Thomas J. W., Kay S Jones, Nicole Dwyer, Amy M McManus, Ellen B Byrd, Wallace L Freeman
{"title":"Spinal versus general anesthesia for hip arthroscopy—a pandemic (COVID) and epidemic (opioid) driven study","authors":"Thomas J. W., Kay S Jones, Nicole Dwyer, Amy M McManus, Ellen B Byrd, Wallace L Freeman","doi":"10.1093/jhps/hnae009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.","PeriodicalId":48583,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnae009","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.