Neuraxial techniques in patients with pre-existing back impairment or prior spine interventions: a topical review with special reference to obstetrics

Microdiscectomy Under Local Anesthesia and Spinal Block in a Pregnant Female

The surgical plan and the anesthetic approach are vital in determining the proper treatment of lumbar disc herniation in pregnancy. The diagnostic tools available, as well as the anesthetic agents and methods of delivery, vary in pregnant patients due to factors such as radiation exposure and hemodynamics in the patient and fetus. The gestational age also plays an important role in determining treatment options. When possible, surgery should be avoided during the first trimester, especially during the period of organogenesis, as general anesthesia can interfere with this process. However, when focal neurological deficits are present, urgent surgical decompression may be necessary. In such cases, the selection of anesthesia must be guided by maternal indications and the nature of the surgery. Maternal safety and avoidance of fetal hypoxia and subsequent preterm labor are crucial when pregnant patients receive anesthesia. As a result, local anesthesia is often preferred when possible due to the decreased risk of systemic toxicity. Decompression surgery in pregnant females with lumbar disc herniation, using a multidisciplinary approach among the surgeon, obstetrician, and anesthesiologist, is an effective and safe procedure for both the mother and the fetus. We present the case of a pregnant female at four weeks of gestation who presented with lower back pain radiating down her right leg. MRI of the lumbar spine showed large L4-5 disc herniation. She underwent a successful right L4-5 microdiscectomy under local anesthesia and spinal block using bupivacaine and was completely awake throughout the procedure. Postoperatively, she experienced immediate improvement of symptoms.

Complex Pathology and Management in the Obstetric Patient: A Narrative Review for the Anesthesiologist

Pregnant patients may present with multiple complex comorbidities that can affect peripartum management and anesthetic care. The preanesthesia clinic is the ideal setting for early evaluation of high-risk pregnant patients. Comorbidities may include cardiovascular pathology such as valvular abnormalities, septal defects, aortopathies, arrythmias and cardiomyopathies. Additional comorbidities include pulmonary conditions such as obstructive sleep apnea as well as preexisting neuromuscular and skeletal disorders that may impact anesthetic management. Hematologic conditions involving both bleeding diathesis and thrombophilias may present unique challenges for the anesthesiologist. Patients may also present with endocrinopathies including diabetes and obesity. While not as common, high-risk patients may also have preexisting gastrointestinal conditions such as liver dysfunction, renal failure, and even post-transplant status. Ongoing and prior substance abuse, obstetric conditions such as placenta accreta spectrum disorders, and fetal conditions needing ex utero Intrapartum treatment also require advanced planning. Preanesthesia evaluations also help address important ethical and cultural considerations. Counseling patients regarding anesthetic considerations as well as addressing concerns will play a role in reducing racial and ethnic disparities. Anticipatory guidance by means of pre-anesthetic planning can facilitate multidisciplinary communication and planning. This can allow for an impactful and meaningful role in the care provided, allowing for safe maternal care and optimal outcomes.

Pragmatic approach to neuraxial anesthesia in obstetric patients with disorders of the vertebral column, spinal cord and neuromuscular system

Neuraxial anesthesia provides optimal labor analgesia and cesarean delivery anesthesia. Obstetric patients with disorders of the vertebral column, spinal cord and neuromuscular system present unique challenges to the anesthesiologist. Potential concerns include mechanical interference, patient injury and the need for imaging. Unfortunately, the existing literature regarding neuraxial anesthesia in these patients is largely limited to case series and rare retrospective studies. The lack of practice guidance may lead to unwarranted fear of patient harm and subsequent avoidance of neuraxial anesthesia for cesarean delivery or neuraxial analgesia for labor, with additional risks of exposure to general anesthesia. In this narrative review, we use available evidence to recommend a framework when considering neuraxial anesthesia for an obstetrical patient with neuraxial pathology.

Anaesthetic Management in Successive Spinal Surgeries During Pregnancy and Postpartum

In this case report, we present a parturient with spinal tumour who required neurosurgery before and after caesarean delivery under general anaesthesia. A 25-year-old woman at 30 weeks of gestation and suffering from bilateral lower-limb weakness and sensory deficit due to spinal tumour underwent emergent laminectomy and decompression surgery under general anaesthesia. In this case, total intravenous anaesthesia was used. Two weeks later, the patient underwent emergent caesarean delivery under general anaesthesia due to preterm labour and gave birth to a healthy new-born. Meanwhile, pathological exam revealed soft tissue sarcoma requiring re-operation for gross total excision in the postpartum Week 4, which was followed by multisession chemoradiotherapy. The patient survived for 3 years, that is, until generalised systemic and neural metastasis. General anaesthesia management in surgeries before and after caesarean delivery in patients with spinal tumours is of utmost importance in providing optimal maternal, foetal and neonatal safety using a multidisciplinary team approach.

