patients were identified, with a mean age of 44.6 years and American Society of Anesthesia score of 1.9; 609 (70.9%) were male. Surgical indications included lesion removal (27.1%), anal fistula (25.8%), hemorrhoidectomy (24.7%), pilonidal disease (6.3%), anal fissure (5.8%), and a combination of prior (10.2%). Prone jackknife positioning was used in 91.6% of procedures. Saddle block anesthesia most often was performed with bupivacaine (48.9%) or ropivacaine (41.7%). The median procedural saddle block anesthesia time was 11 minutes, surgery time was 17 minutes, anesthesia time was 42 minutes, and recovery time was 91 minutes. Patients spent a median of 3 hours and 53 minutes in the facility. Adverse events included urinary retention (1.9%), conversion to general anesthesia (1.8%), spinal headache (1.5%), hemodynamic instability (0.9%), and injection site reaction (0.3%).

CONCLUSION

Demonstrated using the largest known cohort of anorectal patients with saddle block anesthesia, saddle block anesthesia provides an effective method of analgesia to avoid general anesthesia with a low rate of adverse events.

Awake Spinal Fusion

»

Awake spinal fusion (ASF) integrates advancements in surgical techniques and anesthetic modalities with the aim to maximize benefits and improve outcomes from the surgical and anesthetic standpoints.

»

ASF employs minimally invasive or endoscopic surgical techniques that are complemented by regional modalities of anesthesia and analgesia.

»

The current evidence, albeit limited, has shown better results with ASF in terms of postoperative pain scores, a patient's need for opioids, postoperative hospital length of stay, and rehabilitation compared with the conventional technique of open spinal fusion with the patient under general anesthesia.

Regional Anesthesia for Spine Surgery

Recent advancements in spine surgery anesthesia techniques and pain management has led to a paradigm shift from conventional open spinal procedures to minimally invasive spine surgeries performed on an outpatient basis. Spinal anesthesia and epidural anesthesia alone or in combination with spinal are common regional anesthesia modalities used in spine surgeries. New modalities of regional analgesia have emerged recently including erector spinae and thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, aimed at decreasing perioperative pain and enhancing early recovery in patients undergoing spine surgery. In this narrative review we discuss the characteristics of regional anesthesia including its types, indications, contraindications, benefits, and potential complications along with new modalities of regional analgesia.

Optimal local anesthetic regimen for saddle block in ambulatory anorectal surgery: an evidence-based systematic review

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory anorectal surgery requires an anesthetic of short duration but profound depth. Saddle block anesthesia (SBA) can provide dense sacral anesthesia with minimal motor blockade, but the ideal local anesthetic agent remains undefined. This systematic review aims to identify the optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery.

METHODS

We sought randomized trials examining SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery and stratified patients into four subgroups according to local anesthetic type and dose: (1) longer acting, higher dose; (2) longer acting, lower dose; (3) shorter acting, higher dose; and (4) shorter acting, lower dose. Longer acting agents included bupivacaine and levobupivacaine; shorter acting agents included chloroprocaine, mepivacaine, and prilocaine. Lower dose was defined as ≤5 mg and ≤20 mg for longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to discharge; secondary outcomes included times to sensory and motor block regression, urine voiding, and ambulation, as well as block success.

RESULTS

A total of 11 trials (1063 patients) were included. Overall study quality and reporting consistency was poor. Doses ranged from 1.5-7.5 mg to 3-30 mg of longer and shorter acting local anesthetics, respectively. Hyperbaric local anesthetics were used in eight trials (953 patients, 86%). The median time to discharge appeared similar across all subgroups with an overall time of 182 (IQR 102) min. The use of long-acting, lower dose regimens was associated with a faster median time to motor block regression. Block success approached 99% among all trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is presently insufficient qualitative and quantitative evidence to identify an optimal SBA regimen for ambulatory anorectal surgery. Nonetheless, we found that doses as low as 1.5 and 3 mg of longer and shorter acting hyperbaric local anesthetics, respectively, can achieve effective and reliable SBA with timely hospital discharge. Despite similar discharge times, longer acting, lower dose local anesthetics may produce faster motor block regression following SBA for ambulatory anorectal surgery.

