Factors Determining the Choice of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery: Results of a Multicenter Observational Study

Xavier Capdevila, Christophe Aveline, Laurent Delaunay, Hervé Bouaziz, Paul Zetlaoui, Olivier Choquet, Laurent Jouffroy, Hélène Herman-Demars, Francis Bonnet, Xavier Capdevila, Christophe Aveline, Laurent Delaunay, Hervé Bouaziz, Paul Zetlaoui, Olivier Choquet, Laurent Jouffroy, Hélène Herman-Demars, Francis Bonnet

Abstract

Introduction: Available short-acting intrathecal anesthetic agents (chloroprocaine and prilocaine) offer an alternative to general anesthesia for short-duration surgical procedures, especially ambulatory surgeries. Factors determining the choice of anesthesia for short-duration procedures have not been previously identified.

Methods: This observational, prospective, multicenter, cohort study was conducted between July 2015 and July 2016, in 33 private or public hospitals performing ambulatory surgery. The primary objective was to determine the factors influencing the choice of anesthetic technique (spinal or general anesthesia). Secondary outcomes included efficacy of the anesthesia, time to hospital discharge, and patient satisfaction.

Results: Among 592 patients enrolled, 309 received spinal anesthesia and 283 underwent general anesthesia. In both study arms, the most frequently performed surgical procedures were orthopedic and urologic (43.3% and 30.7%, respectively); 66.1% of patients were free to choose their type of anesthesia, 21.8% chose one of the techniques because they were afraid of the other, 16.8% based their choice on the expected ease of recovery, 19.2% considered their degree of anxiety/stress, and 16.9% chose the technique on the basis of its efficacy. The median times to micturition and to unassisted ambulation were significantly shorter in the general anesthesia arm compared with the spinal anesthesia arm (225.5 [98; 560] min vs. 259.0 [109; 789] min; p = 0.0011 and 215.0 [30; 545] min vs. 240.0 [40; 1420]; p = 0.0115, respectively). The median time to hospital discharge was equivalent in both study arms. In the spinal anesthesia arm, patients who received chloroprocaine and prilocaine recovered faster than patients who received bupivacaine. The time to ambulation and the time to hospital discharge were shorter (p < 0.001). The overall success rate of spinal anesthesia was 91.6%, and no significant difference was observed between chloroprocaine, prilocaine, and bupivacaine. The patients' global satisfaction with anesthesia and surgery was over 90% in both study arms.

Conclusions: Patient's choice, patient fear of the alternative technique, patient stress/anxiety, the expected ease of recovery, and the efficacy of the technique were identified as the main factors influencing patient choice of short-acting local anesthesia or general anesthesia. Spinal anesthesia with short-acting local anesthetics was preferred to general anesthesia in ambulatory surgeries and was associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02529501. Registered on June 23, 2015. Date of enrollment of the first participant July 21, 2015.

Keywords: Ambulatory surgery; Bupivacaine; Chloroprocaine; General anesthesia; Prilocaine; Spinal anesthesia.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart illustrating the assessed population

