The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:689–95

Background: Better postoperative pain, functional outcomes and patient satisfaction have been reported using spinal anaesthesia when compared with general anaesthesia. However, higher levels of urinary retention with spinal anaesthesia can lead to delayed discharge in microdiscectomy surgery. Anecdotally, we believe that further improvements to patient satisfaction and a reduction in the need for urinary catheterisation can be found in patients receiving fentanyl intrathecally as opposed to morphine. Methods: Seventy consecutive patients were recruited and prospectively randomised into two equal groups, with half the patients receiving intrathecal fentanyl with the spinal anaesthetic and the remainder receiving morphine. A comprehensive post operative evaluation was carried out documenting any anaesthetic complications, post operative analgesic requirement, physiological and functional recovery, need for urinary catheterisation and patient satisfaction. Results: Both groups were equally matched for age and gender. Mean age was 43 years in fentanyl group and 50 years in the morhhine group. All patients were discharged on day one post surgery. 3 patients in the fentanyl group and 11 patients in the morphine group required urinary catheterisation. No intra-operative anaesthetic or surgical complications were noted. Mean Visual Analogue score for pain was lower in the fentanyl group [2.46] compared to morphine group [2.70]. Conclusion: Lumbar spinal microdiscectomy can be safely performed as a short stay procedure under spinal anaesthesia using intrathecal fentanyl or morphine. Post-operative pain and functional out comes were comparable between the two groups but lower incidence of post-operative nausea, vomiting, itching and urinary catheterisation can be expected with use of fentanyl

Introduction. Early ambulation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) predicts early discharge. Spinal anesthesia is preferred but can delay ambulation, especially with bupivacaine. Mepivacaine, an intermediate-acting local anesthetic, could enable earlier ambulation than bupivacaine. We hypothesized that patients who received mepivacaine would ambulate earlier than those who received hyperbaric bupivacaine or isobaric bupivacaine for primary THA. Methods. This was a randomized, double-blind controlled trial of patients undergoing primary THA. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to mepivacaine 52.5 mg, hyperbaric bupivacaine 11.25 mg, or isobaric bupivacaine 12.5 mg for spinal anesthesia. The primary outcome measure was ambulation between 3–3.5 hours. Secondary outcomes included return of motor and sensory function, postoperative pain, opioid consumption, urinary retention, transient neurological symptoms, intraoperative muscle tension, length of stay and 30-day readmissions. A priori power analysis required 44 patients per group. After testing for normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), continuous data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis, as appropriate, and categorical data were analyzed with chi square. Results. Of 154 patients, 50 received mepivacaine, 53 received hyperbaric bupivacaine, and 51 received isobaric bupivacaine. Patient characteristics were similar among groups. For ambulation at 3–3.5 hours, 35/50 (70.0%) of patients met this endpoint in the mepivacaine group, followed by 20/53 (37.7%) of hyperbaric bupivacaine, and then 9/51 (17.6%) of isobaric bupivacaine (p<0.001). Return of motor function occurred earlier with mepivacaine. Pain and opioid consumption were higher for mepivacaine patients in the early postoperative period only. 23/50 (46.0%) of mepivacaine, 13/53 (24.5%) of hyperbaric bupivacaine, and 11/51 (21.5%) of isobaric bupivacaine patients achieved same-day discharge (p=0.014). Length of stay was shortest in mepivacaine patients. There were no differences in complications. Discussion. Mepivacaine patients ambulated earlier and were more likely to be discharged the same day than both hyperbaric bupivacaine and isobaric bupivacaine patients. Mepivacaine could be beneficial for outpatient THA

