Chapter 79 Regional Anesthesia for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Is It Worth the Effort?
Regional anesthesia (RA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been associated with numerous benefits compared with general anesthesia (GA). Regional anesthesia can afford both dense surgical anesthesia and long-lasting, opioid-sparing, postoperative analgesia with a low rate of serious complications.1–7 Regional anesthesia techniques for THA and TKA include, either alone or in combination, central neuraxial blockade (CNB) (i.e., epidural and spinal anesthesia) and peripheral nerve blockade (PNB). For example, combined spinal-epidural is an excellent technique for THA or TKA because it combines the benefits of spinal and epidural blockade, that is, reliable rapid-onset dense surgical anesthesia provided by the intrathecal dose of local anesthetic and the flexibility to administer supplemental local anesthetic as necessary via the epidural catheter for prolonged intraoperative anesthesia or postoperative analgesia, or both. Alternatively, PNB avoids many of the unwanted adverse effects of both GA and CNB, such as hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and pruritus, and allows for targeted unilateral blockade of the operative limb providing excellent analgesia.8,9 Continuous PNB (CPNB) for TKA has gained tremendous popularity in recent years10,11 because continuous perineural infusions of dilute, long-acting local anesthetic solution via an indwelling catheter can significantly prolong postoperative analgesia compared with single-injection techniques12,13 and, importantly, can facilitate rehabilitation14–17 because opioid-related adverse effects are spared.9,18, 19
Despite the benefits of regional anesthesia for THA and TKA, many orthopedic surgeons have been reluctant to embrace regional anesthesia because of concerns of operating room delay and block failure.20 Indeed, GA affords a near 100% success rate in comparison with regional anesthesia, which carries an inherent failure rate even in experienced hands.21 GA can often be performed faster than regional anesthesia, and the technical skills needed to administer GA are easier to acquire than regional anesthesia. Furthermore, the choice of anesthetic technique—regional anesthesia versus GA—is oftentimes influenced by time constraints, the availability of a “block room,”22 skilled anesthetic personnel, and perceived liability risk.23 These obstacles have prompted many orthopedic surgeons (and anesthesiologists alike) to ask: “Is regional anesthesia worth the effort?”
Numerous recent meta-analyses have addressed the question of regional anesthesia versus GA for major orthopedic surgery with conflicting results.24–29 Much of the source data for these meta-analyses are dated because databases such as MEDLINE capture indexed articles published as early as 1950. These older studies do not reflect advances in training, anesthetic techniques, and perioperative surgical practices, such as routine low-molecular-weight heparin thromboprophylaxis and standardized clinical pathways. Moreover, meta-analyses are notoriously limited by the inclusion of studies with small sample sizes, heterogeneity between source studies, publication bias, informed censoring, and meta-analyst bias.30,31 Accordingly, results of meta-analyses oftentimes do not reflect those of corresponding large, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).32 In this chapter, we review and summarize (Tables 79-1 and 79-2) the best contemporary data available regarding the effects of anesthetic technique, either regional anesthesia or GA, on important perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing THA or TKA. We included RCTs of adult patients who underwent regional anesthesia or GA for THA or TKA that were published in English from 1990 to July 2007. We included trials that compared a regional anesthesia technique for primary surgical anesthesia or postoperative analgesia, or both, with conventional GA for surgery and/or systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
MORTALITY
No contemporary RCTs are designed primarily to assess differences in mortality after regional anesthesia versus GA for THA or TKA. Because death is such a rare occurrence in modern anesthetic practice, prohibitively large numbers of patients would be required for study to determine the effects of anesthetic technique on patient mortality. In a widely cited meta-analysis of 141 clinical trials (almost 10,000 patients in total) comparing CNB or GA for a variety of surgery types (mostly orthopedic), Rodgers and colleagues25 found that overall mortality was reduced by one third (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54–0.90) in patients allocated to CNB. Furthermore, Rodgers and colleagues25 demonstrated that overall mortality was reduced regardless of whether neuraxial blockade was continued after surgery.25 For epidural analgesia after THA, Wu and colleagues26 similarly found no reduction in mortality compared with systemic analgesia after reviewing a random sample of 23,136 patients from a national Medicare claims database between 1994 and 1999. It may be that any observed reduction in mortality conferred by regional anesthesia is due to the surgical anesthetic rather than postoperative analgesia.
