Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective feasibility study

Comparison of General Anesthesia and Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia for Gasless Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology

Background and Objectives

Laparoscopic surgeries in gynecologic field have been performed under general anesthesia (GA) due to the respiratory changes caused by pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position. Therefore, this study aimed to compared general anesthesia and combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA) for gasless laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic field.

Methods

We matched patients with type of surgery who underwent gasless single port access (SPA) laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia and CSEA. The medical records of 90 patients between March 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020 were reviewed. Gasless laparoscopic surgery was performed in all patients with a SPA using a J-shaped retractor.

Results

No significant differences were observed for age, body mass index, parity, and previous abdominal surgery between GA and CSEA groups. During operation under CSEA, six patients (20%) experienced nausea/vomiting. Hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) was observed in five patients (16.7%). Intravenous analgesics was administrated in four of the patients (13.3%) who suffered from shoulder pain or abdominal discomfort. One patient developed bradycardia. The duration of hospital admission was shorter in the CSEA group than in the GA group (p = 0.014). There was no difference between the groups in terms of surgery type, surgical specific finding, operation time, estimated blood loss, laparotomy conversion rate and use of additional trocar. No major complications such as urologic, bowel, or vessel injuries were found in both groups.

Conclusions

CSEA is a safe and feasible technique for application in nonobese patients undergoing gasless laparoscopic surgery in gynecologic field.

Laparoscopy in Gynecologic and Abdominal Surgery in Regional (Spinal, Peridural) Anesthesia, the Utility of the Technique during COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

laparoscopic surgery is mainly performed in general anesthesia. Symptomatic patients infected with COVID-19 needing surgery are however at higher risk for COVID-19 complications in general anesthesia than in regional anesthesia. Even so, Covid transfection is a hazard to medical personnel during the intubation procedure and treatment drugs may be in shortage during a pandemic. Recovery and hospital stay are also shorter after laparoscopy. Laparoscopy performed in regional anesthesia may have several advantages in limiting Covid.

METHODS

international literature on the risk of COVID-19 complications development was searched. 3 topics concerning laparoscopic surgery were reviewed: (1) Achievements in laparoscopy; (2) Advantages of regional anesthesia compared to general anesthesia; (3) Feasibility to perform laparoscopy in regional anesthesia in COVID-19 pandemic. The authors reviewed abstracts and full-text articles concerning laparoscopic surgery, gynecology, anesthesia and COVID-19. Studies published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and found in Google Scholar before 1st FEB, 2021 were retrieved and analyzed.

RESULTS

a total of 83 studies were found, all of them written in English. 17 studies could be found in gynecology and in general surgery about laparoscopy with regional anesthesia. In Covid time only one study compared laparoscopic surgery in general anesthesia to laparotomy and another study laparotomy in general anesthesia to regional anesthesia. Laparoscopy showed no disadvantage compared to laparotomy in Covid pandemic and in another study laparotomy in general anesthesia was associated with higher mortality and more pulmonary complications. Trendelenburg position can be a threat if used by inexperienced personnel and can induce unintended anesthesia of breathing organs. On the other hand Trendelenburg position has advantages for cardiovascular and pulmonary functions. Pneumoperitoneum of low CO2 pressure is well tolerated by patients.

CONCLUSIONS

elective surgery should be postponed in symptomatic Covid patients. In inevitable emergency surgery intubation anesthesia in COVID-19 pandemic is as far as possible to be avoided. In COVID-19 pandemic, regional anesthesia is the preferred choice. The optimum may be the combination of laparoscopic surgery with regional anesthesia. Reducing the pneumoperitoneum is a good compromise for the comfort of patients and surgeons. A special case is gynecology, which needs to be performed in Trendelenburg position to free pelvic organs.

General Versus Neuraxial Anesthesia for Appendectomy: A Multicenter International Study

BACKGROUND

In resource-limited countries, open appendectomy is still performed under general anesthesia (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). We sought to compare the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy under NA versus GA.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing (iPOP) multicenter study. All patients ≥ 16 years-old who underwent an open appendectomy between October 2016 and March 2017 in one of the 14 participating hospitals were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: NA-defined as spinal or epidural-and GA. All-cause morbidity, hospital length of stay (LOS), and pain severity were assessed using univariate analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression adjusting for the following preoperative characteristics: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, history of opioid use, emergency status, and country.

