Anaesthetic aspects in the treatment of fragility fracture patients

Improving morbidity and mortality in hip fragility fractures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip fragility fractures (HFF) carry high morbidity and mortality for patients and will increase in frequency and in proportion to the average patient age. Provision of effective, timely care for these patients can decrease their morbidity and mortality and reduce the large burden they place on the healthcare system.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are associative relationships between prefracture frailty, postoperative delirium and increased morbidity and mortality. The use of a multidisciplinary approach to HFF care has shown improved outcomes in care with focus on modifiable factors including admission to specialty care floor, use of peripheral nerve blocks preoperatively and Anesthesia and Physical Therapy involvement in the care team. Peripheral nerve blocks including pericapsular nerve group (PENG) blocks have shown benefit in lowering morbidity and mortality.

SUMMARY

HFF are associated with >40% chance of continued pain and inability to return to prefracture functional status at 1 year as well as >30% mortality at 2 years. In this opinion piece, we will discuss how a multidisciplinary approach that includes Anesthesia as well as utilization of peripheral nerve blocks can help to lessen postoperative issues and improve recovery.

Spinal anesthesia with better outcome in geriatric hip fracture surgery - An analysis of the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU)

BACKGROUND

Literature shows conflicting results regarding spinal (SA) or general anesthesia (GA) and their influence on the outcome of elderly patients with hip fractures. We, therefore, conducted an analysis from the Registry for Geriatric Trauma (ATR-DGU).

METHODS

A retrospective, multicenter registry study including patients aged 70 years or above with hip fractures requiring surgery from 131 Centers for Geriatric Trauma (AltersTraumaZentrum DGU®) from 2016 to 2021. Patients with SA or GA were compared using matched-pair analysis and linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

A total of 43,714 patients were included, of whom 3,242 received SA. The median age was 85 (SA) and 84 years (GA). Adjustments for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, sex, age, additional injuries, and anticoagulation resulted in a higher in-hospital (odds ratio (OR) 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 - 1.61, p = 0.009) and 120 days mortality (OR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.1 - 1.95, p = 0.009) in the GA group. GA had a significant negative influence on walking ability seven days after surgery and on the quality of life (QoL). The length of hospital stay (LoS) was significantly shorter in the SA group.

CONCLUSIONS

SA is associated with a higher survival rate, a better walking ability seven days after surgery, a higher QoL, and a shorter LoS.

A comprehensive evaluation between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The sedative effect of intraoperative sedation in elderly surgery exerts critical influence on the prognosis. Comparison on the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in many clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was inconsistent and suspicious. We aim to comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly via meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

METHODS

RCTs regarding to the comparison of sedative effects and safety between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in elderly patients (aged ≥ 60 years) will be comprehensively searched from 2000 October to 2022 May through 4 English databases and 4 Chinese databases. After extraction in duplicate, the systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed on the primary outcomes (hemodynamic changes, sedative effect, cognitive function) and secondary outcomes (analgesic effect, surgical characteristics, complications, or adverse reactions) for assessing the two therapy methods using Review Manager software (Version 5.3). Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to evaluate the heterogeneity of the results; funnel plot and Egger's trial will be performed to analyze publication bias of the included studies, and trial sequential analysis will be applied to assess the robustness and reliability of preliminary meta-analysis results. Finally, rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations on the meta results will be summarized by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the safety and efficacy between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for intraoperative sedation in the elderly; it will give an insight on the application of dexmedetomidine and midazolam and will provide evidence-based reference for clinical decision-making.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021221897.

Association of anesthesia and analgesia with long-term mortality after hip fracture surgery: an analysis of the Australian and New Zealand hip fracture registry

Introduction

Hip fractures are a common frailty injury affecting a vulnerable geriatric population. It is debated if anesthetic and analgesic techniques are associated with altered risk for outcomes in hip fracture patients. This study aimed to determine the association of anesthesia and regional analgesia with all cause 12-month mortality and even longer-term mortality after hip fracture surgery in Australia and New Zealand.

Methods

Data from the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry collected from 2016 to 2018, with a minimum follow-up of 12 months, were reviewed. Anesthesia type and use of regional nerve blocks were investigated. The primary outcome was all cause 12-month mortality.