Intrathecal levobupivacaine versus bupivacaine for inguinal hernia surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Levobupivacaine is an attractive alternative to racemic bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia due to the lower potential for cardio-toxicity and faster recovery profile. This study was designed to compare isobaric levobupivacaine with hyperbaric racemic bupivacaine with respect to intraoperative quality of anesthesia and the postoperative recovery profile in patients undergoing inguinal hernia surgery.

Methods

A total of 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists 1 and 2 patients, aged 18–60 years, undergoing elective daycare unilateral inguinal hernia surgery, were randomized into two groups. Group L received spinal anesthesia with 3 ml of 0.5% plain levobupivacaine. Group B received 3 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric racemic bupivacaine. Quality of anesthesia, sensory and motor block characteristics, duration of effective analgesia, time to mobilization, and incidence of side effects were compared.

Results

The quality of anesthesia was comparable between the two groups. No difference was observed in the block onset time or maximum block height. The duration of anesthesia was significantly shorter in group L compared with that in group B (206.2 ± 18.9 min vs. 224.1 ± 15.6 min, P < 0.001), as was duration of motor block (185.9 ± 20.3 min vs. 196.4 ± 21.2 min, P = 0.016) and time to walk unaided (321.9 ± 19.2 min vs. 356.7 ± 26.6 min, P < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension was less in group L (12%) compared to group B (32%) (P = 0.028).

Conclusions

Levobupivacaine is an effective alternative to bupivacaine for patients undergoing unilateral inguinal hernia surgery. It has a shorter duration of sensory and motor block, allowing earlier mobilization in daycare surgeries, and a lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension.

[Low-dose levobupivacaine plus fentanyl combination for spinal anesthesia in anorectal surgery]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal anesthesia using two different doses of fentanyl combined with low-dose levobupivacaine in anorectal surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind study, 52 American Society of Anaesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for elective anorectal surgery were randomized into two groups. The patients in group I received intrathecal 2.5mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine plus 12.5μg fentanyl and in group II received intrathecal 2.5mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine plus 25μg fentanyl. All the patients remained in the seated position for 5min after completion of the spinal anesthesia. Sensory block was evaluated with pin-prick test and motor block was evaluated with a modified Bromage scale.

RESULTS

Motor block was not observed in both of the groups. The sensory block was limited to the S2 level in group I, and S1 level in group II. None of the patients required additional analgesics during the operation. Time to two-segment regression was shorter in group I compared with group II (p<0.01). One patient in group I and 5 patients in group II had pruritus. Hemodynamic parameters were stable during the operation in both of the groups.

CONCLUSION

Spinal saddle block using hyperbaric levobupivacaine with both 12.5μg and 25μg fentanyl provided good quality of anesthesia without motor block for anorectal surgery in the prone position.

Low-dose levobupivacaine plus fentanyl combination for spinal anesthesia in anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

the aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal anesthesia using two different doses of fentanyl combined with low-dose levobupivacaine in anorectal surgery.

METHODS

in this prospective, double-blind study, 52 American Society of Anaesthesiologists I-II patients scheduled for elective anorectal surgery were randomized into two groups. The patients in group I received intrathecal 2.5mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine plus 12.5 μg fentanyl and in group II received intrathecal 2.5mg hyperbaric levobupivacaine plus 25 μg fentanyl. All the patients remained in the seated position for 5 min after completion of the spinal anesthesia. Sensory block was evaluated with pin-prick test and motor block was evaluated with a modified Bromage scale.

RESULTS

motor block was not observed in both of the groups. The sensory block was limited to the S2 level in group I, and S1 level in group II. None of the patients required additional analgesics during the operation. Time to two-segment regression was shorter in group I compared with group II (p<0.01). One patient in group I and 5 patients in group II had pruritus. Hemodynamic parameters were stable during the operation in both of the groups.

CONCLUSION

spinal saddle block using hyperbaric levobupivacaine with both 12.5 μg and 25 μg fentanyl provided good quality of anesthesia without motor block for anorectal surgery in the prone position.

A comparison of spinal anesthesia characteristics following intrathecal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine in lumbar disc surgery

PURPOSE

While bupivacaine is the most frequently used local anesthetic for spinal anesthesia, use of levobupivacaine in clinical practice has advanced recently. The aim of our study was to compare the clinical and anesthetic effects of isobaric bupivacaine and isobaric levobupivacaine when administered intrathecally in patients undergoing lumbar disc surgery.

