A Comparative Study of Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia Versus Spinal Anesthesia in Major Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgeries

Background Neuraxial blockade includes epidural and spinal anesthesia (SA) that have gained wide acceptance for major lower limb orthopedic surgery. Both techniques are competent in rendering surgical anesthesia and pain relief, with specific advantages and disadvantages. SA has the merits of rapid onset and adequate anesthesia with a small volume of the drug but has significant hypotension and unpredictable duration. Epidural anesthesia allows for finer control over analgesia and the duration of anesthesia but requires more substantial volumes of drugs and is slower in onset. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) combines the rapid commencement of action of SA with flexibility in epidural anesthesia, thus optimizing the management of the intraoperative and postoperative phases. This study aims to evaluate hemodynamic changes, compare the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, and track any problems related to CSEA and SA in major lower limb orthopedic procedures. Additionally, this study contrasts the hemodynamic, motor, and sensory changes in the two groups. Methodology A total of 30 individuals were randomized to one of two groups in this prospective comparative trial, which included 60 patients receiving major lower limb orthopedic surgery and meeting the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II criteria. Group A received CSEA, and Group B received SA. The degree and duration of sensory and motor blockade, hemodynamic changes, and complications were all recorded. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to evaluate statistical significance using Student's t-test and chi-square test. Results The onset of sensory block in our study was earlier in Group B compared to Group A. In both groups, hemodynamic stability was maintained throughout the study. We recorded the onset/duration of sensory and motor block and hemodynamic changes and took mean values to find any significant difference. Postoperative complications and rescue analgesic requirements were monitored and managed and were a part of our study. Conclusions This study compared CSEA and SA regarding the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, and associated complications in major lower limb orthopedic surgeries. The results shed light on the advantages and shortcomings of each anesthesia technique and, therefore, will help choose the correct method of anesthesia in a given surgery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cureus
Published
2024-08-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67354
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Pain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.72
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Study of Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia Versus Spinal Anesthesia in Major Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgeries

Ishan R Gadekar, Hukam S Rawat, Amreesh Paul
3 citations
Cureus
Anesthesia and Pain Management
1.72
article

A Comparative Study of Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia Versus Spinal Anesthesia in Major Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgeries

Ishan R Gadekar, Hukam S Rawat, Amreesh Paul
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Background Neuraxial blockade includes epidural and spinal anesthesia (SA) that have gained wide acceptance for major lower limb orthopedic surgery. Both techniques are competent in rendering surgical anesthesia and pain relief, with specific advantages and disadvantages. SA has the merits of rapid onset and adequate anesthesia with a small volume of the drug but has significant hypotension and unpredictable duration. Epidural anesthesia allows for finer control over analgesia and the duration of anesthesia but requires more substantial volumes of drugs and is slower in onset. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) combines the rapid commencement of action of SA with flexibility in epidural anesthesia, thus optimizing the management of the intraoperative and postoperative phases. This study aims to evaluate hemodynamic changes, compare the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, and track any problems related to CSEA and SA in major lower limb orthopedic procedures. Additionally, this study contrasts the hemodynamic, motor, and sensory changes in the two groups. Methodology A total of 30 individuals were randomized to one of two groups in this prospective comparative trial, which included 60 patients receiving major lower limb orthopedic surgery and meeting the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II criteria. Group A received CSEA, and Group B received SA. The degree and duration of sensory and motor blockade, hemodynamic changes, and complications were all recorded. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used to evaluate statistical significance using Student's t-test and chi-square test. Results The onset of sensory block in our study was earlier in Group B compared to Group A. In both groups, hemodynamic stability was maintained throughout the study. We recorded the onset/duration of sensory and motor block and hemodynamic changes and took mean values to find any significant difference. Postoperative complications and rescue analgesic requirements were monitored and managed and were a part of our study. Conclusions This study compared CSEA and SA regarding the severity and duration of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic stability, and associated complications in major lower limb orthopedic surgeries. The results shed light on the advantages and shortcomings of each anesthesia technique and, therefore, will help choose the correct method of anesthesia in a given surgery.

CureusVol. 16(8)
Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College (IN), Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation’s Medical College (IN)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Anesthesia and Pain Management
1.72
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.