BJA Advance Access originally published online on July 23, 2009
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009 103(3):335-345; doi:10.1093/bja/aep208
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome after total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review
1 Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 2S8
* Corresponding author. E-mail: richard.brull{at}uhn.on.ca
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is amenable to a variety of regional anaesthesia (RA) techniques that may improve patient outcome. We sought to answer whether RA decreased mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), blood loss, duration of surgery, pain, opioid-related adverse effects, cognitive defects, and length of stay. We also questioned whether RA improved rehabilitation. To do so, we performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature to compare general anaesthesia (GA) and RA and also systemic and regional analgesia for THA. To reflect contemporary surgical and anaesthetic practice, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 onward were included. We identified 18 studies involving 1239 patients. Only two of the 18 trials were of Level I quality. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs alone to conclude if anaesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, or the incidence of DVT and PE when using thromboprophylaxis. Blood loss may be reduced in patients receiving RA rather than GA for THA. Our review suggests that there is no difference in duration of surgery in patients who receive GA or RA. Compared with systemic analgesia, regional analgesia can reduce postoperative pain, morphine consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Length of stay is not reduced and rehabilitation does not appear to be facilitated by RA or analgesia for THA.
Keywords: anaesthesia, general; anaesthetic techniques, regional; analgesia, postoperative; analgesic techniques, regional; surgery, orthopaedic
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is amenable to a variety of regional anaesthesia (RA) techniques. Central neuraxial blockade (CNB) can provide excellent intraoperative anaesthesia and prolonged postoperative analgesia. Peripheral nerve blockade (PNB) avoids some of the unwanted adverse effects of CNB and allows for targeted analgesia of the operative limb.6 64 65 The use of continuous PNB has increased as it has the advantage of longer postoperative analgesia compared with a single-injection technique.8 31 53
Despite a low rate of complications and apparent benefits in certain orthopaedic procedures, including better postoperative analgesia, improved rehabilitation, and a reduced length of hospital stay, there are disadvantages of RA.2–4 10 14 15 22 49 60 72 76 There is an inherent block failure rate, even in expert hands.51 Operating theatre delays and a perceived risk of increased liability are criticisms also often directed at RA.38 52 Other limiting factors include the training required to develop the necessary technical skills for successful RA and, more recently, the expense of ultrasound equipment as this method of nerve localization increases in popularity. Finally, many patients are fearful of RA and may have misconceptions about the technique involved.43
Although RA is increasingly used, the results of large meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing general anaesthesia (GA) and RA for major lower limb orthopaedic surgery often conflict.7 18 44 56 69 77 It is not uncommon for the results of large RCTs to disagree with those of meta-analyses.30 This can be due to the inclusion of small studies, publication bias, and sample heterogeneity between different trial populations and meta-analysis bias.32 40 46 More importantly, many trials included in recent meta-analyses were originally published more than 30 yr ago and do not reflect modern anaesthetic or surgical practice. Landmark articles which compared GA and RA for hip surgery used drugs that are no longer available.47 48 In the past two decades, surgical techniques and postoperative patient care have improved considerably, new thromboembolic prophylaxis regimes have been introduced, and RA has advanced as a result of enhanced needle technology, block placement techniques, catheter design, and infusion pumps.25 27 33 58 63 We have re-examined existing data66 for relevance and application to modern anaesthetic practice.
We have performed a systematic review of the literature, published from 1990 onwards, to ascertain if either RA was superior to GA or regional analgesia was superior to systemic analgesia for THA. The specific questions we sought to answer were whether, when compared with GA or systemic analgesia, RA or regional analgesia for THA decreased: (i) mortality, (ii) cardiovascular morbidity, (iii) deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), (iv) blood loss, (v) duration of surgery, (vi) pain, (vii) opioid-related adverse effects, (viii) cognitive defects, and (ix) length of stay. We also examined whether or not RA or regional analgesia improved rehabilitation.
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
Two of the authors (G.A.P. and R.B.) searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (from January 1990 to October 2008) using the following population search terms: ‘total hip replacement’ OR ‘total hip arthroplasty’ OR ‘hip operation’. These search results were combined with ‘anaesthesia’ OR ‘analgesia’ using the Boolean search operator AND. The references of retrieved articles were hand searched for any relevant articles not identified in the original search.
The study selection criteria were limited to include only RCTs, English language, and human adults. Each abstract was screened to identify studies that had randomized patients to compare GA or RA for surgery. RCTs comparing systemic or regional techniques for postoperative analgesia were also included. Studies were excluded if surgery other than a joint arthroplasty was performed, or if both hip and knee arthroplasty were treated as one single study population and data on the patients undergoing knee surgery were not presented separately in the results.9 26 29 35 73 Studies using opioid-only neuraxial techniques were excluded.24 71 Finally, studies were excluded if the primary outcome was not included in the list described above.13 57
The data were extracted onto a templated evidence-based medicine literature review form to assist in the systematic review of full-text articles and data collection. Data extracted for comparison included year of publication, author, total number of subjects, mean patient age, per cent male, and co-morbidity. The intervention (specific RA, regional analgesia technique, or both) and comparator (GA, specific systemic analgesia technique, or both) were recorded. The specific outcomes sought in each article were: (i) mortality, (ii) cardiovascular morbidity (myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and hypotension), (iii) DVT, (iv) PE, (v) blood loss, (vi) duration of surgery, (vii) pain (pain scores and morphine consumption), (viii) opioid-related adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, pruritis, sedation, urinary retention, and respiratory depression), (ix) cognitive defects, (x) length of stay, and (xi) rehabilitation (range of motion and ambulation). It was noted whether each outcome was primary or secondary. Each outcome was then evaluated qualitatively for each intervention and comparator and the data were recorded in tables. Because there were a limited number of studies with homogenous design for each outcome, meta-analysis was not performed.
The methodological quality of each trial was assessed using several criteria. The likelihood of methodological bias of each RCT was assessed using the Jadad score,34 which assigns points based on three factors. One point was given to randomized studies, an additional point was given if the method of randomization was described and appropriate, and one point was deducted if randomization was inappropriate. One point was given if a study was double-blind, and an additional point was given if the blinding procedure was described and appropriate. One point was deducted if blinding was inappropriate. One point was given if the numbers and reasons for withdrawals were described. The maximum score is 5; trials scoring 3 or more are generally regarded as having satisfactory methodologic quality. Allocation concealment, which helps eliminate selection bias, was assessed and defined as adequate, unclear, or inadequate. Finally, whether patient follow-up rates were <80% was recorded.
After abstraction of information, a level of evidence was assigned to the outcomes of each RCT (Level I is a high-quality RCT; Level II is a lesser quality RCT, e.g. <80% follow-up, no blinding, or improper randomization). Two authors (A.J.R.M. and R.B.) independently reviewed and scored each RCT using this methodology.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
In total, 18 RCTs were identified that compared either GA vs RA, systemic vs regional analgesia, or both for THA (Fig. 1). Ten of these had a Jadad score of 2 or less. Allocation concealment was unclear in 13 trials and inadequate in one. Follow-up was adequate in all trials (Table 1). Two RCTs were considered to provide Level I evidence.37 65 In total, the studies included 1239 patients. A summary of the outcomes reported in each trial is provided in Table 2.
|
|
See Remarks
|
), better (
), or worse (
) with RA, regional analgesia, or both compared with GA, systemic analgesia, or both. *Randomization groups. Mort, mortality; CVS, cardiovascular morbidity; DVT, deep venous thrombosis; PE, pulmonary embolus; Cog Def, cognitive deficit; LOS, length of stay; Rehab, rehabilitation; SA, spinal anaesthesia; CS, continuous spinal; CLPB, continuous lumbar plexus block; SNB, sciatic nerve block; GA, general anaesthesia; EA, epidural anaesthesia; FNB, femoral nerve block; CFNB, continuous femoral nerve block; R, ropivacaine; PCA, patient-controlled analgesia; CSE, combined spinal–epidural; CEA, continuous epidural analgesia; MC, morphine consumption; B, bupivacaineMortality
There were no trials primarily designed to assess differences in mortality after GA or RA for THA. Only two trials documented mortality as a secondary outcome (Level II). The follow-up period was 48 h in one study and 16 days in the other.55 78 There was only one death reported in 276 patients included in these two studies; no difference in mortality was detected between the groups in either study.
Cardiovascular morbidity
Six trials examined cardiovascular morbidity, although this was a primary outcome in only one trial.11 Hypotension was most commonly studied. GA combined with epidural anaesthesia (EA), when compared with GA alone, resulted in significantly more frequent hypotensive episodes, both at induction (41% vs 23%, P=0.0049) and intraoperatively (54% vs 35%, P=0.04). Intraoperative mean arterial pressure (80 vs 88 mm Hg, P=0.037) was also lower in the combined group (Level II).11 20 However, the effect of epidural analgesia on hypotension after operation varied, and in three trials, the frequency was either less (0% vs 33%, P=0.001, Level I), greater (40% vs 13%, P=0.01, Level II), or no different (Level II) when compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia.37 61 78 The incidence of postoperative hypotension with continuous femoral nerve block was significantly less (0% vs 40%, P=0.01, Level II) when compared with CEA.61 Continuous lumbar plexus block (CLPB), compared with systemic analgesia, did not affect the incidence of hypotension (Level II), again when studied as a secondary outcome however.5 The incidence of bradycardia was assessed in two studies5 78 and was not significantly different with either CEA or CLPB when compared with systemic analgesia (Level II). Myocardial ischaemia or significant arrhythmias other than bradycardia was investigated in one study comparing GA with or without lumbar EA.20 There was no difference between the groups, up to 48 h after operation (Level II). (For further information, see Supplementary Table 3.)
Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
The incidence of DVT and PE after THA was evaluated as a secondary outcome in two trials comparing GA with RA.20 55 In both of these trials, all patients received chemical thromboprophylaxis. When comparing EA and GA with GA alone, there was no difference in the incidence of DVT on postoperative days one to nine, with warfarin administered to all patients after operation (Level II).20 Spinal anaesthesia was compared with GA using three groups which differed with respect to administration of thromboprophylaxis.55 First, the GA group received preoperative enoxaparin, unlike the two spinal anaesthesia groups. Secondly, one of the spinal anaesthesia groups received enoxaparin 1 h after operation. All three groups received daily enoxaparin from 12 h after operation. Compared with the GA group, distal DVTs (measured 12–15 days after operation) were more frequent in the spinal anaesthesia group who did not received enoxaparin at 1 h (11% vs 0%, P=0.013, Level II).55 The incidence of proximal DVTs did not differ significantly between the three groups (Level II). This was the only study that examined the incidence of PE, again as a secondary outcome, but as this was zero in both RA and GA groups, no difference was detected (Level II).55
Blood loss
Ten studies measured intraoperative blood loss. In four of these, intraoperative blood loss was reduced (ranging from 118 to 595 ml) by RA compared with either GA or systemic analgesia, whereas in the six others, there was no significant difference.12 19–21 55 59 61 64 65 67 Postoperative blood loss was recorded in seven trials. In two of these, postoperative blood loss was reduced (ranging from 140 to 517 ml) in the RA group compared with GA or systemic analgesia, whereas in the five others, there was no difference.12 19–21 55 65 67 Blood transfusion was reduced (range 1.3–1.7 units) in the RA group in two out of the five studies that measured this outcome.19–21 55 61 All studies were Level II evidence except one Level I study which demonstrated reduced intra- and postoperative blood loss using combined GA and LPB compared with GA alone.65 In no case was blood loss significantly greater in the RA group compared with GA or systemic analgesia. (For further information, see Supplementary Table 4.)
Duration of surgery
The duration of surgery was not influenced by the type of anaesthetic for THA (Level II).6 11 12 19–21 37 50 55 65 67 68
Postoperative analgesia
We identified 11 RCTs comparing systemic and regional analgesia for THA and in all but one,61 regional analgesia reduced pain scores or morphine consumption.5 6 37 45 50 59 64 65 68 78 There was good evidence that, compared with systemic analgesia, single-shot lumbar plexus block (LPB) reduced pain scores and morphine consumption but only for a short duration (Level I).6 65 Continuous LPB, however, was of benefit for up to 48 h compared with systemic analgesia (Level II).5 59 In three37 50 78 out of four trials,61 epidural analgesia provided superior pain relief compared with systemic analgesia. The analgesic benefit lasted from only 8 (Level I) to 48 h (Level II). Compared with a placebo injection, a modified fascia-iliaca block reduced morphine consumption up to 24 h, but not pain scores (Level II).64 Similarly, a ‘3 in 1’ block also reduced 24 h opioid consumption (Level II) compared with systemic opioid alone.68 Femoral nerve block alone, however, either as a single shot or continuous infusion was of no benefit.6 61 Continuous spinal analgesia reduced pain scores compared with systemic analgesia for the 24 h duration of the infusion (Level II).45 (For further information, see Supplementary Table 5.)
Adverse effects
Although all adverse effects were analysed as secondary outcomes, significant reductions in postoperative nausea (relative risk reduction 85–93%, Level II)5 45 59 and vomiting (relative risk reduction of 100%, Level I)37 45 were observed in favour of regional analgesia in four of the nine studies examining this outcome.5 6 37 45 59 61 64 65 78 In the other five studies, there was no difference between systemic and regional analgesia. There was no difference detected in the incidence of pruritis, sedation, urinary retention, or respiratory depression in the studies that examined these as secondary outcomes.5 6 37 45 59 61 (For further information, see Supplementary Table 6.)
Cognitive deficit
In the only trial that commented on postoperative cognitive deficit after THA, those patients who received EA had ‘superior mental clarity and cooperativeness’ compared with the GA group.78 The method of assessment for cognition was unclear.
Length of stay
Four studies measured length of stay (some including time spent in a rehabilitation centre) as either a primary or a secondary outcome, but there was no difference between regional (FNB,6 CFNB,61 and CEA50 61) and systemic analgesia (Level II). (For further information, see Supplementary Table 7.)
Rehabilitation
Three studies examined rehabilitation. Outcome measures included daily hours of ambulation and activity scores,50 time to first ambulation,61 or the different ranges of movement about the hip joint.6 61 In all three RA, regional analgesia, or both provided no benefit compared with GA and systemic analgesia (Level II). These were all secondary outcomes, and two of the trials were also completely unblinded. (For further information, see Supplementary Table 8.)
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
The aim of this systematic review was to examine contemporary RCTs, published from 1990 onwards, comparing either GA and RA or regional and systemic analgesia for THA. We found insufficient evidence from RCTs alone to conclude whether anaesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, duration of surgery, or the incidence of DVT and PE in the setting of routine thromboprophylaxis. Blood loss may be reduced in patients receiving RA rather than GA for THA. RA does, however, reduce postoperative pain and also nausea and vomiting. Length of stay is not reduced and rehabilitation does not appear to be facilitated by RA or analgesia for THA.
Before further considering the implications of our review, we accept that there are several limitations. First, for practical reasons, we chose to include only English language trials. Although this may have introduced bias, it has been suggested that excluding trials not published in English has little effect on summary treatment effect estimates.36 Secondly, we found that 10 of the 18 RCTs evaluated herein had Jadad scores of 2 or less. This was primarily due to lack of any form of blinding in a number of the trials. Double-blinding can be difficult to institute when studying peripheral nerve blocks for systemic analgesia, especially in awake patients, as sham nerve blocks are often not performed for ethical reasons. The latter notwithstanding the Jadad score is effectively reduced automatically by 2 points for the lack of a double-blinded study design. Thirdly, there were no large (n>1000) trials identified. The studies included in the present review had sample sizes varying from only 22 to 210 patients. In trials with small numbers of subjects, the absence of ‘significant’ differences in secondary outcomes must be interpreted with caution as these studies are often inadequately powered to detect such differences.42 We took care to highlight secondary outcomes in the summary tables and these shortcomings are also reflected in the level of evidence scores (i.e. by definition, Level II). Finally, the purpose of this review was not to provide recommendations on the preferred mode of anaesthesia for THA. To do so would have required an assessment of harm and consideration of other information such as costs, quality of life, and feasibility. One major concern with RA for instance is the risk of nerve injury compared with GA. This is difficult to quantify and has been addressed elsewhere in the contemporary literature.14 As with any anaesthetic technique, patient co-morbidity and preference and also expertise of the anaesthesiologist must also be considered.
The lack of difference in mortality between GA and RA for THA is unsurprising given the safety of modern anaesthetic and surgical practice. Much greater numbers than those included in the two RCTs that we identified would be required to demonstrate any difference.55 78 Furthermore, neither trial followed up patients beyond the study period (48 h and 15 days). A large meta-analysis comparing GA and CNB alone for a variety of surgery types found that overall mortality was reduced by one-third [odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.90] in patients allocated to CNB.56 When each group in this meta-analysis was analysed according to type of surgery, there was decreased mortality only in the orthopaedic subgroup.56 Interestingly, overall mortality was reduced whether or not CNB was continued after operation. Conversely, combined intraoperative GA and CNB negated the mortality benefit of CNB alone. In a retrospective review examining postoperative analgesia for THA, there was no difference in mortality when comparing epidural analgesia and systemic analgesia.77 These data suggest that intraoperative CNB alone may confer the most benefit. Indeed, in a meta-analysis comparing CNB with GA for hip fracture repair, CNB was shown to reduce 1 month mortality in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.69 We recognize, however, that the latter meta-analysis of urgent hip fracture repair, arguably in a generally sicker group of patients, is not necessarily applicable to patients undergoing elective THA.
Only three trials examined cardiovascular morbidity other than hypotension, comparing either CLPB or epidural analgesia vs systemic analgesia, or EA and GA vs GA alone. Although there was no difference in the incidence of ischaemia or arrhythmia between the groups, this could have been the result of inadequate numbers of patients. In the meta-analysis described above, there was a reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction in the epidural group, although the CI just reached zero.23 This significant difference was detected only when all surgical groups were combined and did not specifically apply to orthopaedic patients alone. Further RCTs with large numbers are required to examine whether RA reduces serious cardiovascular morbidity in elective THA.
We found no difference in the frequency of proximal DVT in the two trials that compared RA and GA, although both trials suffered from a combination of inadequate blinding, underpowering, or both.20 55 Although one trial found an increased incidence of distal DVT in the RA group compared with GA, the two groups were not truly comparable because enoxaparin was administered at different times in each group. Furthermore, the clinical importance of distal DVTs is arguably less than that for proximal clots. Our findings contrast with the results of a recent meta-analysis where patients undergoing THA with CNB compared with GA had a significantly lower risk of DVT (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17–0.42) and PE (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.56).44 Importantly, however, among the five trials included in this meta-analysis, all were carried out before 1989 and none utilized routine thromboprophylaxis. Although it has been suggested that CNB may decrease the incidence of DVT either directly by enhancing lower extremity venous blood flow or by attenuating the prothrombotic effects of the stress response, further work is required to ascertain whether RA offers any additive benefit when used in combination with contemporary routine thromboprophylaxis. Indeed, one trial included in our review where all patients received chemical thromboprophylaxis, but which did not have DVT as an outcome, found no difference in laboratory measurements of coagulation between patients who received GA and RA.21 This lack of difference was similarly reflected in a further trial that did not meet our inclusion criteria but compared haemostatic markers in patients undergoing THA with either GA or spinal anaesthesia.13 Again, patients received chemical thromboprophylaxis. Although no difference occurred between GA and RA in the one trial that examined the incidence of PE, both the method of randomization and diagnosis of PE were unclear and there was no blinding of observers.55
Four trials demonstrated reduced blood loss in THA with RA, whereas in six there was no difference. A recently published meta-analysis found that CNB for THA reduced the likelihood of transfusion by three-quarters (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11–0.53), although seven of the 10 trials included in this analysis were published before 1990 and may not reflect current surgical or anaesthetic practice.28 Interestingly, in this meta-analysis, no difference in intraoperative blood loss was detected between RA and GA. This contrasts with a meta-analysis which found a reduction in intraoperative blood loss by 275 ml per case (95% CI 180–371 ml) in the RA group.44 Again, however, of the eight (some quasirandomized only) trials included, seven were published before 1990. With the variety of anaesthetic, analgesic, and thromboprophylaxis regimes in the 10 trials included in our review, results were not homogeneous enough to pool. Three trials did compare combined EA and GA vs GA, but even here there was a confounding factor, such as a statistically significant difference in arterial pressure between the groups. With the use of restrictive transfusion strategies now commonplace, and many patients now participating in preoperative blood conservation therapies, it may become more difficult to demonstrate a significant reduction in transfusion requirements in primary arthroplasty if the prevalence of blood transfusion decreases, particularly if this endpoint is studied as a secondary outcome.
In contrast to our findings, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated a modest, but significant, decrease in surgical time with CNB compared with GA for THA.44 It is noteworthy that the definition of operating theatre time may vary, and the majority of the studies we reviewed did not consider the total time including anaesthetic intervention. A ‘block room’ or anaesthesia induction room, where RA is performed before patient transfer, can increase efficiency and boost cost-savings by reducing anaesthesia-related time.1 62 74 75
Our review found that regional analgesia reduced postoperative pain in THA. The purpose of our review was not to specifically compare the different RA or analgesia techniques for THA. This has been addressed elsewhere.23 Choi and colleagues18 recently published a meta-analysis comparing postoperative epidural analgesia with systemic analgesia after THA or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and concluded that epidural analgesia provided better pain relief for up to 6 h after operation compared with systemic analgesia. All patients, however, whether THA or TKA, were analysed together, despite important differences in the severity of postoperative pain between these two surgical procedures. Although when THA is examined independently, we found that pain scores were reduced for up to 48 h,50 78 the sole trial of Level I quality demonstrated that the benefit of epidural analgesia was in fact only evident for 8 h.37 LPBs appeared to be of benefit but are arguably associated with more serious complications than other peripheral nerve blocks such as femoral block.16 17 The lack of benefit of femoral block alone, however, compared with either fascia iliaca or ‘3 in 1’ blocks is not unsurprising because this block does not provide anaesthesia to the lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh which innervates the site of skin incision in THA. Although continuous spinal anaesthesia can provide reliable, titratable anaesthesia and analgesia, this is not yet used widely due to frequent technical difficulties, requirement for closer ward monitoring, and fears of complications such as cauda equina syndrome.39 70
Like postoperative pain, opioid-related adverse effects, especially nausea and vomiting, are a major concern to patients and can delay discharge from hospital.41 54 Unfortunately, however, opioid-related adverse effects are almost never investigated as a primary outcome. Despite this we found, primarily Level II evidence, that single shot and continuous LPB, continuous spinal analgesia, and epidural analgesia (Level I) reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting.5 37 45 59 A reduction in morphine consumption was not always associated with a reduction in adverse effects, but this may be due to inadequate powering. The five RCTs in which no benefit was observed were all graded as Level II. These were either inadequately powered or had poor methodological quality.
We found that RA or regional analgesia does not appear to significantly shorten length of stay in hospital or hasten postoperative rehabilitation for THA. This apparent lack of sustained benefit in the setting of THA is quite different from RCTs examining the TKA population, which is likely due to rapidly decreasing pain after THA in comparison with TKA.15 60 Furthermore, postoperative physiotherapy in TKA can exacerbate pain severity. Finally, many centres performing major joint surgery now implement clinical pathway protocols. It may become increasingly difficult to detect differences in length of stay based on mode of anaesthesia as streamlined care often results in all patients being discharged at similar times.
In conclusion, we found insufficient evidence from RCTs alone to conclude whether anaesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, duration of surgery, or the incidence of DVT and PE in the setting of routine thromboprophylaxis. Our systematic review does suggest that blood loss may be reduced in patients receiving RA rather than GA for THA. Regional analgesia does, however, reduce postoperative pain and also nausea and vomiting. Length of stay is not reduced and rehabilitation does not appear to be facilitated by RA or analgesia for THA. Sixteen of the 18 RCTs identified were of Level II quality and therefore further work is required to investigate whether RA influences the majority of outcomes after THA.
|
Supplementary material |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
Supplementary material is available at British Journal of Anaesthesia online.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 Present address: Department of Anaesthesia, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow G4 0SF, UK
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMethodsResultsDiscussionSupplementary materialReferences |
|---|
1 Armstrong KP, Cherry RA. Brachial plexus anesthesia compared to general anesthesia when a block room is available. Can J Anaesth (2004) 51:41–4.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
2 Aromaa U, Lahdensuu M, Cozanitis DA. Severe complications associated with epidural and spinal anaesthesias in Finland 1987–1993. A study based on patient insurance claims [see comment]. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (1997) 41:445–52.[Web of Science][Medline]
3 Auroy Y, Benhamou D, Bargues L, et al. Major complications of regional anesthesia in France: The SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline Service. Anesthesiology (2002) 97:1274–80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
4 Auroy Y, Narchi P, Messiah A, Litt L, Rouvier B, Samii K. Serious complications related to regional anesthesia: results of a prospective survey in France. Anesthesiology (1997) 87:479–86.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
5 Becchi C, Al Malyan M, Coppini R, Campolo M, Magherini M, Boncinelli S. Opioid-free analgesia by continuous psoas compartment block after total hip arthroplasty. A randomized study. Eur J Anaesthesiol (2008) 25:418–23.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
6 Biboulet P, Morau D, Aubas P, Bringuier-Branchereau S, Capdevila X. Postoperative analgesia after total-hip arthroplasty: comparison of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine and single injection of femoral nerve or psoas compartment block. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2004) 29:102–9.[Web of Science][Medline]
7 Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ, Cowan AR, Cowan JA Jr, Wu CL. Efficacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc (2003) 290:2455–63.
8 Boezaart AP. Perineural infusion of local anesthetics. Anesthesiology (2006) 104:872–80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
9 Bogoch ER, Henke M, Mackenzie T, Olschewski E, Mahomed NN. Lumbar paravertebral nerve block in the management of pain after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Arthroplasty (2002) 17:398–401.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
10 Borgeat A, Ekatodramis G, Kalberer F, Benz C. Acute and nonacute complications associated with interscalene block and shoulder surgery: a prospective study. Anesthesiology (2001) 95:875–80.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
11 Borghi B, Casati A, Iuorio S, et al. Frequency of hypotension and bradycardia during general anesthesia, epidural anesthesia, or integrated epidural-general anesthesia for total hip replacement. J Clin Anesth (2002) 14:102–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
12 Borghi B, Casati A, Iuorio S, et al. Effect of different anesthesia techniques on red blood cell endogenous recovery in hip arthroplasty. J Clin Anesth (2005) 17:96–101.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
13 Brueckner S, Reinke U, Roth-Isigkeit A, Eleftheriadis S, Schmucker P, Siemens HJ. Comparison of general and spinal anesthesia and their influence on hemostatic markers in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J Clin Anesth (2003) 15:433–40.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14 Brull R, McCartney CJ, Chan VW, El-Beheiry H. Neurological complications after regional anesthesia: contemporary estimates of risk. Anesth Analg (2007) 104:965–74.
15 Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, Ryckwaert Y, Rubenovitch J, d'Athis F. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery. Anesthesiology (1999) 91:8–15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
16 Capdevila X, Coimbra C, Choquet O. Approaches to the lumbar plexus: success, risks, and outcome. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2005) 30:150–62.[Web of Science][Medline]
17 Capdevila X, Macaire P, Dadure C, et al. Continuous psoas compartment block for postoperative analgesia after total hip arthroplasty: new landmarks, technical guidelines, and clinical evaluation. Anesth Analg (2002) 94:1606–13.
18 Choi PT, Bhandari M, Scott J, Douketis J. Epidural analgesia for pain relief following hip or knee replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2003) CD003071.
19 D'Ambrosio A, Borghi B, Damato A, D'Amato G, Antonacci D, Valeri F. Reducing perioperative blood loss in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Int J Artif Organs (1999) 22:47–51.[Web of Science][Medline]
20 Dauphin A, Raymer KE, Stanton EB, Fuller HD. Comparison of general anesthesia with and without lumbar epidural for total hip arthroplasty: effects of epidural block on hip arthroplasty. J Clin Anesth (1997) 9:200–3.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
21 Eroglu A, Uzunlar H, Erciyes N. Comparison of hypotensive epidural anesthesia and hypotensive total intravenous anesthesia on intraoperative blood loss during total hip replacement. J Clin Anesth (2005) 17:420–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
22 Fanelli G, Casati A, Garancini P, Torri G. Nerve stimulator and multiple injection technique for upper and lower limb blockade: failure rate, patient acceptance, and neurologic complications. Study Group on Regional Anesthesia. Anesth Analg (1999) 88:847–52.