METHODS

ASA I-III, 60 patients were enrolled in this study. Only patients with unilateral single-level (L4-5) lumbar disc hernia were selected and operated in each group and all were operated by the same surgeon. Patients were randomized into two groups, as group B (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine, or group L (n = 30): 15 mg 0.5% isobaric levobupivacaine received intrathecally. The level of sensory block dermatome, degree of motor block, intraoperative sensory and motor block characteristics, and postoperative recovery times of spinal anesthesia were evaluated. The satisfaction scores of the surgeon and patients, intraoperative hemodynamic changes, intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

The maximum level of sensory blockade was significantly higher in the levobupivacaine group (group L 7 ± 1.63, group B 8.6 ± 1.76 thoracic dermatome, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the onset time of sensory (group L 6 ± 3 min, group B 9 ± 4 min) and motor (in group L 7 ± 3 min, in group B 10 ± 4 min) blockade (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding duration of operation (group L 49 ± 7.3 min, group B 52 ± 8.1, p > 0.05). Recovery times of sensory (175 ± 57 min) and motor (216 ± 59 min) blockade were significantly shorter in the levobupivacaine group (p < 0.05). Mobilization was also earlier in the levobupivacaine group (339 ± 90 min, p < 0.05). Patients' satisfaction and intraoperative, postoperative complications were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed that block recovery time was shorter in the levobupivacaine group, this may be a disadvantage for longer operative procedures. But with proper patient selection this can be eliminated. Recovery time was shorter in levobupivacaine group. Therefore, postoperative neurological examination can be done earlier. In addition, early mobilization can be an advantage for postoperative recovery.

Hypobaric 0.15% bupivacaine versus hypobaric 0.6% lidocaine for posterior spinal anesthesia in outpatient anorectal surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Low doses of bupivacaine and lidocaine have been used for spinal anesthesia in outpatient surgery. The objective of this study was to compare hypobaric solutions of bupivacaine and lidocaine in outpatient anorectal surgery.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty patients, divided in two groups, physical status ASA I-II, scheduled for anorectal surgery in the jackknife position received 3 mL (4.5 mg) of hypobaric 0.15% bupivacaine or 3 mL (18 mg) of hypobaric 0.6% lidocaine. The selectivity of the blockade, quality of surgical anesthesia, intensity of the motor blockade, and time for patient recovery were compared. After patients were discharged, daily phone contact was maintained for three days and on the 30th postoperative day.

RESULTS

Adequate surgical blockade was achieved in all patients. The mean level of cephalad dispersion was L(1), ranging from T(10)-L(3), with bupivacaine, and L(1), ranging from T(11)-L(2), with lidocaine. Motor blockade was not observed in 135 patients (65 in the bupivacaine group x 70 in the lidocaine group). None of the patients developed hypotension and bradycardia. The sensorial blockade had a mean duration of 99.1 (11.0) minutes, with bupivacaine, and 64.1 (7.6) minutes, with lidocaine (p < 0.0005). Post-lumbar puncture headache was not observed in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypobaric solution of bupivacaine or lidocaine promotes, predominantly, sensorial blockade after subarachnoid injection in patients in the jackknife position. Hypobaric lidocaine provides analgesia with the same dispersion of that of bupivacaine, but with shorter duration. Hemodynamic stability and the absence of motor blockade represent the major advantages.

Role of regional anesthesia in the ambulatory environment

The use of local anesthetics in ambulatory surgery offers multiple benefits in line with the goals of modern-day outpatient surgery. A variety of regional techniques can be used for a wide spectrum of procedures; all are shown to reduce postprocedural pain; reduce the short-term need for opiate medications; reduce adverse effects, such as nausea and vomiting; and reduce the time to dismissal compared with patients who do not receive regional techniques. Growth in ambulatory procedures will likely continue to rise with future advances in surgical techniques, changes in reimbursement, and the evolution of clinical pathways that include superior, sustained postoperative analgesia. Anticipating these changes in practice, the role of, and demand for, regional anesthesia in outpatient surgery will continue to grow.