Object. Despite a history of safety and efficacy, spinal anesthesia is rarely used in lumbar surgery. Application of regional anesthetics is widely preferred for lower-extremity surgery, but general anesthesia is used almost exclusively in spine surgery, despite evidence that spinal anesthesia is as safe and may offer some advantages. Methods. In this case-controlled study the authors analyzed outcomes obtained in 400 patients in whom either spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia was induced to perform a lumbar decompression. Patients were matched for anesthesia-related class, preoperative diagnosis, surgical procedure, and perioperative protocols. All aspects of surgery, recovery, postanesthesia care, and pain management were uniform irrespective of the anesthetic type. Case complexity was equivalent. An independent observer performed analysis of the data. Data from the intraoperative period through hospital discharge were collected and compared. Two hundred consecutive patients meeting inclusion criteria were included in each group. Patients were treated for either lumbar stenosis or herniated nucleus pulposus. Demographically, both groups were well matched. Anesthetic and operative times were longer for patients receiving a general anesthetic (p < 0.05), in whom more nausea and greater requirements for antiemetics and pain medication were also present during recovery (p < 0.05). Overall complication rates and, specifically, the incidences of urinary retention were significantly lower in spinal anesthesia—induced patients (p < 0.05). There were no neural injuries in either group, and the incidence of spinal headache was lower in patients receiving a spinal anesthetic (1.5% compared with 3%). Conclusions. Spinal anesthesia was as safe and effective as general anethesia for patients undergoing lumbar laminectomy. Potential advantages of spinal anesthsia include a shorter anesthesia duration, decreased nausea, antiemetic and analgesic requirements, and fewer complications. Successful surgery can be performed using either anesthesia type.

No abstract

Chronic abdominal pain is a devastating problem for patients and providers, due to the difficulty of effectively treating the entity. Both benign and malignant conditions can lead to chronic abdominal pain. Precision in diagnosis is required before effective treatment can be instituted. Celiac Plexus Block is an interventional technique utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in the treatment of abdominovisceral pain. The richly innervated plexus provides sensory input about pathologic processes in the liver, pancreas, spleen, omentum, alimentary tract to the mid-transverse colon, adrenal glands, and kidney. Chronic pancreatitis and chronic pain from pancreatic cancer have been treated with celiac plexus block to theoretically decrease the side effects of opioid medications and to enhance analgesia from medications. Historically, the block was performed by palpation and identification of bony and soft tissue anatomy; currently, various imaging modalities are at the disposal of the interventionalist for the treatment of pain. Fluoroscopy, computed tomography (CT) guidance and endoscopic ultrasound assistance may be utilized to aid the practitioner in performing the blockade of the celiac plexus. The choice of radiographic technology depends on the specialty of the interventionalist, with gastroenterologists favoring endoscopic ultrasound and interventional pain physicians and radiologists preferring CT guidance. A review is presented describing the indications, technical aspects, and agents utilized to block the celiac plexus in patients suffering from chronic abdominal pain.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been increasingly used to manage acute and chronic pain. However, the level of clinical evidence to support its use is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical evidence of PNS in the treatment of acute or chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of PNS in managing acute or chronic pain. METHODS: Data sources were PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, and reference lists. The literature search was performed up to December 2019. Study selection included randomized trials, observational studies, and case reports of PNS in acute or chronic pain. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were performed utilizing Cochrane review methodologic quality assessment and Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) and Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR). The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. Data syntheses: 227 studies met inclusion criteria and were included in qualitative synthesis. RESULTS: Evidence synthesis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies showed Level I and II evidence of PNS in chronic migraine headache; Level II evidence in cluster headache, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, chronic low back and lower extremity pain; and Level IV evidence in peripheral neuropathic pain, and postsurgical pain. Peripheral field stimulation has Level II evidence in chronic low back pain, and Level IV evidence in cranial pain. LIMITATIONS: Lack of high-quality RCTs. Meta-analysis was not possible due to wide variations in experimental design, research protocol, and heterogeneity of study population. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review suggest that PNS may be effective in managing chronic headaches, postamputation pain, chronic pelvic pain, and chronic low back and lower extremity pain, with variable levels of evidence in favor of this technique. KEY WORDS: Acute pain, chronic pain, neuromodulation, peripheral nerve stimulation