Background. It is unclear which form of anaesthesia is the most favourable in primary total hip replacement (THR) surgery. A recently published systematic review of modern anaesthesia techniques in primary THR surgery (Macfarlane 2009) was not able to show any convincing benefit of regional or general anaesthesia. One retrospective study that examined anaesthesia and leg length (Sathappan 2008), found an increased incidence of leg length difference > 5 mm in those patients who were operated with regional anaesthesia. Our department used a mini invasive approach in supine as standard procedure in THR. The type of anaesthesia that is chosen is up to the individual anaesthetist. Purpose. We wanted to see if there was any correlation between type of anaesthesia and leg length, total time spent in theatre and recovery room, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss or operating time in primary THR surgery with a mini invasive approach in supine. Materials and Methods. Our study was a retrospective study of 170 primary THR patients. All patients received an uncemented Corail stem and a cemented Marathon cup. Patients with abnormal anatomy, BMI > 46, simultaneous removal of internal fixation or incomplete data were excluded in the analysis. Radiograpic leg length was measured using the inter teardrop line and the lesser trochanter. Results. 99 patients were operated on with spinal anaesthesia and 71 with total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA). There were 65% women in both groups. Average age was 74 years (32–95) in the spinal anaesthesia group and 67 years (38–93) in the TIVA group. We found no significant difference in the average operating time (spinal 65 min, TIVA 64 min), drop in haemoglobin to the first postoperative day (spinal 16%, TIVA 16%), postoperative hospital stay (Spinal 1.4 days, TIVA 1.4) or in transfusion rate (spinal 1%, TIVA 1.4%). We found a significant difference in the proportion of patients with a leg length difference of more than 7 mm (Spinal 22%, TIVA 6%, p = 0.02) and the average total time spent in theatre and post-operative department (spinal 325 min, TIVA 293 min, p < 001). Discussion. The study is retrospective and is therefore fettered by the limitations inherent in such a study. Our study seems to confirm the earlier findings that the type of anaesthesia can affect leg length in primary THR. It is speculated that spinal anaesthesia has a more unpredictable effect on muscular tension which could explain this

Purpose. The purposes of this study are as follows; 1) to compare postoperative blood loss between general anesthesia(GA) and spinal anesthesia(SA) and 2) to analyze the affecting factors of postoperative blood loss through the subgroup analysis. METHODS. A retrospective analysis was made on the clinical data of 122 patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA between January 2012 and December 2013. According to different anesthetic method, the patients were divided into the General Anesthesia group (73 cases) and the Spinal Anesthesia group (49 cases). Each group was divided subgroup as age, BMI, Preoperative blood pressure, Surgery time, Torniquet time, INR. The total blood loss, Post Operation 1 day blood loss, hidden blood loss, and the percentage of hidden blood loss were compared between 2 groups. For the analysis of postoperative blood loss, each group was compared postoperative blood loss using hemovac drainage per day and total blood loss. In preoperative blood pressure, Higher than 140 mmHg in systolic blood pressure and higher than 90 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure were employed as a cut-off value to group the well-controlled hypertension group(n=42) and uncontrolled hypertension group(n=29). RESULTS. One day after the surgery blood loss(p=0.322) and total blood loss(p=0.560) showed no significant differences between two group. But in the uncontrolled hypertension group showed a large amount of bleeding one day after the surgery(p=0.003) and total blood loss(p=0.004) in the spinal anesthesia. CONCLUSION. It seems that, general anesthesia is effective method to reduce postoperative blood loss. Preoperative blood pressure control is one of the important affecting factor of postoperative blood loss

Aim: Our aim was to record our experience with a fine needle 27G with any possible difficulties and side-effects. Methods: 38 patients (26 men, 12 women) were selected for our study, aged 18–33 years. The underwent orthopedic surgery (femoral fractures, ankle surgery, patella, tibia and fibula fractures). The patients were preloaded with 500–700 ml crystalloid fluids.Lignocaine 2% (2–4ml) was injected for skin infiltration. The spinal was performed in lateral positioning in O3–O4 or O4–O5 spaces. Bupivacaine (Marcaine 0.5%) was injected and clonidine (Catapresan) was added in 8 cases for prolonged anaesthesia. The injection was slow and the patients were evaluated in 1, 12, 24, 48 hours. Results: Headache – technical difficulties – delayed action – nausea and vomiting and urine retention were recorded. Headache. Even though all the patients were well informed for 24th bed rest, 2 of them suffered headache. They were treated with fluids, paracetamol, bed rest. No headache was noted after 72 hours. Technical difficulties. Multiple tries were needed for successful spinal in 3 obese patients. Delayed action. In 4 cases the onset of spinal anaesthesia took more than 20min. One patient was finally given general anaesthesia because of the spinal failure. No urine retention was recorded. Nausea – vomiting. 3 patients suffered nausea and were given ondasertron. No vomiting was recorded. Conclusion: We conclude that spinal anaesthesia in young patients doesn’t cause severe side-effects nor technical difficulties. Headache, nausea, vomiting are less common in spinal than general anaesthesia