DEEP VENOUS THROMBOSIS AND PULMONARY EMBOLISM
It has long been thought that CNB can decrease the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) rates by enhancing lower extremity venous blood flow,33 and perhaps “washing out” the thrombogenic load accumulated during surgery. In addition, epidural analgesia and CPNB each facilitate postoperative rehabilitation after THA and TKA,14–16 which may indirectly prevent DVT formation. Mauermann and colleagues28 reported a meta-analysis of 10 studies examining the incidences of DVT and pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients randomized to CNB or GA for THA. The pooled data revealed a significantly lower risk for DVT (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17–0.42) and PE (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12–0.56) for patients who received CNB in comparison with those who received GA.
Importantly, among the 10 RCTs included in Mauermann and colleagues’28 meta-analysis, 8 were carried out before 1990 when routine thromboprophylaxis was not commonplace. In only 1 of these 10 trials did patients receive heparin thromboprophylaxis. However, after the introduction of routine thromboprophylaxis, there appears to be no significant difference in the incidence of DVT and PE for patients undergoing THA (see Table 79-1). For TKA, only two studies21,34 currently reviewed showed a decreased incidence of DVT in favor of regional anesthesia, and these without chemical thromboprophylaxis. Furthermore, none of the TKA studies indicated that the incidence of PE is affected by anesthetic technique (see Table 79-2). It therefore remains questionable whether regional anesthesia offers any additive effect in reducing DVT and PE when used in combination with modern routine thromboprophylaxis.
BLOOD LOSS
In a meta-analysis investigating the effects of CNB on surgical blood loss, Joanne Guay35 found that CNB for THA significantly reduced the likelihood of transfusion by three fourths (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.11–0.53). Peripheral vasodilation most likely accounts for any observed blood-sparing effects of CNB for THA. By contrast, however, we found conflicting results in the contemporary literature for intraoperative bleeding and transfusion requirements in patients receiving regional anesthesia either alone or in combination with GA for THA (see Table 79-1). For TKA, the contemporary literature demonstrates no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss with regional anesthesia compared with GA, and this lack of effect is most likely due to the use of an intraoperative tourniquet.
DURATION OF SURGERY
Mauermann and colleagues’28 meta-analysis demonstrated a modest, but significant, decrease in surgical time with CNB compared with GA for THA. This difference may be a reflection of the reduction in bleeding afforded by CNB and, by extension, a “drier” operative field. Among the studies currently reviewed, the duration of surgery was not influenced by the type of anesthetic for THA or TKA (see Tables 79-1 and 79-2). However, none of these studies considered the total operating room time that includes anesthetic intervention. Endless efforts to improve operating room efficiency have spawned modifications of how anesthetic services are delivered, such as the introduction of a “block room” or anesthesia induction room where regional techniques are performed before operating room entry. These models have been shown to reduce the anesthesia-related operating room time when compared with GA22,36 and may prove cost-saving in the future.37
PAIN
Choi and colleagues’24 meta-analysis examines the efficacy of postoperative lumbar epidural analgesia compared with systemic analgesia after THA or TKA. These authors hesitantly conclude that epidural analgesia affords superior pain relief for up to 6 hours after surgery compared with conventional systemic analgesia. One important limitation of this meta-analysis is that all patients, whether THA or TKA, were analyzed in aggregate despite important differences between these surgical procedures, especially concerning the severity of postoperative pain.
Our review identified only four recently published RCTs that investigated regional anesthesia versus systemic analgesia for THA (see Table 79-1). It appears that the analgesic benefit of regional anesthesia is short-lived and does not confer extended benefit once the local anesthetic recedes or the infusion ceased. However, in one THA study, there was a significant reduction in morphine consumption beyond the expected duration of action of the local anesthetic, possibly suggesting a pre-emptive analgesic effect of regional anesthesia. For TKA, epidural analgesia, single-injection femoral nerve block (FNB), and continuous catheter-based FNB can each improve postoperative pain control compared with systemic analgesia (see Table 79-2).14,15,38–45