Search

Purpose: We sought to identify the immediate postoperative differences in opioid use, pain scores, and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS) after hip arthroscopy related to the type of anesthesia used for the surgical procedure., Methods: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with labral tears by a single surgeon at an academic center between October 2017 and July 2019 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome was PACU opioid administration, measured by morphine equivalents. Secondary parameters included total LOS, postincision LOS, PACU LOS, and PACU arrival/discharge pain scores. Analyses conducted were t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, or χ 2 tests., Results: A total of 129 patients met inclusion criteria for this study; 54 male and 75 female, with an average age of 28 (±10.1) years. In total, 52 (40.3%) had general anesthesia and 77 (59.7%) had neuraxial anesthesia, including spinal, epidural, and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia, which were intermixed throughout the study period. Intraoperative and PACU opioid administration demonstrated a significant difference in medians. Neuraxial methods required a lower morphine equivalents in both the operating room (30.0 vs 53.9, P = .001) and PACU (18.2 vs 31.2, P = 0.002). Neuraxial anesthesia had lower median PACU arrival and discharge pain scores (0.0 vs. 5.0, P = .001, 3.0 vs. 4.0, P = .013). There was no statistically significant difference in postincision LOS or traction time. General anesthesia was associated with a longer PACU phase 1 time (1.0 vs 1.3 hours, P = .005). No major adverse events such as death, disability, or prolonged hospitalization occurred in either group., Conclusions: Neuraxial anesthesia use in routine hip arthroscopy was associated with lower immediate postoperative pain scores, lower intraoperative and immediate postoperative opioid requirements, and may be associated with shorter anesthesia recovery time without any major adverse events when compared with general anesthesia., Level of Evidence: III, Retrospective Comparative Study., (Copyright © 2020 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A case of new-onset atrial fibrillation subsequent to activation of neuraxial anesthesia is presented. The development of atrial fibrillation was temporally related to placement and dosing of an epidural catheter, and may have been triggered by a vagal response to dosing of the anesthetic or the resulting treatment with fluid and an adrenergic agent. The literature on the acute preoperative management of atrial fibrillation and the implications of atrial fibrillation for the patient undergoing regional anesthesia are reviewed., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To determine if epidural anesthesia is a reasonable technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion., Design: Retrospective chart review., Setting: Academic university hospital., Measurements: The charts of patients who underwent an anterior lumbar interbody fusion between January 1, 2001 and November 1, 2008 were reviewed. A total of 102 consecutive patients, of whom 19 received an epidural and 83 underwent general anesthesia, met inclusion criteria. Postoperative pain, nausea, opioid administration, operating room time, anesthesia time, Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU) time, and total hospital time were compared., Main Results: In the PACU, patients receiving epidural anesthesia showed reductions in median immediate [numerical rating scale (NRS) 0 vs 7; P < 0.001] and peak (NRS 4 vs 8; P = 0.001) postoperative pain scores, and postoperative mean arterial pressure (69.7 vs 90.3; P < 0.001). Epidural anesthesia patients also needed significantly less intravenous morphine-equivalent medication both intraoperatively (5 vs 29; P < 0.001) and postoperatively (3.34 vs 10; P = 0.021)., Conclusions: Epidural anesthesia for anterior lumbar interbody fusion is potentially beneficial compared with general anesthesia, showing improved perioperative pain control., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)