Limited strong data exists in current literature comparing the 90-day morbidity and mortality following general or spinal anesthetic in patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty, especially between matched cohorts. Because of this, there continues to be an ongoing debate regarding the risks and benefits of using general versus spinal anesthetic for patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for end-stage osteoarthritis. The Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI) database was searched to identify all patients who underwent either primary THA or TKA between April 2005 and December 2015. Those identified were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, type of joint replacement (THA or TKA), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and anesthetic type. Patients were stratified into two groups based on whether they received a general anesthesia (GA) or a spinal anesthesia (SA) at the time of their index surgery. Perioperative complications (medical events, mechanical events, deep infection, need for blood transfusion), length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality were compared between cohorts. Included in this study are 5,580 patients who underwent THA and 7,712 patient who underwent TKA. All were successfully matched based on similar categorical criteria (THA, 2,790 matched-pairs, TKA, 3,856 matched-pairs). Following stratifications of cohorts, no statistical differences were appreciated between patient baseline demographics. Patients who underwent GA showed a trend towards higher 90-day mortality, however no statistical differences were found between anesthetic type on rates of 90-day mortality following either THA or TKA (THA, p = 0.290, TKA, p = 0.291). Considering this, patients who underwent THA with SA experienced fewer 90-day complications (medical events, p = 0.022, mechanical events, p = 0.017), needed fewer blood transfusions (p < 0 .001), and required shorter LOS (p = 0.038). Moreover, patient who underwent TKA with SA had fewer blood transfusion (p < 0 .001), 30-day readmission rates (p = 0.011), and fewer deep infections (p = 0.030) that required additional surgery compared to those in the GA cohort. Regardless of surgery performed, patients in the SA cohorts were more commonly discharged home without requiring additional support (i.e. home care). General anesthesia during THA and TKA appears to be associated with increased 90-day morbidity and more frequent need for allogenic blood transfusion. No statistical difference in 90-day mortality is reported between cohorts for either THA or TKA, yet a trend is appreciated favoring SA. Surgeons who commonly perform these surgeries should consider the added benefits of spinal anesthesia for those patients who are candidates

Prompt mobilisation after the Fracture neck of femur surgery is one of the important key performance index (‘KPI caterpillar charts’ 2021) affecting the overall functional outcome and mortality. Better control of peri-operative blood pressure and minimal alteration of renal profile as a result of surgery and anaesthesia may have an implication on early post-operative mobilisation. Aim was to evaluate perioperative blood pressure measurements (duration of fall of systolic BP below the critical level of 90mmHg) and effect on the post-operative renal profile with the newer short acting spinal anaesthetic agent (prilocaine and chlorprocaine) used alongside the commonly used regional nerve block. 20 patients were randomly selected who were given the newer short acting spinal anaesthetic agent along with a regional nerve block between May 2019 and February 2020. Anaesthetic charts were reviewed from all patients for data collection. The assessment criteria for perioperative hypotension: Duration of systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm of Hg and change of pre and post operative renal functions. Only one patient had a significant drop in systolic BP less than 90mmHg (25 minutes). 3 other patients had a momentary fall of systolic BP of less than 5 minutes. None of the above patients had mortality and had negligible change in pre and post op renal function. Only one patient in this cohort had elevation of post-operative creatinine levels but did not have any mortality. Only 1 patient died on day 3 post operatively who had multiple comorbidities and was under evaluation for GI cancer. Even in this patient the peri-operative blood pressure was well maintained (never below 90mmHg systolic) and post-operative renal function was also shown to have improved (309 pre-operatively to 150 post-operatively) in this patient. The use of short-acting spinal anaesthesia has shown to be associated with a better control of blood pressure and end organ perfusion, less adverse effects on renal function leading to early mobilisation and a more favourable patient outcome with reduced mortality, earlier mobilisation, shorter hospital stay and earlier discharge in this elderly patient cohort

Abstract. Introduction. Spinal local anaesthesia and opioids have long been used as peri-operative analgesia for patients undergoing arthroplasty procedures. However, intrathecal opioids are associated with numerous complications. ERAS. ®. society guidelines for elective knee replacement (2019) strongly discourage the use of spinal opioids. This study aims to report the impact of low-dose spinal and local infiltrative analgesia on patients undergoing elective knee replacement. Methodology. Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing knee replacement under the ERAS protocol over 2 years, at a district general hospital under the care of a single surgeon. Results. A total of 80 knee replacements were included in the study (M38:F42, mean age=72.7, mean BMI=31, ASA: 1=8, 2=54, 3=18). 91% received neuroaxial anaesthesia, 89% without intrathecal opioids. Local infiltrative analgesia was used in 99% of patients. The mean length of stay was significantly shorter (2 days), when compared to patients undergoing elective knee replacements without adherence to ERAS. ®. guidance (3.8 days), P<0.001. The average maximum pain score in PACU was 0.8 (0=no pain, 10=maximum pain). All patients were mobilised within 24 hours of surgery. No patients were readmitted within 30 days. 2 patients returned to theatre (retained surgical clip and MUA for stiffness). Conclusions. The implementation of ERAS. ®. guidelines has demonstrated significantly reduced admission days following elective knee arthroplasty. Combined with low complication rates, the reduction in admission days may result in increased hospital bed availability. This has the potential to positively impact elective arthroplasty waiting lists. Further research is underway to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures in this group