The use of separate-level neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery in a patient with a history of spinal tuberculosis

We present the case of a 33-year-old parturient who required caesarean delivery at 31 weeks' gestation. She had a history of degenerative disease of the lumbar spine secondary to tuberculosis, acquired as a child in India. Her complex medical history also included ischaemic heart disease and obstructive sleep apnoea, and due to this general anaesthesia was considered to be of high risk. However, regional anaesthesia also posed significant challenges because magnetic resonance imaging of the spine showed a partial collapse with subsequent fusion of second and third lumbar vertebral bodies with thoracolumbar kyphosis. Neuraxial anaesthesia was performed with ultrasound guidance for determining levels and depth of epidural space. An epidural was inserted at the T12-L1 interspace and a spinal anaesthetic block was placed at L4-L5. Delivery and recovery were uneventful. This case highlights the safe and effective use of neuraxial anaesthesia in an asymptomatic patient with treated spinal tuberculosis as well as the usefulness of high-quality imaging of the spine in the decision to perform neuraxial anaesthesia.

Spinal Cord Stimulation in Pregnant Patients: Current Perspectives of Indications, Complications, and Results in Pain Control: A Systematic Review

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has been described as a valuable neuromodulator procedure in the management of chronic medically untreated neuropathic pain. Although the use of this technique has been published in many papers, a question still remains regarding its applicability in pregnant patients. The goal of this paper is to discuss the risks, complications, and results as well as the prognosis of SCS in pregnant patients. We performed a systematic review from 1967 to 2018 using the databases MEDLINE, LILACS, SciELO, PubMed, and BIREME, utilizing language as selection criteria. Eighteen studies that met our criteria were found and tabulated. SCS is a reversible and adjustable surgical procedure, which results in patients that demonstrated a significant effect in the reduction of pain intensity in pregnant patients. The etiologies most frequent were complex regional pain and failed back pain syndromes, which together represented 94% of analyzed cases. The technical complications most frequent were lead migration (3%, n = 1). Regarding the risks, the authors did not show significative factors among the categorical variables that can suggest a teratogenicity, while the maternal risks have been associated to the consequences of technical complications due to, among other factors, improvement of abdominal pressure during pregnancy and delivery. Finally, although there are not significative cohorts of pregnant patients, the procedure is still an effective surgical approach of neuropathic pain associated to lower rates of complications and significative improvement in the quality of life of patients during pregnancy.

Anesthetic management for parturients with neurological disorders

Anesthesia care for the pregnant and the parturient presenting with a neurological disease requires (1) expertise with neuroanesthesia and obstetric anesthesia care, (2) accurate physical examination of the neurological system preoperatively, (3) safe choice and conductance of the anesthesia technique (mostly regional anesthesia), (4) avoidance of unfavorable drug effects for the fetus and the nervous system of the mother, and (5) intraoperative neuromonitoring together with the control of the fetal heart rate. The most important message is that in the ideal case, any woman with a known, preexisting neurological disorder should discuss her plans to become pregnant with her physician before she becomes pregnant. Neurological diseases in pregnancy can be classified into three categories: (a) Pre-existent chronic neurological diseases such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis (MS). (b) Diseases with onset predominantly in pregnancy such as some brain tumors or cerebrovascular events. (c) Pregnancy-induced conditions such as eclampsia and Hemolysis elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome. This article addresses specific issues surrounding neurologic disease in pregnant women including MS parturient, spinal cord injury, parturient with increased intracranial pressure and shunts, parturient with brain tumors, Guillain-Barré syndrome and epilepsy.

[Significantly shorter anesthesia time for surgery of the lumbar spine : process analytical comparison of spinal anesthesia and intubation narcosis]

INTRODUCTION

Most surgery of the lumbar spine is performed with the patient under general anesthesia (GA); however, qualitative benefits of spinal anesthesia (SA) have been reported. The goal of this study was to compare time efficiency between these two anesthesia methods in lumbar spine surgery. To test the hypothesis that the use of SA leads to significant time saving compared to GA for lumbar spine surgery, key points in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative anesthesiology care times were analyzed. The focus was on anesthesia time excluding surgery time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronically based data of 473 anesthesia procedures (368 SA, 105 GA) for lumbar spine interventions performed in the prone position (i. e. decompression, discectomy and transpedicular instrumentation) were analyzed retrospectively. Patient population data including gender, age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed. The focus was on the documented perioperative key time points which are defined as follows: (1) induction, (2) positioning (turning into prone position), (3) scrubbing and covering, (4) surgery time (knife to skin closure), (5) closing (end of surgery until leaving operating room) and (6) handing over to recovery. Differences in the amount of time for each perioperative period were calculated for SA and GA.

RESULTS

In 7 out of the 368 SA patients SA failed and had to be converted to GA. There were no significant differences in BMI, ASA prevalence and gender between SA and GA patients but SA patients were significantly older (median 61.7 ± 15.4 years) than GA patients (median 56.1 ± 14.6 years). However, SA required significantly less time for induction (SA: 17.7 ± 7.0 min, GA: 21.6 ± 7.2 min), preoperative preparation (SA: 9.7 ± 3.6 min, GA: 13.3 ± 5.4 min) and closing period (SA: 4.9 ± 1.1 min, GA: 15.3 ± 5.7 min) compared to GA. Total anesthesia time with exclusion of the surgery time revealed a significant time reduction using SA of 19 min (95 % confidence interval: range 13.6-24.4 min, median in SA: 56.7 min, median in GA: 75.7 min, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that in lumbar spine surgery 19 min of anesthesia time can be saved using SA compared to GA which could have an impact on economic aspects. Gender, BMI and ASA had no statistically detectable influence on the choice between the two anesthesia methods. The fact that time-intensive complex instrumentation is mainly performed in younger patients may explain why GA patients were younger than SA patients.