Results

12-month mortality was 30.6% (n=5410) in a total of 17,635 patients. There was no difference in 12-month mortality between patients who received spinal or general anesthesia (p=0.238). The administration of a combination of general and spinal anesthesia for surgery to repair the fracture was an independent predictor of higher 12-month mortality (unadjusted complete case HR=1.17 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.31); p<0.001). Nerve blocks performed in both the emergency department (ED) and the operating theater (OT) were associated with reduced long-term mortality (median follow-up 21 months) with an unimputed unadjusted HR=0.86 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.96; p=0.043).

Conclusion

There was no difference in the association of 12-month mortality between general and spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. However, there was an association with a higher risk of 12-month mortality in patients who received both general and spinal anesthesia for the same surgery. Patients who received a regional nerve block in both the ED and the OT had a lower association of 12-month and longer-term mortality risk. The reasons for these findings remain unknown and should be the subject of further research investigation.

Comparative efficacy of Neuraxial and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

The choice of anesthesia technique remains debatable in patients undergoing surgical repair of hip fracture. This meta-analysis was performed to compare the effect of neuraxial (epidural/spinal) versus general anesthesia on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.

Methods

Medline, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and EMBASE databases were searched to identify eligible studies focused on the comparison between neuraxial and general anesthesia in hip fracture patients between January 2000 and May 2019. Perioperative outcomes were extracted for systemic analysis. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using a Bonferroni correction and the leave-one-out method. The evidence quality for each outcome was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 1084 patients fulfilled our selection criteria. The outcomes for the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the 30-day mortality (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.56, 3.21; P = 0.51), length of stay (MD = − 0.65, 95% CI -0.32, 0.02; P = 0.06), and the prevalence of delirium (OR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.27, 4.00; P = 0.95), acute myocardial infarction (OR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.17, 4.65; P = 0.88), deep venous thrombosis (OR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.09, 2.72; P = 0.41), and pneumonia (OR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.23, 4.61; P = 0.96) for neuraxial anesthesia compared to general anesthesia, and there was a significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (MD = − 137.8, 95% CI -241.49, − 34.12; p = 0.009). However, after applying the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing, all the adjusted p-values were above the significant threshold of 0.05. The evidence quality for each outcome evaluated by the GRADE system was low.

Conclusions

In summary, our present study demonstrated that there might be a difference in blood loss between patients receiving neuraxial and general anaesthesia, however, this analysis was not robust to adjustment for multiple testing and therefore at high risk for a type I error. Due to small sample size and enormous inconsistency in the choice of outcome measures, more high-quality studies with large sample size are needed to clarify this issue.

Anesthetic management of geriatric patients

The number of elderly patients who frequently access health care services is increasing worldwide. While anesthesiologists are developing the expertise to care for these elderly patients, areas of concern remain. We conducted a comprehensive search of major international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) and a Korean database (KoreaMed) to review preoperative considerations, intraoperative management, and postoperative problems when anesthetizing elderly patients. Preoperative preparation of elderly patients included functional assessment to identify preexisting cognitive impairment or cardiopulmonary reserve, depression, frailty, nutrition, polypharmacy, and anticoagulation issues. Intraoperative management included anesthetic mode and pharmacology, monitoring, intravenous fluid or transfusion management, lung-protective ventilation, and prevention of hypothermia. Postoperative checklists included perioperative analgesia, postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction, and other complications. A higher level of perioperative care was required for older surgical patients, as multiple chronic diseases often makes them prone to developing postoperative complications, including functional decline and loss of independence. Although the guiding evidence remains poor so far, elderly patients have to be provided optimal perioperative care through close interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and cross-sectional collaboration to minimize unwanted postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, along with adequate anesthetic care, well-planned postoperative care should begin immediately after surgery and extend until discharge.

General versus spinal anesthesia for the elderly hip fractured patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is an urge to improve care for patients with hip fracture. The present review will compare the efficacy of spinal versus general anesthesia for patients requiring hip fracture surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

The present review gives an overview with particular emphasis on literature published during the past 24 months.

SUMMARY

So far, no clear evidence form randomized trials exists to identify the best anesthesia technique for hip fracture surgery. However, several large-scale pragmatic trials are ongoing and will provide future guidance.