Purpose: To assess the effect of regional versus general anesthesia on transcranial cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO. 2. ) in elderly patients undergoing fractured proximal femur repair. Materials and Methods: Prospective, randomized, open-label study. 60 geriatric patients were randomized to receive either general (Group GA) or spinal (Group S) anesthesia. In all cases frontal rSO. 2. (INVOS. ®. 5100, SOMANETICS, Troy, Michigan, USA) was measured for a 10 minute pre-operative control period, throughout the surgical procedure and for 10 minutes postoperatively. If a drop in rSO. 2. below baseline occurred, the following were instituted in order to improve cerebral oxygenation: normotension was ensured, the neck vessels were checked and cleared of extrinsic obstruction and the F. I. O. 2. was increased. Results: The incidence of a decrease in rSO. 2. below base-line preoperative levels was significantly (p < 0.0001) higher in Group S. However, the number of patients in whom at least one dip below baseline was recorded was similar between the groups. By contrast, general anesthesia was associated with a significantly higher rSO. 2. when compared to spinal anesthesia. This is attributed to the volatile anesthetic agent induced reduction in the cerebral metabolic rate. Logistic regression revealed no correlation between changes in blood pressure, heart rate or peripheral oxygen saturation and the incidence of rSO. 2. dips below baseline. Conclusion: rSO. 2. is likely patient specific and independent of the anesthetic technique administered. Therefore we support the utility of cerebral oximetry in this population in order to detect cerebral desaturation and correct reversible causes such as relative hypotension and neck vessel obstruction. Choice of anesthetic technique should still be tailored to individual patient needs

Introduction

With resumption of non-urgent surgery in May 2020, standard anesthesia for hip arthroscopy switched from general with endotracheal intubation (GA) to spinal (SA) in response to COVID-19 implications; reducing potential aerosolized exposure for patient and staff and reducing consumption of personal protective equipment (PPE). There are no studies that compare the attributes for these two anesthesia methods for hip arthroscopy; and thus, this was viewed as an opportunity to perform a comparative observational study on SA to a recent matched group of GA.

We present a case of delayed presentation of a subdural haematoma causing cauda equina syndrome which occurred 96 hours after a spinal anaesthetic had been administered for an elective total hip replacement in an 86-year-old man. The patient had received low-molecular-weight heparin anticoagulation which had been delayed until 12 hours postoperatively. No other cause of the haemorrhage could be identified.

Aims. Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre. Methods. We retrospectively identified 17,690 primary TKAs (13,297 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry, where 52% had general anaesthesia and 48% had spinal anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with a mean age of 68 years (SD 10), 58% female (n = 7,669), and mean BMI of 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 7). Pain was evaluated using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) data. Complications including 30- and 90-day readmissions were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that included many patient and surgical factors. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 18). Results. Patients treated with spinal anaesthesia required fewer postoperative OMEs (p < 0.001) and had lower NPRS scores (p < 0.001). Spinal anaesthesia also had fewer cases of altered mental status (AMS; odds ratio (OR) 1.3; p = 0.044), as well as 30-day (OR 1.4; p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.5; p < 0.001). General anaesthesia was associated with increased risk of any revision (OR 1.2; p = 0.021) and any reoperation (1.3; p < 0.001). Conclusion. In the largest single institutional report to date, we found that spinal anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower OME use, lower risk of AMS, and lower overall 30- and 90-day readmissions following primary TKAs. Additionally, spinal anaesthesia was associated with reduced risk of any revision and any reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. When possible and safe, spinal anaesthesia should be considered in primary TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1209–1214

There is no general consensus amongst Orthopaedic Surgeons on how best to manage the urinary tract and its complications after lower limb arthroplasty. This prospective audit investigates whether post-operative urinary retention can be predicted pre-operatively using the validated International Prostate Symptom severity score (IPSS).

