Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anaesthesia vs. General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomised Study

The impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on the variability of surgical times: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With spinal anesthesia, when cases are taking longer than usual, there may be behavioural tendencies for surgical teams to work more quickly. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine standard deviations of surgical times for single-dose spinal anesthetics versus general anesthesia. We compared ratios of mean surgical times as a secondary endpoint.

METHODS

We included randomized trials of humans where general or spinal anesthesia was used for one category of surgical procedure (e.g., hip arthroplasty) and the article reported the means and standard deviations of operative durations. We used statistical methods suitable for surgical times following log-normal distributions. We used generalized confidence intervals to calculate point estimates of ratios and standard errors for each study, followed by pooling among studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment.

RESULTS

Among the 77 included studies, 96% were of high quality for our endpoint (i.e., had a low risk of bias), as no (0%) study focused on comparing variability of surgical times and none had surgical time as the primary endpoint. Spinal anesthesia was associated with 6.6% smaller standard deviations than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 15.8% smaller to 1.9% larger, P = 0.13). By meta-regression, there was no significant association of the ratios of standard deviations with study quality (P = 0.39), year of publication (P = 0.76), or categories of procedures (all five P ≥ 0.28). Spinal anesthesia was associated with 1.1% smaller means than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 3.7% smaller to 1.5% larger, P = 0.42). There were no significant associations between the ratios of means and study quality (P = 0.47), year of publication (P = 0.95), or categories of procedures (all five, P ≥ 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show with high confidence that the effect of choosing spinal anesthesia on variability in surgical time, if present, is sufficiently small to have no substantive direct economic effect. The same conclusion applies to mean surgical time. Therefore, although anesthetic choice has a clinical (biological) impact and affects anesthesia times, the direct effects on surgical times and workflow are minimal at most. Anesthetic choice does not influence operating theatre productivity via changes to surgical times. The impact of spinal anesthetic effects is limited to nonoperative times (e.g., reducing anesthesia-controlled times by using a block room before the patient enters the operating room).

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ( CRD42023461952 ); first submitted 8 September 2023.

Segmental Thoracic Spinal Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with the "Hypobaric" Technique: A Case Series

Purpose

Several studies have applied lumbar spinal anesthesia (SA) with isobaric/hyperbaric bupivacaine and opioids in elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), documenting a superiority of the methodic over general anesthesia (GA) in terms of perioperative pain, nausea, and vomiting, though with a notable incidence of intraoperative right shoulder pain, potentially responsible for conversion to GA. This case series presents an opioid-free scheme of segmental thoracic spinal anesthesia (STSA) with hypobaric ropivacaine, reporting its benefits mainly in terms of shoulder pain occurrence.

Patients and Methods

Hypobaric STSA was performed in nine patients undergoing elective LC between May 1 and September 1, 2022. The level of the needle insertion was included between T8 and T9, via a median or a paramedian approach. Midazolam (0.03 mg/kg) and Ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) were used as adjuvants for intrathecal sedation, followed by the administration of hypobaric ropivacaine 0.25% at a dose of 5 mg and then isobaric ropivacaine at a dose of 10 mg. Patients were placed in anti-Trendelenburg position for the entire duration of surgery. LC was conducted through the standard 3 or 4 ports technique with pneumoperitoneum maintained at a pressure of 8-10 mmHg.

Results

Mean patient age was 75.7 (±17.5) years, with a mean ASA score and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) of 2.7 (±0.7) and 4.9 (±2.7), respectively. STSA was completed without complications in all patients, with no need for conversion to GA. Mean operative time and SA duration were 37.5 (±8.7) and 145.2 (±21.8) min, respectively. Intraoperatively, no shoulder or abdominal pain and nausea were reported, with only four and two patients requiring vasopressor and sedative intravenous drugs, respectively. Postoperatively, overall mean VAS pain score and within the first 12 hafter surgery were 3 (±2) and 4 (±2), respectively. Median length of stay was 2 (range = 1-3) days.

Conclusion

Hypobaric opioid-free STSA appears to be a promising approach for laparoscopic surgeries, with minimal to null occurrence of shoulder pain. Larger prospective studies are required to validate these findings.

Awake laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A case report and review of literature

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most widely practiced surgical procedures in abdominal surgery. Patients undergo LC during general anaesthesia; however, in recent years, several studies have suggested the ability to perform LC in patients who are awake. We report a case of awake LC and a literature review.