References

    1. Lefebvre-Hoang I, Yilmaz E. Etat de lieux des pratiques de chirurgie ambulatoire en 2016. Dossiers de la DRESS. 2019;41:5–29.
    1. Nilsson U, Jaensson M, Dahlberg K, Hugelius K. Postoperative recovery after general and regional anesthesia in patients undergoing day surgery: a mixed methods study. J Peri Anesth Nurs. 2019;34(3):517–528. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2018.08.003.
    1. Liu SS, McDonald SB. Current issues in spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2001;94(5):888–906. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200105000-00030.
    1. Mulroy MF. Advances in regional anesthesia for outpatients. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2002;15(6):641–645. doi: 10.1097/00001503-200212000-00007.
    1. Camponovo C, Fanelli A, Ghisi D, Cristina D, Fanelli G. A prospective, double-blinded, randomized, clinical trial comparing the efficacy of 40 mg and 60 mg hyperbaric 2% prilocaine versus 60 mg plain 2% prilocaine for intrathecal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2010;111(2):568–572. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181e30bb8.
    1. Calderón-Ochoa F, Mesa Oliveros A, Rincón Plata G, Pinto Quiñones I. Effectiveness and safety of exclusive spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine versus femoral sciatic block during the postoperative period of patients having undergone knee arthroscopy: systematic review. Colom J Anesthesiol. 2019;47(1):57–68. doi: 10.1097/CJ9.0000000000000092.
    1. Liu SS, Strodtbeck WM, Richman JM, Wu CL. A comparison of regional versus general anesthesia for ambulatory anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesth Analg. 2005;101(6):1634–1642. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000180829.70036.4F.
    1. Capdevila X, Dadure C. Perioperative management for 1 day hospital admission: regional anesthesia is better than general anesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2004;55(Suppl):33–36.
    1. Pourel E, Lambert M, Mekler G, et al. Anesthésie LocoRegionale en Ambulatoire. In: Conférences d'Actualisation Elsevier Ed, 2008. pp 61–75.
    1. Parker MJ, Handoll HH, Griffiths R. Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;4:521.
    1. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Gao Y, Mendoza-Lattes S, Callaghan JJ. Differences in short-term complications between spinal and general anesthesia for primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2013;95(3):193–199. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01682.
    1. Bessa SS, Katri KM, Abdel-Salam WN, El-Kayal E-SA, Tawfik TA. Spinal versus general anesthesia for day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(6):550–555. doi: 10.1089/lap.2012.0110.
    1. Fernández-Ordóñez M, Tenías JM, Picazo-Yeste J. Spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in the surgical treatment of inguinal hernia. Cost-effectiveness analysis. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2014;61(5):254–261. doi: 10.1016/j.redar.2013.11.016.
    1. Morris MT, et al. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of spinal versus general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in various hospital settings. Global Spine J. 2019;9(4):368–374. doi: 10.1177/2192568218795867.
    1. Lennox PH, Vaghadia H, Henderson C, Martin L, Mitchell GWE. Small-dose selective spinal anesthesia for short-duration outpatient laparoscopy: recovery characteristics compared with desflurane anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2002;94(2):346–350.
    1. Schneider M, et al. Transient neurologic toxicity after hyperbaric subarachnoid anesthesia with 5% lidocaine. Anesth Analg. 1993;76(5):1154–1157. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199305000-00044.
    1. Tarkkila P, Huhtala J, Tuominen M. Transient radicular irritation after spinal anaesthesia with hyperbaric 5% lignocaine. Br J Anaesth. 1995;74(3):328–329. doi: 10.1093/bja/74.3.328.
    1. Freedman JM, Li D-K, Drasner K, Jaskela MC, Larsen B, Wi S. Transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia: an epidemiologic study of 1863 patients. Anesthesiology. 1998;89(3):633–641. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199809000-00012.
    1. Pollock JE, Mulroy MF, Bent E, Polissar NL. A comparison of two regional anesthetic techniques for outpatient knee arthroscopy. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(2):397–401. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000070226.10440.3A.
    1. Hampl KF, Schneider MC, Pargger H, Gut J, Drewe J, Drasner K. A similar incidence of transient neurologic symptoms after spinal anesthesia with 2% and 5% lidocaine. Anesth Analg. 1996;83(5):1051–1054. doi: 10.1213/00000539-199611000-00026.
    1. Camponovo C, et al. Intrathecal 1% 2-chloroprocaine vs. 0.5% bupivacaine in ambulatory surgery: a prospective, observer-blinded, randomised, controlled trial: Spinal chloroprocaine vs. bupivacaine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58(5):560–566. doi: 10.1111/aas.12291.
    1. Lacasse M-A, et al. Comparison of bupivacaine and 2-chloroprocaine for spinal anesthesia for outpatient surgery: a double-blind randomized trial. Can J Anesth. 2011;58(4):384–391. doi: 10.1007/s12630-010-9450-x.
    1. Black AS, Newcombe GN, Plummer JL, McLeod DH, Martin DK. Spinal anaesthesia for ambulatory arthroscopic surgery of the knee: a comparison of low-dose prilocaine and fentanyl with bupivacaine and fentanyl. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(2):183–188. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq272.
    1. Guntz E, Latrech B, Tsiberidis C, Gouwy J, Kapessidou Y. ED50 and ED90 of intrathecal hyperbaric 2% prilocaine in ambulatory knee arthroscopy. Can J Anaesth. 2014;61(9):801–807. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0189-7.
    1. Matthey PW, Finegan BA, Finucane BT. The public’s fears about and perceptions of regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004;29(2):96–101.
    1. Oldman M, et al. A survey of orthopedic surgeons’ attitudes and knowledge regarding regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2004;98(5):1486–1490. doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000113549.98873.B1.
    1. Park YB, Chae WS, Park SH, Yu JS, Lee SG, Yim SJ. Comparison of short-term complications of general and spinal anesthesia for primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017;29(2):96–103. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.16.009.
    1. Boublik J, Gupta R, Bhar S, Atchabahian A. Prilocaine spinal anesthesia for ambulatory surgery: a review of the available studies. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2016;35(6):417–421. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2016.03.005.
    1. Teunkens A, Vermeulen K, Van Gerven E, Fieuws S, Van de Velde M, Rex S. Comparison of 2-chloroprocaine, bupivacaine, and lidocaine for spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy in an outpatient setting: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2016;41(5):576–583. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000420.
    1. Ghosh S, Sallam S. Patient satisfaction and postoperative demands on hospital and community services after day surgery. Br J Surg. 1994;81(11):1635–1638. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800811124.
    1. Chung F, Un V, Su J. Postoperative symptoms 24 h after ambulatory anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 1996;43(11):1121–1127. doi: 10.1007/BF03011838.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren