[Unilateral spinal anesthesia : Literature review and recommendations]

A Narrative Review on Multimodal Spinal Anesthesia: Old Technique and New Use

Spinal anesthesia has a long history in providing safe and effective anesthesia and analgesia. Its continuous evolution in block placement techniques with or without ultrasound assistance, options of spinal needles, local anesthetics and adjuvants adopted based on spinal anesthesia onset rate, duration of action, and side effect profiles, makes spinal anesthesia an important modality in current early recovery after surgery for a broad-spectrum of surgical procedures including ambulatory lower extremity orthopedic procedures and major chest, abdominal, and spine surgeries.

Optimized Method of Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Study

Background

Unilateral spinal anesthesia is often accompanied by technical difficulties in implementation, multiple puncture attempts, unsuccessful punctures, and, as a result, insufficient anesthesia, along with various complications associated with a dural puncture.

Objectives

This work compares the efficacy and safety of conventional Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia (USpA) and unilateral spinal anesthesia with electrical nerve stimulation (USpA+ENS).

Methods

A total of 134 patients with an upcoming vascular surgery on one lower extremity were randomly assigned to two groups. All the patients were positioned with the operated limb below and used 7.5 mg of Bupivacaine-Spinal®. In the UsPA group, anesthesia was performed according to the standard technique. In the USpA+ENS group, electrical nerve stimulation was additionally used. Primary outcomes were the presence or absence of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), number of puncture attempts, lateralization, and anesthesia adequacy. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative pain scores, the presence or absence of nausea and vomiting, and the need for hemodynamics correction.

Results

The frequency of puncture complications was sufficiently lower in the USpA+ENS group than in the UsPA group. The local anesthetic solution distribution, pain score indicators, and secondary outcomes were comparable in both groups with a slight difference.

Conclusions

We showed that USpA+ENS reduces the incidence of puncture complications and improves the quality of anesthesia and adherence of both patients and anesthesiologists to the unilateral spinal anesthesia technique.

A comparative study of unilateral vs bilateral spinal anaesthesia using hyperbaric bupivacaine with buprenorphine in unilateral inguinal hernia surgery

Unilateral spinal anaesthesia can be used for inguinal hernia surgery. The advantage is that it provides a stronger block on the side of surgery and accelerated recovery of the nerve block, with better maintenance of cardiovascular stability. Hence it can be a valuable technique for high-risk patients. The aim: This randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the onset and duration of Sensory and motor block in both unilateral and bilateral spinal anaesthesia and the adverse effects of buprenorphine given intrathecally with 0.5 % bupivacaine for Spinal anaesthesia in patients scheduled for unilateral inguinal hernia surgery. Materials and methods: it is a сomparative two group randomized clinical study with 60 patients with 30 patients in Group U (UNILATERAL) and 30 patients in Group B (BILATERAL) is undertaken to study the changes in haemodynamics and side effects. Whereas, within the group (for the unilateral group) comparison of the time taken to reach L1, T12, T10 and the Bromage time between the surgical side and non-surgical side sides of surgery was done. Results: T10 -T12 spinal anaesthesia was achieved in both groups; the average time to anaesthetic onset in the unilateral group was 5.27±1.2 min, and in the bilateral, it was 5.90±1.02 min (p-value=0.32). Sensory and motor block lasted longer in the bilateral group when compared to the unilateral group; the incidence of side effects was limited to the occurrence of hypotension and bradycardia in the unilateral group than in the bilateral group. The success rate of unilateral spinal anaesthesia in our study was 100 %. Conclusion: Because of haemodynamic stability and faster recovery characteristics of unilateral spinal block, it can be used as a suitable technique in patients with a limited cardiovascular reserve and for outpatient anaesthesia.

Effect of single spinal anesthesia with two doses ropivacaine on urinary retention after hemorrhoidectomy in male patients

Background

Anorectal diseases are common in the population and include internal, external, and mixed hemorrhoids. Although hemorrhoid surgery is a brief operation, anesthesia, anesthetic drugs, drug concentrations, and anesthesia level control are closely related to postoperative uroschesis. For hemorrhoid surgery, a single spinal block with ropivacaine is commonly used that blocks the S2-S4 parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn governs the voiding reflex, causing postoperative urinary retention; this affects the recovery of patients. This study was performed to investigate the effects of two doses ropivacaine that provided satisfactory analgesia and muscle relaxation and inhibited adverse reflexes on urinary retention after hemorrhoidectomy.

Methods

The study included 200 male patients who underwent anorectal surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade I-II single elective spinal anesthesia between March 2021 and March 2022. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups using a random number table: Group A (n = 100) received 10 mg 0.5% ropivacaine (1.5 ml 1% ropivacaine + 1.5 ml 10% glucose = 3 ml), and Group B (n = 100) received 15 mg 0.5% ropivacaine (1.5 ml 1% ropivacaine + 1.5 ml 10% glucose = 3 ml).

Results

The anal sphincter exhibited good relaxation, and no obvious traction pain or significant difference in the time of muscle strength recovery was observed between the 10 mg and 15 mg 0.5% ropivacaine groups (P > 0.05). The 10 mg 0.5% ropivacaine group had shorter time of micturition exceeding 100 ml and lower voiding International Prostate Symptom Score than the 15 mg 0.5% ropivacaine group (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Single spinal anesthesia with 10 mg 0.5% ropivacaine not only provides satisfactory anesthetic effect for hemorrhoidectomy but also has less influence on postoperative uroschesis and is worthy of clinical application.

