Thoracic combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an obese patient with asthma and multiple drug allergies: a case report.
ABSTRACT: Drug allergies, asthma, and obesity are more common in modern societies, and patients with these problems are often a challenge for anesthetists. Different techniques of regional anesthesia can be beneficial particularly for this group of patients. We present a patient who suffered from all of the above-mentioned conditions and successfully underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy under thoracic combined spinal-epidural anesthesia. It is still not a popular practice, and we would like to show another indication for using it.
Project description: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.This randomized controlled trial compares the effects of two different anesthesia techniques in laparoscopic cholecystectomy on coagulation and fibrinolysis.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.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.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.
Project description:WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC:WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: One important example of impaired motor function after surgery is diaphragmatic dysfunction after upper abdominal surgery. In this study, the authors directly recorded efferent phrenic nerve activity and determined the effect of the upper abdominal incision. The authors hypothesized that phrenic motor output would be decreased after the upper abdominal incision; it was also hypothesized that blocking sensory input from the incision using thoracic epidural anesthesia would diminish this incision-induced change in phrenic motor activity. METHODS:Efferent phrenic activity was recorded 1 h to 10 days after upper abdominal incision in urethane-anesthetized rats. Ventilatory parameters were measured in unanesthetized rats using whole-body plethysmography at multiple time points after incision. The authors then determined the effect of thoracic epidural anesthesia on phrenic nerve activity and ventilatory parameters after incision. RESULTS:Phrenic motor output remained reduced by approximately 40% 1 h and 1 day after incision, but was not different from the sham group by postoperative day 10. One day after incision (n = 9), compared to sham-operated animals (n = 7), there was a significant decrease in spike frequency area-under-the-curve (median [interquartile range]: 54.0 [48.7 to 84.4] vs. 97.8 [88.7 to 130.3]; P = 0.0184), central respiratory rate (0.71 [0.63 to 0.79] vs. 0.86 [0.82 to 0.93]/s; P = 0.0460), and inspiratory-to-expiratory duration ratio (0.46 [0.44 to 0.55] vs. 0.78 [0.72 to 0.93]; P = 0.0023). Unlike humans, a decrease, not an increase, in breathing frequency has been observed after the abdominal incision in whole-body plethysmography. Thoracic epidural anesthesia attenuated the incision-induced changes in phrenic motor output and ventilatory parameters. CONCLUSIONS:Upper abdominal incision decreased phrenic motor output and ventilatory parameters, and this incision-induced impairment was attenuated by thoracic epidural anesthesia. The authors' results provide direct evidence that afferent inputs from the upper abdominal incision induce reflex inhibition of phrenic motor activity.
Project description: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).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.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.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.
Project description:The conversion of epidural labor analgesia (ELA) to epidural surgical anesthesia (ESA) for intrapartum cesarean section (CS) often fails, resulting in intraoperative pain. Spinal anesthesia (SA) can provide a denser sensory block than ESA. The purpose of this prospective, non-blinded, parallel-arm, randomized trial was to compare the rate of pain-free surgery between ESA and SA following ELA for intrapartum CS.Both groups received continuous epidural infusions for labor pain at a rate of 10 ml/h. In the ESA group (n = 163), ESA was performed with 17 ml of 2% lidocaine mixed with 100 µg fentanyl, 1 : 200,000 epinephrine, and 2 mEq bicarbonate. In the SA group (n = 160), SA was induced with 10 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 15 µg fentanyl. We investigated the failure rate of achieving pain-free surgery and the incidence of complications between the two groups.The failure rate of achieving pain-free surgery was higher in the ESA group than the SA group (15.3% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the rate of conversion to general anesthesia; however, the rate of analgesic requirement was higher in the ESA group than in the SA group (12.9% vs. 1.3%, P < 0.001). The incidence of high block, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, and shivering and Apgar scores were comparable between the two groups.SA after ELA can lower the failure rate of pain-free surgery during intrapartum CS compared to ESA after ELA.
Project description:Background:The aim of this randomized controlled study is to compare the safety and efficacy of thoracic spinal versus thoracic epidural anesthesia for open nephrectomy in patients with obstructive/restrictive lung disease. Methods:Sixty patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive/restrictive lung disease undergoing open nephrectomy were randomized into two groups, 30 patients each. The thoracic spinal group (TSA) group received ultrasound guided mid-thoracic spinal anesthesia, and the thoracic epidural group (TEA) group received thoracic epidural anesthesia. All blocks were performed at the T7-T8. Hemodynamics, visual analogue scale score, sensory and motor block profile as well as any adverse events, and patient satisfaction were all reported. Results:Both blocks were successfully performed and were effective for surgery in all patients, with the exception of only one patient in TSA group who needed to receive general anesthesia even after IV midazolam because of extreme anxiety and was excluded from the study analysis. The sensory block ranges were quiet close, with T2-T5 for the TSA group and T3-T6 for the TEA group as the upper level and L3-L5 as the same lower level. The values for the onset time and the duration of sensory and motor blocks were lower in TSA group. There were no statistically significant differences existed in intraoperative VAS, and hemodynamics between the two groups. Postoperative adverse effects were negligible and insignificant, with no case reporting any neurological sequel. Conclusion:Ultrasound guided thoracic spinal anesthesia can be performed safely and effectively for open nephrectomy in patients with obstructive/restrictive lung disease with the potential for an early ambulation and great patient satisfaction.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Loss of resistance (LOR) technique is a widely used method to identify the epidural space. However, cases of inadequate epidural anesthesia in cesarean section were frequently reported. Also, the success rate of epidural anesthesia with LOR technique varied depending on the proficiency of the practitioner. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of electrical stimulation to identify epidural spaces in cesarean section for novices or clinicians with recent gap in experience. METHODS:Pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean section were randomly allocated to two groups. Groups were classified based on the methods used for identifying the epidural space: the LOR group (group L) and the LOR with epidural electrical stimulation group (group E). Clinicians with less than 10 epidural cesarean section experiences in the recent year performed epidural anesthesia for cesarean section. In the group E, a RegionalStim® conductive catheter was inserted through the Tuohy needle, and the guidewire passing through the catheter was connected to a peripheral nerve stimulator. The intensity of the stimulation was gradually increased from 0.25?mA to 1.5?mA until paresthesia was elicited and radiated. We assessed the success of epidural anesthesia (complete success, partial success or failure). Other clinical parameters including maternal satisfaction, time required for epidural anesthesia, neonatal Apgar scores, pain scores and adverse events were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:Except for 6 patients who withdrew consent, 54 patients were enrolled in this study (28 for the group L and 26 for the group E). The demographic data showed no difference between the two groups. There was no adverse event resulted from electrical stimulation. The group E showed higher rate of complete success, sensitivity in finding epidural space and maternal satisfaction compared to the group L (21/26 vs. 15/28, p?=?0.034, 0.96 vs. 0.68, p?=?0.012 and 4.04 vs. 3.39, p?=?0.02, respectively). The other clinical parameters showed no differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION:In addition to the conventional LOR technique, identifying epidural spaces using electrical stimulation led to better outcomes without additional risks for novices as well as clinicians with recent gap in experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was retrospectively registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03443466) on February 23, 2018.
