Epidural Vs. Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgries

Neuraxial anesthesia, including spinal (SA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), is widely used in lower extremity orthopedic surgeries for its regional pain control, reduced opioid dependence, and faster recovery. Despite its advantages, conflicting evidence exists regarding the comparative efficacy, perioperative complications, and patient satisfaction between SA and CSEA. While SA offers rapid onset and hemodynamic stability, CSEA provides prolonged analgesia, yet consensus on optimal technique remains elusive. This study addresses this gap by evaluating their clinical outcomes and complications to guide evidence-based decisions. The objective: To systematically compare SA and CSEA in achieving analgesic adequacy, assess perioperative complications (hemodynamic instability, neurological effects), and analyze patient outcomes (satisfaction, recovery duration, postoperative analgesia needs). A prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Orthopedics and Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Lahore, over four months. Sixty patients (18–70 years, ASA I-II) undergoing elective lower limb surgeries were allocated to SA (n=30) or CSEA (n=30) groups. Sensory/motor block onset, hemodynamic stability, pain scores (Visual Analog Scale), and complications were monitored. Statistical analysis employed Student’s t-test and chi-square (α=0.05). Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. Main findings SA demonstrated faster sensory block onset (3.0±0.9 vs. 14.9±2.1 minutes, p<0.001) and higher intraoperative hemodynamic stability (hypotension: 13.3% vs. 30%, p=0.04). CSEA provided prolonged postoperative analgesia (240±45 vs. 156±32 minutes, p<0.001) but required more vasopressor support. Patient satisfaction was comparable (SA: 86.7%, CSEA: 83.3%, p=0.65), though 72% reported suboptimal postoperative pain relief. Side effects like headache (14%) and transient paresthesia (8%) were frequent but minor. SA is optimal for rapid surgical readiness, while CSEA excels in prolonged pain management. Suboptimal postoperative analgesia underscores the need for multimodal approaches. Hemodynamic monitoring remains critical for CSEA. Tailored anesthetic selection, guided by patient risk and surgical demands, is recommended.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Physical Education Health and Social Sciences
Published
2025-05-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.63163/jpehss.v3i2.352
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Pain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Epidural Vs. Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgries

Syed Mohd Adeeb, Asma Islam, K. Preetha Rani, Zubia Mumtaz et al.
Physical Education Health and Social Sciences
Anesthesia and Pain Management
article

Epidural Vs. Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Limb Orthopedic Surgries

Syed Mohd Adeeb, Asma Islam, K. Preetha Rani, Zubia Mumtaz, Muhammad Arif Nadeem Saqib, Rida Qasim
article en

Abstract

Neuraxial anesthesia, including spinal (SA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA), is widely used in lower extremity orthopedic surgeries for its regional pain control, reduced opioid dependence, and faster recovery. Despite its advantages, conflicting evidence exists regarding the comparative efficacy, perioperative complications, and patient satisfaction between SA and CSEA. While SA offers rapid onset and hemodynamic stability, CSEA provides prolonged analgesia, yet consensus on optimal technique remains elusive. This study addresses this gap by evaluating their clinical outcomes and complications to guide evidence-based decisions. The objective: To systematically compare SA and CSEA in achieving analgesic adequacy, assess perioperative complications (hemodynamic instability, neurological effects), and analyze patient outcomes (satisfaction, recovery duration, postoperative analgesia needs). A prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Orthopedics and Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Lahore, over four months. Sixty patients (18–70 years, ASA I-II) undergoing elective lower limb surgeries were allocated to SA (n=30) or CSEA (n=30) groups. Sensory/motor block onset, hemodynamic stability, pain scores (Visual Analog Scale), and complications were monitored. Statistical analysis employed Student’s t-test and chi-square (α=0.05). Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. Main findings SA demonstrated faster sensory block onset (3.0±0.9 vs. 14.9±2.1 minutes, p<0.001) and higher intraoperative hemodynamic stability (hypotension: 13.3% vs. 30%, p=0.04). CSEA provided prolonged postoperative analgesia (240±45 vs. 156±32 minutes, p<0.001) but required more vasopressor support. Patient satisfaction was comparable (SA: 86.7%, CSEA: 83.3%, p=0.65), though 72% reported suboptimal postoperative pain relief. Side effects like headache (14%) and transient paresthesia (8%) were frequent but minor. SA is optimal for rapid surgical readiness, while CSEA excels in prolonged pain management. Suboptimal postoperative analgesia underscores the need for multimodal approaches. Hemodynamic monitoring remains critical for CSEA. Tailored anesthetic selection, guided by patient risk and surgical demands, is recommended.

Physical Education Health and Social SciencesVol. 3(2)
University of Engineering and Technology Lahore (PK), University of Health and Allied Sciences (GH)
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Anesthesia and Pain Management
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.