182 patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty under spinal anaesthetic were given the IPSS questionnaire to complete pre-operatively and an audit into numbers catheterised post-operatively carried out.

69% of males and 39% of females required catheterisation. Following logistic regression analysis there was 0.85 predicted probability that males over seventy years would require catheterisation. The IPSS score was not useful in predicting retention in either sex at any age.

We propose that all males over seventy years undergoing this type of surgery should be catheterised pre-operatively and all other patients should be catheterised post-operatively with close monitoring of bladder volumes to prevent established urinary retention.

Aims. Day-case success rates after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) may vary, and detailed data are needed on causes of not being discharged. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between surgical procedure type and successful day-case surgery, and to analyze causes of not being discharged on the day of surgery when eligible and scheduled for day-case THA, TKA, and mUKA. Methods. A multicentre, prospective consecutive cohort study was carried out from September 2022 to August 2023. Patients were screened for day-case eligibility using well defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and discharged when fulfilling predetermined discharge criteria. Day-case eligible patients were scheduled for surgery with intended start of surgery before 1.00 pm. Results. Of 6,142 primary hip and knee arthroplasties, eligibility rates for day-case surgery were 34% for THA (95% CI 32% to 36%), 34% for TKA (95% CI 32% to 36%), and 52% for mUKA (95% CI 49% to 55%). Surgery before 1.00 pm was achieved in 85% of eligible patients. The day-case success rate among patients with surgery before 1.00 pm was 59% (95% CI 55% to 62%) for THA, 61% (95% CI 57% to 65%) for TKA, and 72% (95% CI 68% to 76%) for mUKA. Overall day-case success rates (eligible and non-eligible) were 19% (95% CI 17% to 20%) for THA, 20% (95% CI 18% to 21%) for TKA, and 42% (95% CI 39% to 45%) for mUKA. Adjusted analysis confirmed higher day-case success in eligible mUKA patients (odds ratio 1.9 (1.6 to 2.3)) compared to TKA and THA patients. Primary causes for day-case failure were mobilization issues (9% to 12% between procedures), prolonged spinal anaesthesia (4% to 9%), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4% to 14%). Conclusion. THA and TKA patients showed comparable eligibility (34%) with similar day-case success rates (59 to 61%), whereas mUKA patients demonstrated higher eligibility (52%) and day-case success (72%). Mobilization issues, prolonged spinal anaesthesia, and PONV were the most frequent causes for not being discharged

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the pooled incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following total hip and knee arthroplasty (total joint replacement (TJR)) and to evaluate the risk factors and complications associated with POUR. Methods. Two authors conducted searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus on TJR and urinary retention. Eligible studies that reported the rate of POUR and associated risk factors for patients undergoing TJR were included in the analysis. Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes and complications were separately analyzed. The effect estimates for continuous and categorical data were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, respectively. Results. A total of 31 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 29 studies entered our meta-analysis, which included 3,273 patients diagnosed with POUR and 11,583 patients without POUR following TJR. The pooled incidence of POUR was 28.06%. Demographic risk factors included male sex (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.59), increasing age (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 4 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77). Patients with a history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.83) and retention (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06) were more likely to develop POUR. Surgery-related risk factors included spinal anaesthesia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.74) and postoperative epidural analgesia (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82). Total hip arthroplasty was associated with higher odds of POUR compared to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20). Postoperatively, POUR was associated with a longer length of stay (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis demonstrated key risk variables for POUR following TJR, which may assist in identifying at-risk patients and direct patient-centered pathways to minimize this postoperative complication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):601–611

