Use of combined spinal-epidural by obstetric anaesthetists

Current status of the combined spinal-epidural technique in obstetrics and surgery

Epidural and spinal blocks are well-accepted neuraxial techniques but both have several disadvantages. Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) can combine the best features of both techniques and reduce or eliminate these disadvantages. It provides the rapidity, density, and reliability of subarachnoid block with the flexibility of catheter epidural technique to extend the duration of anesthesia/analgesia (and to improve spinal block). It is an excellent technique for determining minimum intrathecal drug doses. Although most commonly employed in obstetric practice, CSE is also used in a wide variety of non-obstetric surgical procedures including orthopedic, vascular, gynecological, urological, and general surgical procedures. The needle-through-needle technique remains the most commonly used method to perform CSE. Several technical variations including Sequential CSE and Epidural Volume Extention (EVE) are commonly used particularly in obstetric and high-risk patients such as those with cardiac disease where a slower onset of sympathetic block is desirable. The risks of complications such as epidural catheter migration through the dural hole, neurological complications, and subarachnoid spread of epidurally administered drugs are possible but have not been a clinically relevant problem in the 40+ years of their existence. In obstetrics, CSE is used for labor pain because it produces rapid-onset analgesia with reduced local anesthetic consumption and less motor block. The epidural catheter placed as part of a CSE is more reliable than a catheter placed as part of a conventional epidural. Less breakthrough pain throughout labor is noted and fewer catheters require replacing. Side effects of CSE include greater potential for hypotension and more fetal heart rate abnormalities. CSE is also used for cesarean delivery. The main purpose is to decrease the spinal dose so that spinal-induced hypotension can be reduced. However, reducing the spinal dose requires an epidural catheter to avoid intra-operative pain when surgery is prolonged.

A randomized double-blind comparison of the double-space technique versus the single-space technique in combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for cesarean section

BACKGROUND

Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) can be performed with either a single-space technique or a double-space technique for cesarean section. We performed a double-blind randomized controlled study to compare the effect of the double-space technique with that of the single-space technique on sensory block level and side effects.

METHODS

Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under regional anesthesia were randomized to receive CSEA with either the double-space technique (double group, n = 20) or the single-space technique (single group, n = 20). In the double group, an epidural catheter was inserted at the L1-2 interspace, and dural puncture was performed at the L3-4 interspace. In the single group, the procedure was performed at the L3-4 interspace using the needle-through-needle technique.

RESULTS

There were no differences in time to readiness or intraoperative level of sensory block between the two groups. The postoperative sensory level was maintained at a higher level in the double group than in the single group (1 h postoperatively, P = 0.029; 6 h postoperatively, P = 0.016). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of side effects. The parturient satisfaction scores 48 h postoperatively were significantly different between groups (9.5 in the double group vs. 8 in the single group, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there were no differences in intraoperative variables between the double-space technique and the single-space technique for CSEA. However, double-space CSEA for cesarean section may be beneficial for controlling postoperative pain and improving parturient satisfaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered at https://cris.nih.go.kr under the trial ID KCT0002514. Date of registration: October 27, 2017.

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.

Anaesthesia Techniques for Caesarean Operations: Retrospective Analysis of Last Decade

OBJECTIVE

The technique of anaesthesia in caesarean sections is selected according to the patient's clinical presentation, experience of the anaesthesist and the patient's wishes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anaesthesia methods employed in our clinic in the last decade (2003-2012).

METHODS

Records of caesarean operations performed between 2003-2012 in the Anaesthesia department of Atatürk University Medical Faculty and stored in the hospital computer system were examined. The annual distribution of methods of anaesthesia in operations was analysed.

RESULTS

During 2003-2012, 9049 caesarean operations were performed in our clinic. General anaesthesia was used in 45% of operations and regional anaesthesia in 54%. Whereas the rate of regional anaesthesia in 2003 was 34%, this increased to 69% in 2012. The most commonly used method of regional anaesthesia was spinal anaesthesia (34%) in 2003, and spinal anaesthesia (41%) and combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia (27%) in 2012.

CONCLUSION

The most commonly used anaesthesia technique for caesarean operations in our clinic between 2003-2012 was spinal anaesthesia. The most widely used regional anaesthetic method in our clinic was spinal anaesthesia. A significant increase in the use of the combined spinal-epidural anaesthetic technique occurred in the last two years of the study period.

[Maternal hypotension with low doses of spinal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine and epidural volume expansion with saline for cesarean section]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Epidural volume extension (EVE) with saline solution can contribute to greater cephalad spread of drugs injected into the subarachnoid space during cesarean section. We studied the incidence of material hypotension with spinal bupivacaine or levobupivacaine (L-bupivacaine) and the spread after epidural saline injection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After ethics committee approval, we randomized women scheduled for cesarean section to 4 groups to receive 5 mg of 0.25% bupivacaine with (n=51) or without (n=6) saline EVE; 5 mg of 025% L-bupivacaine (n=50); or 6 mg of 03% L-bupivacaine (n=50). All patients also received 25 microg of fentanyl per 2 mL of local hyperbaric spinal anesthetic. In all except the non-EVE group, 10 mL of saline was infused through an epidural catheter 5 minutes after anesthetic infusion. We recorded patient demographic data, procedural and anesthetic times, incision-clamping times, occurrence of hypotension, ephedrine dose required, motor and sensory blockade, requirement for rescue analgesics, and neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

After 6 patients had been randomized to the non-EVE group, no further patients were assigned because all the women required rescue analgesics. Demographic data, duration of procedure, time between. incision and delivery, and Apgar scores were similar in all the groups. The incidence of hypotension was lower in the group receiving 5 mg of L-bupivacaine (26% vs. 52.9% in the bupivacaine 5-mg group, and 56% in the 6-mg L-bupivacaine group, P = .04). More women given 5 mg of L-bupivacaine required rescue analgesia (46%) than did those receiving 5 mg of bupivacaine (235%) or 6 mg of L-bupivacaine (28%) (P = .039). Hypotension was associated with a lower umbilical cord pH (P = .001). Ephedrine doses over 20 mg were also associated with a lower umbilical cord pH (P = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of hypotension was lowest in the group anesthetized with 5 mg of L-bupivacaine, but the need for rescue analgesia was greater in this group. Doses of 5 mg and 6 mg may be sufficient for cesarean section, as they provide a good level of sensory blockade.

Combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to present the most important recent studies on the clinical use of the combined spinal-epidural technique.

RECENT FINDINGS

The predominant recent literature on the combined spinal-epidural technique involves its use in obstetrics. A 2004 UK survey showed that the use of the technique is increasing. Studies are presented which show the role of intrathecal drug selection for improving the quality of the combined spinal-epidural technique for anaesthesia for Caesarean section. The pros and cons of using the method as opposed to traditional epidural for labour analgesia are still being debated; the results of a meta-analysis show that combined spinal-epidural provides faster onset of analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction but the incidence of pruritus is high. This review also looks at some technical aspects of the technique.

SUMMARY

The use of combined spinal-epidural is widespread and increasing particularly in obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia. Recent literature provides new information about the choice of drugs and technical aspects of the technique and also about its advantages and drawbacks in obstetric and non-obstetric patients.