English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The effectiveness of neuraxial blockade remains a very debatable issue. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures can be performed using either a single spinal shot, an epidural catheter neuraxial blockade, or general anesthesia. Memtsoudis (2013) reviewed nearly 400.000 patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasties compared neuraxial versus general anesthesia, and reported that the 30-day mortality, the length of stay, the hospital cost and the in-hospital complications were all was significantly lower than with other forms of anesthesia [1]. Similarly Helwan (2015) in a study comparing general with, regional anesthesia for total hip arthroplasty reported a reduction in deep surgical site infection rates, the length of hospital stay, postoperative cardiovascular rates, and pulmonary complications [2]. However, a recent systematic review of more than 10.000 patients enrolled in randomized control trials and prospective comparative studies, found no statistically significant differences between spinal or epidural blockade and general anaesthesia with respect to mortality, surgical duration, surgical site of infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting or thromboembolic diseases, when thrombo-prophylaxis was used. The authors concluded that there is limited evidence to support the view that neuraxial anesthesia is superior to general anesthesia with regards to postoperative outcomes [3]. Although the incidence of complications following epidural placement is low, these are distressing and challenging for anesthetist, carrying as they do, a significant risk of litigation. Because epidural catheter insertion is based on anatomical landmarks, many factors can influence its misplacement. An audit carried out by the Royal College of Anaesthetists investigated all the relevant complications of central neural blocks (CNBs) performed over one year. Only two episodes of epidural catheter migration were reported out of a total of 293,050 performed epidurals. There were no reports of serious complications due to misplacement of an epidural catheter [4]. The most common causes of epidural analgesia failure are the intravascular, subdural, intrathecal and subcutaneous catheter placement. Reports also exist describing the misplacements of epidural catheters in the proximity of inferior vena cava, aorta, pleural cavity and the lumbar plexus [5-7]. Hermanides (2012) was of the opinion that epidural failure is more common than typically recognized in clinical practice, and identified technical factors, such as catheter misplacement, inappropriate choice of drug and dosage as potential failure factors [8]. Ruzman (2014) investigating 316 patients who underwent different surgical procedures using CNBs, tried to identify patient dependent factors such as age, gender, height, weight, body mass index, and quality of anatomical landmarks, technique dependent factors, such as the type of block, needle gauge, and patient positioning, and provider dependent factors such as the level of experience, as principal reasons associated with problematic neuraxial block. The authors found that “first puncture success” was related to younger age, lower weight and body mass index, while spine deformity, poor identification of interspinous space, a recumbent position during the puncture and the use of a paramedian approach, were associated with “first puncture failure” [9]. An observational study of 253 patients, of whom 131 received subarachnoid block and 122 an epidural block, reported that the provider’s level of experience and the distance from skin to subarachnoid or epidural space influenced the difficulty in performing a neuraxial block [10]. Body mass index was considered to be a weak predictor of neuraxial block difficulty, in agreement with the earlier report by Chien (2003) [11]. The skillfulness of anaesthesiologist is an important factor in the overall successful rate in performing the

Epidural Anaesthesia: How Easy Is It to Walk on Quicksand?