CASE SUMMARY

A 69-year-old patient with severe pulmonary disease affected by cholelithiasis was scheduled for LC under regional anaesthesia. We first performed peridural anaesthesia at the T8-T9 level and then spinal anaesthesia at the T12-L1 level. The procedure was managed in total comfort for both the patient and the surgeon. The intra-abdominal pressure was 8 mmHg. The patient remained stable throughout the procedure, and the postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSION

Evidence has warranted the safe use of spinal and epidural anaesthesia, with minimal side effects easily managed with medications. Regional anaesthesia in selected patients may provide some advantages over general anaesthesia, such as no airway manipulation, maintenance of spontaneous breathing, effective postoperative analgesia, less nausea and vomiting, and early recovery. However, this technique for LC is not widely used in Europe; this is the first case reported in Italy in the literature. Regional anaesthesia is feasible and safe in performing some types of laparoscopic procedures. Further studies should be carried out to introduce this type of anaesthesia in routine clinical practice.

Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized evidence comparing general anesthesia vs regional anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

In an effort to further reduce the morbidity and mortality profile of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the outcomes of such procedure under regional anesthesia (RA) have been evaluated. In the context of cholecystectomy, combining a minimally invasive surgical procedure with a minimally invasive anesthetic technique can potentially be associated with less postoperative pain and earlier ambulation.

AIM

To evaluate comparative outcomes of RA and general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials with subsequent meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of outcomes were conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials enrolling 1111 patients were included. The study populations in the RA and GA groups were of comparable age (P = 0.41), gender (P = 0.98) and body mass index (P = 0.24). The conversion rate from RA to GA was 2.3%. RA was associated with significantly less postoperative pain at 4 h [mean difference (MD): - 2.22, P < 0.00001], 8 h (MD: -1.53, P = 0.0006), 12 h (MD: -2.08, P < 0.00001), and 24 h (MD: -0.90, P < 0.00001) compared to GA. Moreover, it was associated with significantly lower rate of nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR): 0.40, P < 0.0001]. However, RA significantly increased postoperative headaches (RR: 4.69, P = 0.03), and urinary retention (RR: 2.73, P = 0.03). The trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the meta-analysis was conclusive for most outcomes, with the exception of a risk of type 1 error for headache and urinary retention and a risk of type 2 error for total procedure time.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that RA may be an attractive anesthetic modality for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy considering its associated lower postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting compared to GA. However, its associated risk of urinary retention and headache and lack of knowledge on its impact on procedure-related outcomes do not justify using RA as the first line anesthetic choice for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Comparision of Dexmedetomidine and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anesthesia

Background:

Spinal anesthesia (SA) with sedation is considered to be an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in high-risk patients. Ketamine in analgesic dose with propofol or dexmedetomidine infusion provides titratable sedation, hemodynamic stability, and minimum respiratory depression without psychomimetic effects.

Aim:

To compare the efficacy of ketamine–dexmedetomidine and ketamine-propofol combination in relation to sedation, analgesia, hemodynamic effects, and perioperative side effects.

Settings and Design:

This was a prospective, randomized single-blind comparative study comprising 100 American Society of Anesthesiologists I, II, and III patients posted for LC.

Materials and Methods:

Patients were randomized into two groups of 50 patients each. Group KP (ketamine + propofol) received intravenous (i.v.) bolus of injection ketamine 0.5 mg.kg ⁻¹ and propofol infusion at 3 mg.kg ⁻¹.h ⁻¹. Group KD (ketamine + dexmedetomidine) received i.v. bolus of injection ketamine 0.5 mg.kg ⁻¹ and dexmedetomidine infusion at 0.4 μg.kg ⁻¹.h ⁻¹. Parameters observed were vitals, perioperative side effects, time to first rescue analgesia, and return of consciousness.

Statistical Analysis:

Student's independent t-test was employed for comparing continuous variables. Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, whichever appropriate, was applied for comparing categorical variables.

Results:

Duration of analgesia was longer in KD Group (191.2 vs. 173.5 min), and time to regain consciousness was faster in KP Group (14.9 vs. 20.4 min).

Conclusion:

Both the techniques of sedation are feasible, safe, and comparable, except the duration of analgesia and time to regain consciousness which was longer in KD Group.