RESULTS

A total of 655 patients were included, 353 of which were in the NA group and 302 in the GA group. The countries operating under NA were Colombia (39%), Thailand (31%), China (23%), and Brazil (7%). Overall, NA patients were younger (mean age (SD): 34.5 (14.4) vs. 40.7 (17.9), p-value < 0.001) and had a lower BMI (mean (SD): 23.5 (3.8) vs. 24.3 (5.2), p-value = 0.040) than GA patients. On multivariable analysis, NA was independently associated with less postoperative complications (OR, 95% CI: 0.30 [0.10-0.94]) and shorter hospital LOS (LOS > 3 days, OR, 95% CI: 0.47 [0.32-0.68]) compared to GA. There was no difference in postoperative pain severity between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Open appendectomy performed under NA is associated with improved outcomes compared to that performed under GA. Further randomized controlled studies should examine the safety and value of NA in lower abdominal surgery.

Phantom limb syndrome induced by combined spinal and epidural anesthesia in patients undergoing elective open gynecological surgery

BACKGROUND

During regional anesthesia, including combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (CSEA), patients may develop a perceptual alteration of limb position known as phantom limb syndrome (PLS). We aimed to identify factors that influence the PLS onset, to explore whether PLS predisposes to other postoperative symptoms, and to document the relationship between PLS and sensorimotor impairment during recovery.

METHODS

Psychological questionnaires for anxiety and depression were completed beforehand, then multimodal tests of sensory and motor function, especially tests of proprioception, were performed regularly afterward. Two hundred participants undergoing elective gynecological surgery under CSEA reported their experiences of PLS and other symptoms using Likert rating scales.

RESULTS

Prolonged preoperative fasting (odds ratio (OR) 2.34; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.21-4.52), and surgical history (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.16-5.62) predisposed to PLS, but patients with more extensive anesthetic histories may be at lower risk (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.31-1.08). Furthermore, significant correlations were observed between the recovery from PLS and the perception of joint movement within the deafferented area (R = 0.82, P < .01) and motor functions (R = 0.68). PLS increases the chance of experiencing postoperative fatigue, physical discomfort, and emotional upset.

CONCLUSION

This study is the first to have identified the risk factors for PLS, assessed the relationship between PLS and postoperative sensorimotor impairment, and its influence on postoperative complications.

Spinal/epidural block as an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized clinical study

Introduction

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) has been generally performed under general anesthesia. Laparoscopic appendectomy is rarely performed under regional anesthesia because of pneumoperitoneum-related problems.

Aim

To compare spinal/epidural anesthesia (SEA) and general anesthesia (GA) during LA with respect to perioperative and postoperative adverse events and postoperative pain.

Material and methods

Fifty patients, aged 18–65, who underwent LA, were randomly allocated to two groups: the GA (n = 25) and SEA (n = 25) groups. Perioperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain level, and patient satisfaction were compared between the groups.

Results

None of the patients needed conversion to an open procedure or conversion from SEA to GA. In the SEA group we encountered shoulder pain in 6 (24%) patients, abdominal discomfort/pain in 4 (16%) patients, anxiety in 4 (16%) patients, and hypotension in 2 (8%) patients intraoperatively. Also, post-spinal headache was observed in 5 (20%) patients in the SEA group. Postoperative right shoulder pain was significantly higher in the GA group compared to the SEA group (32% vs. 8%; p = 0.037). In the SEA group the incidence of urinary retention and in the GA group the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were higher, but these differences were not statistically significant. The postoperative surgical pain level was significantly lower in the SEA group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Spinal/epidural anesthesia is effective and safe in ASA I healthy patients undergoing LA. Less postoperative pain, PONV and shoulder pain are the advantages of SEA compared to GA.

Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy

Acute appendicitis (AA) develops in a progressive and irreversible manner, even if the clinical course of AA can be temporarily modified by intentional medications. Reliable and real-time diagnosis of AA can be made based on findings of the white blood cell count and enhanced computed tomography. Emergent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is considered as the first therapeutic choice for AA. Interval/delayed appendectomy at 6-12 wk after disease onset is considered as unsafe with a high recurrent rate during the waiting time. However, this technique may have some advantages for avoiding unnecessary extended resection in patients with an appendiceal mass. Non-operative management of AA may be tolerated only in children. Postoperative complications increase according to the patient’s factors, and temporal avoidance of emergent general anesthesia may be beneficial for high-risk patients. The surgeon’s skill and cooperation of the hospital are important for successful LA. Delaying appendectomy for less than 24 h from diagnosis is safe. Additionally, a semi-elective manner (i.e., LA within 24 h after onset of symptoms) may be paradoxically acceptable, according to the factors of the patient, physician, and institution. Prompt LA is mandatory for AA. Fortunately, the Japanese government uses a universal health insurance system, which covers LA.