23 Fischer HB, Simanski CJ. A procedure-specific systematic review and consensus recommendations for analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia (2005) 60:1189–202.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
24 Fournier R, Weber A, Gamulin Z. Intrathecal sufentanil is more potent than intravenous for postoperative analgesia after total-hip replacement. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2005) 30:249–54.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
25 Geerts WH, Heit JA, Clagett GP, et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism. Chest (2001) 119:132S–75S.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
26 Gonano C, Leitgeb U, Sitzwohl C, Ihra G, Weinstabl C, Kettner SC. Spinal versus general anesthesia for orthopedic surgery: anesthesia drug and supply costs. Anesth Analg (2006) 102:524–9.
27 Grossi P, Urmey WF. Peripheral nerve blocks for anaesthesia and postoperative analgesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol (2003) 16:493–501.[CrossRef][Medline]
28 Guay J. The effect of neuraxial blocks on surgical blood loss and blood transfusion requirements: a meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth (2006) 18:124–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
29 Haas SB. Effects of epidural anesthesia on incidence of venous thromboembolism following joint replacement. Orthopedics (1994) 17:18–20.[Web of Science][Medline]
30 Halpern S. Why meta-analysis? Reg Anesth Pain Med (2002) 27:3–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
31 Hebl JR, Kopp SL, Ali MH, et al. A comprehensive anesthesia protocol that emphasizes peripheral nerve blockade for total knee and total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am (2005) 87:63–70.
32 Higgins MS, Stiff JL. Pitfalls in performing meta-analysis: I. Anesthesiology (1993) 79:405.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
33 Huo MH, Parvizi J, Bal BS, Mont MA. What's new in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am (2008) 90:2043–55.
34 Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials (1996) 17:1–12.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
35 Jones MJ, Piggott SE, Vaughan RS, et al. Cognitive and functional competence after anaesthesia in patients aged over 60: controlled trial of general and regional anaesthesia for elective hip or knee replacement. Br Med J (1990) 300:1683–7.
36 Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol (2002) 31:115–23.
37 Kampe S, Randebrock G, Kiencke P, et al. Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of ropivacaine and sufentanil with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after total hip replacement. Anaesthesia (2001) 56:1189–93.[Web of Science][Medline]
38 Katz J. A survey of anesthetic choice among anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg (1973) 52:373–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
39 Lambert DH, Hurley RJ. Cauda equina syndrome and continuous spinal anesthesia. Anesth Analg (1991) 72:817–9.
40 LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A, Lapierre J, Derderian F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med (1997) 337:536–42.
41 Macario A, Weinger M, Carney S, Kim A. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patients. Anesth Analg (1999) 89:652–8.
42 Mariano ER, Ilfeld BM, Neal JM. ‘Going fishing’—the practice of reporting secondary outcomes as separate studies. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2007) 32:183–5.[Web of Science][Medline]
43 Matthey PW, Finegan BA, Finucane BT. The public's fears about and perceptions of regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2004) 29:96–101.[Web of Science][Medline]
44 Mauermann WJ, Shilling AM, Zuo Z. A comparison of neuraxial block versus general anesthesia for elective total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg (2006) 103:1018–25.
45 Maurer K, Bonvini JM, Ekatodramis G, Serena S, Borgeat A. Continuous spinal anesthesia/analgesia vs. single-shot spinal anesthesia with patient-controlled analgesia for elective hip arthroplasty. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (2003) 47:878–83.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
46 McKenzie PJ. Pitfalls in performing meta-analysis: II. Anesthesiology (1993) 79:406–8.[Web of Science][Medline]
47 McKenzie PJ, Wishart HY, Smith G. Long-term outcome after repair of fractured neck of femur. Comparison of subarachnoid and general anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth (1984) 56:581–5.
48 McLaren AD, Stockwell MC, Reid VT. Anaesthetic techniques for surgical correction of fractured neck of femur. A comparative study of spinal and general anaesthesia in the elderly. Anaesthesia (1978) 33:10–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
49 Moen V, Dahlgren N, Irestedt L. Severe neurological complications after central neuraxial blockades in Sweden 1990–1999. Anesthesiology (2004) 101:950–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
50 Moiniche S, Hjortso NC, Hansen BL, et al. The effect of balanced analgesia on early convalescence after major orthopaedic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (1994) 38:328–35.[Web of Science][Medline]
51 Nielsen KC, Steele SM. Outcome after regional anaesthesia in the ambulatory setting—is it really worth it? Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol (2002) 16:145–57.[CrossRef][Medline]
52 Oldman M, McCartney CJ, Leung A, et al. A survey of orthopedic surgeons' attitudes and knowledge regarding regional anesthesia. Anesth Analg (2004) 98:1486–90.
53 Pagnano MW, Hebl J, Horlocker T. Assuring a painless total hip arthroplasty: a multimodal approach emphasizing peripheral nerve blocks. J Arthroplasty (2006) 21:80–4.[Web of Science][Medline]
54 Pavlin DJ, Rapp SE, Polissar NL, Malmgren JA, Koerschgen M, Keyes H. Factors affecting discharge time in adult outpatients. Anesth Analg (1998) 87:816–26.
