No abstract

Purpose of review General anesthesia is a popular choice for ambulatory surgery. Spinal anesthesia is often avoided because of perceived delays due to time required to administer it and prolonged onset, as well as concerns of delayed offset, which may delay recovery and discharge home. However, the reports of improved outcomes in hospitalized patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty have renewed the interest in spinal anesthesia. This review article critically assesses the role of spinal anesthesia in comparison with fast-track general anesthesia for the outpatient setting. Recent findings The purported benefits of spinal anesthesia include avoidance of airway manipulation and the adverse effects of drugs used to provide general anesthesia, improved postoperative pain, and reduced postoperative opioid requirements. Improved postoperative outcomes after spinal anesthesia in hospitalized patients may not apply to the outpatient population that tends to be relatively healthier. Also, it is unclear if spinal anesthesia is superior to fast-track general anesthesia techniques, which includes avoidance of benzodiazepine premedication, avoidance of deep anesthesia, use of an opioid-sparing approach, and minimization of neuromuscular blocking agents with appropriate reversal of residual paralysis. Summary The benefits of spinal anesthesia in the outpatient setting remain questionable at best. Further studies should seek clarification of these goals and outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Multimodal analgesia techniques, including regional analgesia, have been shown to provide effective analgesia and minimize opioid consumption after liver resection surgery. While thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) is considered the gold standard, its role in the current era of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been questioned. Erector spinae plane blocks (ESPBs) have the potential to provide effective postoperative analgesia without the risks associated with epidural analgesia. The primary aim of this quality improvement project was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided ESPB in comparison with TEA in patients undergoing open liver resection.Methods: Fifty patients who underwent open liver resection and received TEA (n=25) or ESPB (n=25) as part of an ERAS pathway were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome measure was cumulative postoperative opioid consumption at 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, pain scores, the incidence of nausea and vomiting requiring antiemetics, lower extremity muscle weakness, and occurrence of hypotension requiring treatment on arrival to the post-anesthesia care unit and at 2, 6, 12, 24 hours, and daily through postoperative day 7.Results: Opioid requirements were significantly lower in the TEA group compared to the ESPB group.Postoperative pain scores at rest and with deep inspiration were significantly lower in the TEA group through postoperative day 5. There were no differences in other outcome measures.Conclusions: These findings suggest that compared with ESPB, TEA provides superior pain relief after open liver resection.