Introduction. We designed this study to compare 30-day complications and length of hospital stay between patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with general anesthesia, to those undergoing TKA with spinal, epidural anesthesia, or Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC, a combination of local anesthesia with sedation and analgesia provided by an anesthesiologist) with or without regional nerve blocks. Methods. We identified patients ≥18 years undergoing TKA between the years of 2006 and 2017 from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). We collected patient demographics, anesthesia type, 30-day complications, length of operation and hospital stay from the database. We used multivariable regression to compare complications and length of stay (LOS) between anesthesia types, while adjusting for relevant covariables. Results. We identified 265,325 TKA patients. Of these, 91 (0.03%) underwent epidural anesthesia with a nerve block, while 1,855 (0.70%) underwent epidural anesthesia with no block, 12,800 (4.82%) underwent MAC with a block, 25,643 (9.66%) underwent MAC with no block, 13,575 (5.12%) underwent spinal anesthesia with a block, 80,803 (30.45%) underwent spinal anesthesia with no block, and 130,558 (49.21%) underwent general anesthesia. The rate of complications was not associated with the presence of a block, while the unadjusted LOS was significantly lower with the use of a block in patients treated with spinal anesthesia (2.54±2.07 vs. 2.84±2.25), epidural anesthesia (2.87±1.81 vs. 3.88± 4.67), and MAC (2.51±2.14 vs. 2.68±2.11), p<0.0001. The unadjusted rate of major complications was significantly lower in patients who underwent spinal anesthesia (2.10%), and MAC (1.91%) compared to general anesthesia (2.31%), p<0.0001. Similarly, the unadjusted rate of minor complications was significantly lower for patients treated with spinal anesthesia(1.86%) and MAC (1.78%) compared to general anesthesia (2.11%), p<0.0001. The unadjusted LOS was significantly longer in patients treated with epidural (3.83±4.58), compared to general (2.94±3.64) anesthesia, p<0.0001. In contrast, the unadjusted LOS was significantly lower for patients treated with spinal anesthesia (2.80±2.23), and MAC (2.62±2.12) compared to general anesthesia, p<0.0001. Following covariable adjustment, spinal anesthesia and MAC were associated with a 0.93 (0.87–0.98), and 0.84 (0.78–0.91), odds of major complications compared to general anesthesia. Similarly, spinal anesthesia and MAC were associated with a 0.92 (0.87–0.98) and 0.89 (0.82–0.97) odds of minor complications compared to general anesthesia. Following covariable adjustment, epidural anesthesia increased the LOS by 0.25 (0.27–0.28) days compared to general, while spinal anesthesia and MAC decreased the LOS by 0.04 (95%CI 0.05–0.04), and 0.10 (0.11–0.09) days, compared to general. In patients treated with spinal anesthesia, epidural anesthesia, and MAC, the use of a block was independently associated with a decreased LOS by 0.10 (0.12–0.90), 0.24 (0.39–0.09), and 0.07 (0.08–0.05). Conclusion. Patients who undergo TKA with spinal anesthetic, and MAC appear to have superior outcomes compared to those who undergo TKA with general anesthesia. In addition, the use of a regional nerve block appears to be independently associated with a shorter LOS in patients who undergo TKA with neuraxial (spinal and epidural) anesthetic, and MAC. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims. COVID-19 represents one of the greatest global healthcare challenges in a generation. Orthopaedic departments within the UK have shifted care to manage trauma in ways that minimize exposure to COVID-19. As the incidence of COVID-19 decreases, we explore the impact and risk factors of COVID-19 on patient outcomes within our department. Methods. We retrospectively included all patients who underwent a trauma or urgent orthopaedic procedure from 23 March to 23 April 2020. Electronic records were reviewed for COVID-19 swab results and mortality, and patients were screened by telephone a minimum 14 days postoperatively for symptoms of COVID-19. Results. A total of 214 patients had orthopaedic surgical procedures, with 166 included for analysis. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional/local anaesthesia (p = 0.0058 and p = 0.0007, respectively). In all, 15 patients (9%) had a perioperative diagnosis of COVID-19, 14 of whom had fragility fractures; six died within 30 days of their procedure (40%, 30-day mortality). For proximal femoral fractures, our 30-day mortality was 18.2%, compared to 7% in 2019. Conclusion. Based on our findings, patients undergoing procedures under regional or local anaesthesia have minimal risk of developing COVID-19 perioperatively. Those with multiple comorbidities and fragility fractures have a higher morbidity and mortality if they contract COVID-19 perioperatively; therefore, protective care pathways could go some way to mitigate the risk. Our 30-day mortality of proximal femoral fractures was 18.2% during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the annual national average of 6.1% in 2018 and the University Hospital Coventry average of 7% for the same period in 2019, as reported in the National Hip Fracture Database. Patients undergoing procedures under general or spinal anaesthesia at the peak of the pandemic had a higher risk of contracting perioperative COVID-19 compared to regional block or local anaesthesia. We question whether young patients undergoing day-case procedures under regional block or local anaesthesia with minimal comorbidities require fourteen days self-isolation; instead, we advocate that compliance with personal protective equipment, a negative COVID-19 swab three days prior to surgery, and screening questionnaire may be sufficient. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:520–529