Randomized controlled trials for comparison of laparoscopic versus conventional open catheter placement in peritoneal dialysis patients: a meta-analysis

Background

The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.

Methods

We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Results

Eight relevant studies (n = 646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15), late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Comparison of General Anesthesia with Spinal Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Operations

Objective

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) operations are being performed under general anesthesia (GA). Further studies are needed on the issue whether these operations can be performed under spinal anesthesia (SA). In this study we aimed to compare SA with (GA) in terms of efficacy and complications in patients who will undergo LC operations, and to investigate the effects of preemptive analgesia on the development of shoulder pain, transition to general anesthesia, and postoperative analgesia.

Method

Sixty patients in ASA I-II risk group between 18-65 years of age undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomly divided into general anesthesia (GA, n=30) and spinal anesthesia (SA, n=30) groups. Patients were premedicated with i.v. midazolam and fentanyl preoperatively. Anesthesia was induced with propofol in the GA group, and maintained with Desflurane and remifentanil. In the SA group, spinal anesthesia was provided with intratechal administration of 15 mg bupivacaine at L2-3 level, and block level was increased to T4 by keeping the patient in Trendelenburg position for 7-10 minutes. Demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, operation time, visual analog scale (VAS) scores at postoperative 0^th,1^st, 4^th, 8^th,12^th and 24^th hours, patient-surgeon satisfaction, side effects, and occurrence of right shoulder pain in SA group were inquired and recorded.

Results

Effective anesthesia was produced in both groups. Hypotension was observed in 5, bradycardia requiring atropin administration in 4, and perioperative shoulder pain in 9 patients in Group SA, but none of them required general anesthesia. Hypotension developed in one patient in Group GA. The postoperative VAS scores were significantly lower in Group SA at 0^th,1^st, 4^th hours. Patient satisfection scores were higher in Group SA.

Conclusion

We concluded that spinal anesthesia may be an alternative method to general anesthesia in patients who will undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy operations especially when the risk of general anesthesia is too high.

Comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease under spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia

Background

Epidemiological data demonstrate that the worldwide prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is increasing. These patients have an increased risk of mortality and morbidity and have constant limitations in airflow. Comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) under spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA).

Methods

We prospectively evaluated COPD patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia (Group 1, n = 30) or spinal anesthesia (Group 2, n = 30) in our clinic between January 2016 and January 2018. Patients with COPD were further divided into groups according to their preoperative stages (Stage 1–4). Intraoperative vital findings, postoperative pain, complications, and length of hospitalization were compared between the general (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) groups.

Results

The mean age of the patients in the GA group was 61.0 ± 6.7 years and was 61.0 ± 7.7 years in the SA group. In the GA and SA groups, the mean ASA score was 2.8 ± 0.6 and 2.9 ± 0.6, respectively, the mean operation duration was 31.7 ± 5.1 and 30.6 ± 5.1 min, respectively, and the length of hospitalization was 3.2 ± 1.7 and 1.5 ± 0.5 days, respectively. The partial carbon dioxide rates (PaCO2) at the postoperative 5th and 20th minutes were lower in the SA group than in the GA group. Further, the requirement for postoperative analgesia was lower in the SA group, and the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the SA group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a rather safe procedure for COPD patients under general and spinal anesthesia. However, spinal anesthesia is preferred over general anesthesia as it has better postoperative analgesia and causes no impairment of pulmonary functions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-018-0396-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Successful anesthetic management during abdominal wall-lifting laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a patient with hereditary angioedema

Background

Hereditary angioedema is a rare genetic disorder resulting from an inherited deficiency or dysfunction of the C1-esterase inhibitor. In the anesthetic management of such patients, special caution should be exercised while attempting tracheal intubation because it may cause mucosal edema in the upper airway.

Case presentation

A 52-year-old female with hereditary angioedema was scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. C1-esterase inhibitor, Danazol, tranexamic acid, and prednisolone were administered on the day of surgery. An epidural catheter was inserted through the intervertebral space at T9/10, and spinal anesthesia was instilled via the L3/4 intervertebral space. A single-hole, Nishii-type lifting laparoscopic surgery, without pneumoperitoneum (i.e., gasless) was completed uneventfully.