Project description:Women?s choice to use epidural anesthesia (EA) for relief of labor pain varies from one culture to another. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used to gather data from a sample of 200 women in childbearing age. Data was gathered from general population in Lebanon. Demographic data, knowledge and attitudes questionnaires towards EA were used to gather data for this study. The data in this article provides demographic data about Lebanese women and their awareness and attitudes towards epidural anesthesia. The analyzed data is provided in the tables included in this article.
Project description:BACKGROUND Whether regional anesthesia is associated with tumor-free and long-term survival is controversial. Here, we focused on whether epidural anesthesia affects the long-term survival of gastric cancer patients after surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS We obtained the records of 273 patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery between August 2006 and December 2010. All patients received elective surgery, and the end-point was death. The general anesthesia group comprised 116 patients and the epidural-supplemented group comprised 157 patients. The results were analyzed using a multivariable model to determine the relationship between epidural use and long-term survival. RESULTS No obvious association was detected between epidural use and long-term survival according to the Cox model (P=0.522); the adjusted estimated hazard ratio was 0.919 (95% CI 0.71-1.19). However, according to Kaplan-Meier analysis, epidural anesthesia was associated with long-term survival among younger patients (age up to 64) (p=0.042, log-rank) (but not among older patients (p=0.203, log-rank). A lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and less chemoradiotherapy exposure were also associated with a longer survival. However, advanced tumor stage still has a significant negative impact on survival. CONCLUSIONS No obvious difference was detected between the 2 anesthesia groups, but younger patients may benefit from epidural anesthesia.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Decision aids (DAs) are useful in providing information for decision-making on using epidural anesthesia during birth. To date, there has been little development of DAs for Japanese pregnant women. Herein, we investigated the effect of a DA on the decision of pregnant women whether to have epidural anesthesia or not for labor during vaginal delivery. The primary outcome was changes in mean decision conflict score. METHODS:In this non-randomized controlled trial, 300 low-risk pregnant women in an urban hospital were recruited by purposive sampling and assigned to 2 groups: DA (intervention) and pamphlet (control) groups. Control enrollment was started first (until 150 women), followed by intervention enrollment (150 women). Pre-test and post-test scores were evaluated using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) for primary outcome, knowledge of epidural anesthesia and satisfaction with decision making for secondary outcomes, and decision of anesthesia usage (i.e., with epidural anesthesia, without epidural anesthesia, or undecided). RESULTS:Women in the DA group (n = 149: 1 excluded because she did not return post-test questionnaire) had significantly lower DCS score than those in the pamphlet group (n = 150) (DA: -8.41 [SD 8.79] vs. pamphlet: -1.69 [SD 5.91], p < .001). Knowledge of epidural anesthesia and satisfaction with decision-making scores of women who used the DA were significantly higher than those of women who used the pamphlet (p < .001). Women in the DA group showed a significantly lower undecided rate than those in the pamphlet group. The number of undecided women in the DA group significantly decreased from 30.2% to 6.1% (p < .001), whereas that in the pamphlet group remained largely unchanged from 40.7% to 38.9%. CONCLUSION:This study indicates that a DA can be useful in helping women make a decision whether to have epidural anesthesia or not for labor during vaginal delivery.
Project description:Marfan syndrome (MFS) is a genetic disorder of connective tissue, characterized by variable clinical features and multisystem complications. The anesthetic management during delivery is debated. Regional anesthesia has been used with success during cesarean delivery, but in some MFS patients there is a probability of erratic and inadequate spread of intrathecal local anesthetics as a result of dural ectasia. In these cases, epidural anesthesia may be a particularly useful technique during cesarean delivery because it allows an adequate spread and action of local anesthetic with a controlled onset of anesthesia, analgesia, and sympathetic block and a low risk of perioperative complications. We report the perioperative management of a patient with MFS and dural ectasia who successfully underwent cesarean section using epidural technique anesthesia. The previous pregnancy of this woman ended with cesarean section with a failed spinal anesthesia that was converted to general anesthesia due to unknown dural ectasia at that time.