55 Planes A, Vochelle N, Fagola M, Feret J, Bellaud M. Prevention of deep vein thrombosis after total hip replacement. The effect of low-molecular-weight heparin with spinal and general anaesthesia. J Bone Joint Surg Br (1991) 73:418–22.[Web of Science][Medline]
56 Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. Br Med J (2000) 321:1493.
57 Salo M, Nissila M. Cell-mediated and humoral immune responses to total hip replacement under spinal or general anaesthesia. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand (1990) 34:241–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
58 Sharrock NE, Cazan MG, Hargett MJ, Williams-Russo P, Wilson PD Jr. Changes in mortality after total hip and knee arthroplasty over a ten-year period. Anesth Analg (1995) 80:242–8.[Abstract]
59 Siddiqui ZI, Cepeda MS, Denman W, Schumann R, Carr DB. Continuous lumbar plexus block provides improved analgesia with fewer side effects compared with systemic opioids after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2007) 32:393–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
60 Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg (1998) 87:88–92.
61 Singelyn FJ, Ferrant T, Malisse MF, Joris D. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous femoral nerve sheath block on rehabilitation after unilateral total-hip arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2005) 30:452–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
62 Smith MP, Sandberg WS, Foss J, et al. High-throughput operating room system for joint arthroplasties durably outperforms routine processes. Anesthesiology (2008) 109:25–35.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
63 Steele SM, Klein SM, D'Ercole FJ, Greengrass RA, Gleason D. A new continuous catheter delivery system. Anesth Analg (1998) 87:228.[Web of Science][Medline]
64 Stevens M, Harrison G, McGrail M. A modified fascia iliaca compartment block has significant morphine-sparing effect after total hip arthroplasty. Anaesth Intensive Care (2007) 35:949–52.[Web of Science][Medline]
65 Stevens RD, Van Gessel E, Flory N, Fournier R, Gamulin Z. Lumbar plexus block reduces pain and blood loss associated with total hip arthroplasty. Anesthesiology (2000) 93:115–21.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
66 Thorburn J, Louden JR, Vallance R. Spinal and general anaesthesia in total hip replacement: frequency of deep vein thrombosis. Br J Anaesth (1980) 52:1117–21.
67 Twyman R, Kirwan T, Fennelly M. Blood loss reduced during hip arthroplasty by lumbar plexus block. J Bone Joint Surg Br (1990) 72:770–1.[Web of Science][Medline]
68 Uhrbrand B, Jensen TT, Bendixen DK, Hartmann-Andersen JF. Perioperative analgesia by 3-in-one block in total hip arthroplasty. Prospective randomized blind study. Acta Orthop Belg (1992) 58:417–9.[Medline]
69 Urwin SC, Parker MJ, Griffiths R. General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth (2000) 84:450–5.
70 Van Gessel E, Forster A, Gamulin Z. A prospective study of the feasibility of continuous spinal anesthesia in a university hospital. Anesth Analg (1995) 80:880–5.[Abstract]
71 Viscusi ER, Martin G, Hartrick CT, Singla N, Manvelian G. Forty-eight hours of postoperative pain relief after total hip arthroplasty with a novel, extended-release epidural morphine formulation. Anesthesiology (2005) 102:1014–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
72 Watson MW, Mitra D, McLintock TC, Grant SA. Continuous versus single-injection lumbar plexus blocks: comparison of the effects on morphine use and early recovery after total knee arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2005) 30:541–7.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
73 Weller R, Rosenblum M, Conard P, Gross JB. Comparison of epidural and patient-controlled intravenous morphine following joint replacement surgery. Can J Anaesth (1991) 38:582–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
74 Williams BA, Kentor ML, Vogt MT, et al. Economics of nerve block pain management after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: potential hospital cost savings via associated postanesthesia care unit bypass and same-day discharge. Anesthesiology (2004) 100:697–706.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
75 Williams BA, Kentor ML, Williams JP, et al. Process analysis in outpatient knee surgery: effects of regional and general anesthesia on anesthesia-controlled time. Anesthesiology (2000) 93:529–38.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
76 Williams-Russo P, Sharrock NE, Haas SB, et al. Randomized trial of epidural versus general anesthesia: outcomes after primary total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res (1996) 331:199–208.[CrossRef][Medline]
77 Wu CL, Hurley RW, Anderson GF, Herbert R, Rowlingson AJ, Fleisher LA. Effect of postoperative epidural analgesia on morbidity and mortality following surgery in medicare patients. Reg Anesth Pain Med (2004) 29:525–33.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
78 Wulf H, Biscoping J, Beland B, Bachmann-Mennenga B, Motsch J. Ropivacaine epidural anesthesia and analgesia versus general anesthesia and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine in the perioperative management of hip replacement. Ropivacaine Hip Replacement Multicenter Study Group. Anesth Analg (1999) 89:111–6.
Read all E-letters
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
E-letters:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||