Conclusion

This report described the successful management of a patient with hereditary angioedema who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy using spinal-epidural anesthesia without tracheal intubation and lift type laparoscopic surgery. This approach to anesthetic management could be indicated in cases with a similar presentation.

Comparison of the effects of spinal epidural and general anesthesia on coagulation and fibrinolysis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial: VSJ Competition, 2nd place

Introduction

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under general anesthesia. Recently, laparoscopic cholecystectomy under regional anesthesia has become popular, but this creates a serious risk of thromboembolism because of pneumoperitoneum, anesthesia technique, operative positioning, and patient-specific risk factors.

Aim

This randomized controlled trial compares the effects of two different anesthesia techniques in laparoscopic cholecystectomy on coagulation and fibrinolysis.

Material and methods

This randomized prospective study included 60 low-risk patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) who underwent elective LC without thrombo-emboli prophylaxis. The patients were randomly divided into two groups according to the anesthesia technique: the general anesthesia (group 1, n = 30) and spinal epidural anesthesia (group 2, n = 30) groups. Measurement of the prothrombin time (PT), thrombin time (TT), international normalized ratio (INR), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and blood levels of D-dimer (DD) and fibrinogen (F) were recorded preoperatively (pre), at the first hour (post 1) and 24 h (post 24) after the surgery. These results were compared both between and within the groups.

Results

The mean age was 51.5 ±16.7 years (range: 19–79 years). Pneumoperitoneum time was similar between group 1 (33.8 ±7.8) and group 2 (34.8 ±10.4). The TT levels significantly declined postoperatively in both groups. The levels of PT, aPTT, INR, D-dimer and fibrinogen dramatically increased postoperatively in both groups.

Conclusions

While there was not any DVT, there was a significant decline in TT. There was a dramatic rise in the PT, INR, D-dimer, fibrin degradation products (FDP), and fibrinogen following LC. This may be attributed to the effects of pneumoperitoneum and anesthesia techniques on portal vein flow.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a prospective randomised study

Purpose

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC.

Methods

Forty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups.

Results

Anesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group.

Conclusion

CSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

Comparison of Postoperative Events between Spinal Anesthesia and General Anesthesia in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is usually carried out under general anesthesia. There were a few studies which have found spinal anesthesia as a safe alternative. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative events between spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (from inception to January 2016) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale score. Secondary outcomes included postoperative nausea and vomiting and urine retention 24 hours postoperatively. We calculated pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence interval using random- or fixed-effects models. Results. Eight trials involving 723 patients were listed. Meta-analysis showed that patients in spinal anesthesia groups have lower visual analogue scale score 24 hours postoperatively. There were significant decreases in the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in spinal anesthesia group when compared with general anesthesia group (odds ratios: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.76; P = 0.006) with heterogeneity accepted (I (2) = 13%; P = 0.33), while urine retention rate was increased in patients with spinal anesthesia (odds ratios: 4.95, 95% confidence interval: 1.24-19.71; P = 0.02) without any heterogeneity (I (2) = 0%; P = 0.98). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia may be associated with less postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with general anesthesia.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC) is conventionally performed under general anaesthesia (GA), but there are multiple studies which have found spinal anaesthesia (SA) as a safe alternative. This meta-analysis was performed after adding many recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to clarify this issue.

METHODS

Relevant articles published in English were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from January 1, 2000 to December 1, 2014. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were reviewed to identify additional articles. Primary outcomes (postoperative pain scores) and secondary outcomes (operating time (OT) and postoperative complications) were pooled. Quantitative variables were calculated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), and qualitative variables were pooled using odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

Seven appropriate RCTs were identified from 912 published articles. Seven hundred and twelve patients were treated, 352 in SA group and 360 in GA group. LC under SA was superior to LC under GA in postoperative pain within 12 h (visual analogue score (VAS) in 2-4 h, WMD = -1.61, P = 0.000; VAS in 6-8 h, WMD = -1.277, P = 0.015) and postoperative complications (postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) WMD = 0.427, P = 0.001; Overall Morbidity WMD = 0.691, P = 0.027). The GA group was superior to SA group in postoperative urinary retention (WMD = 4.273, P = 0.022). There were no significant differences in operating time (WMD = 0.184, P = 0.141) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SA as the sole anaesthesia technique is feasible, safe for elective LC.