Trial registration

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn; identifier: ChiCTR2,100,043,686) on February 27, 2021.

Hypobaric Unilateral Spinal Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery in the Elderly: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Hypotension during surgery is frequent in the elderly population and is associated with acute kidney and myocardial injury, which are, themselves, associated with increased 30-day mortality. The present study compared the hemodynamic effects of hypobaric unilateral spinal anesthesia (HUSA) to general anesthesia (GA) in patients ≥70 years of age undergoing hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized study. In the HUSA group, patients were positioned with the operated hip above, and the hypobaric anesthetic solution was composed of 9 mg ropivacaine, 5 µg sufentanil, and 1 mL of sterile water. Anesthesia was adjusted for the GA group. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was measured with a noninvasive blood pressure upper arm cuff every 3 minutes. Hypotension was treated with a bolus of ephedrine and then a continuous intravenous of norepinephrine to obtain a MAP ≥65 mm Hg. Primary outcome was the occurrence of severe hypotension, defined as a MAP <65 mm Hg for >12 consecutive minutes.

RESULTS

A total of 154 patients were included. Severe hypotension was more frequent in the GA group compared to the HUSA group (odds ratio, 5.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-11.7; P < .001). There was no significant difference regarding the short-term outcomes between the HUSA and GA groups: acute kidney injury (respectively, 5.1% vs 11.3%; P = .22), myocardial injury (18.0% vs 14.0%; P = .63), and 30-day mortality (2.4% vs 4.7%; P = .65).

CONCLUSIONS

HUSA leads to fewer episodes of severe intraoperative hypotension compared to GA in an elderly population undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Determination of the median effective dose (ED50) of bupivacaine and ropivacaine unilateral spinal anesthesia : Prospective, double blinded, randomized dose-response trial

BACKGROUND

Unilateral spinal anesthesia (USpA) has been reported to potentiate spinal anaesthesia and is used in geriatric patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine and 0.5% hypobaric ropivacaine USpA for geriatric patients (age ≥ 70 years) undergoing elective hip replacement surgery.

METHODS

A total of 60 geriatric patients (age ≥ 70 years) undergoing elective hip replacement surgery were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomized into 2 groups to receive either intrathecal 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine USpA (group B) or 0.5% hypobaric ropivacaine USpA (group R). Effective anesthesia was defined as a T10 sensory blockade level maintained for more than 60 min, and a Bromage score of 3 on the operation side within 10 min after injection with no additional epidural anesthetic required during surgery. The ED₅₀ of 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine and 0.5% hypobaric ropivacaine was calculated using the Dixon and Massey formula.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of demographic data. The ED₅₀ of 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine USpA was 4.66 mg (95% confidence interval CI 4.69-4.63 mg) mg and that of 0.5% hypobaric ropivacaine USpA was 6.43 mg (95% CI 6.47-6.39 mg) for geriatric patients undergoing hip replacement surgery.

CONCLUSION

We find the ED₅₀ were lower, and the ED50 of 0.5% hypobaric bupivacaine and ropivacaine was 4.66 mg (95% CI 4.69-4.63 mg) and 6.43 mg (95% CI 6.47-6.39 mg), respectively, for USpA in geriatric patients (age ≥ 70 years) undergoing elective hip replacement surgery.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia with Sequential Combined Spinal Epidural Anaesthesia for Lower Limb Orthopaedic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic anaesthesia plan requires customi-zation as per patient's need for safe outcome. Sequential Combined Spinal Epidural Anaesthesia (Sequential CSEA) and Unilateral Single Shot Spinal anaesthesia (Unilateral SA), both have advantages over conventional spinal anaesthesia that they provide longer lasting block with less hypotension.

AIM

To compare safety and efficacy of unilateral spinal anaesthesia with sequential combined spinal epidural anaesthesia for lower limb orthopaedic surgery .

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective randomized study was conducted on sixty ASA I-III patients aged 18- 65 years undergoing lower limb orthopaedic surgeries of approximately two hours duration. Sequential CSE group received spinal with 5 mg of 0.5 hyperbaric bupivacaine followed by incremental epidural top up of 2 cc of 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine to achieve and maintain T10 level. In unilateral SA group, unilateral spinal anaesthesia was given with 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Haemodynamic parameter, anaesthesia readiness time and block characteristics were recorded and results were analysed using unpaired Student's t-test.

RESULTS

There was no failure of block, surgical anaesthesia with T10 sensory level and bromage score three motor block was achieved by all patients in both groups. Anaesthesia readiness time was less in unilateral SA (p<0.001) Incidences of hypotension (p-value 0.0059) and mean ephedrine dose were significantly less in sequential CSEA. Five patients of unilateral SA required supplementation with general anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Thus, our study concludes that unilateral SA is a cost-effective and rapidly performed anaesthetic technique. Unilateral SA with 10 mg bupivacaine and sequential CSEA with 5 mg spinal and incremental epidural top up, both provide good quality sensory and motor block for lower limb orthopaedic surgery but sequential CSEA provides significantly more stable haemodynamics with feasibility to prolong block. Thus sequential CSEA should be preferred over unilateral SA in high risk patients especially for major lower limb orthopaedic surgeries.