UNASSIGNED: Is there a statistically significant association between preoperative epidural steroid injections (ESI) and postoperative cervical and lumbar spinal surgery infections (SSI)?
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-analysis was completed of patients 18 years or older who underwent elective cervical or lumbar spinal surgery. Those who underwent surgery with preoperative ESI were compared to those without. We assessed for differences in postoperative SSI incidence. Electronic literature databases were searched through October 2022. Peer-reviewed publications that included raw data regarding epidural exposure and non-exposure were included. Case reports, case series, abstracts, editorials, or publications that did not include raw data were excluded. Odd\'s ratios (OR) were calculated from the raw data collected. Meta-analysis was done using RevMan v5 with a fixed effects model.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 16 articles for inclusion. When not controlling for the type of surgery and time from ESI to surgery, there was a statistically significant OR between preoperative ESI and postoperative SSI. The association persisted when the ESI was performed within 30 days or 31-90 days of the surgery. No association was discovered when evaluating only cervical spine surgeries. The evidence is assigned a \"moderate\" GRADE rating.
UNASSIGNED: Our analysis shows a small, time-dependent, statistically significant association between preoperative ESI and postoperative lumbar SSI may exist. However, the OR produced, while statistically significant, are close enough to 1.0 that clinically, the effect size is \"small.\" The number needed to treat for an ESI in the appropriate clinical setting is, at worst, 3. The number needed to harm, meaning the number of patients who undergo an ESI at any time before their spine surgery and then develop a SSI, is 111 patients. Ultimately, the surgical sparing potential from an ESI outweighs the SSI risk based on our findings.

BACKGROUND: Total spinal anaesthesia (TSA) is an emergency caused by high neuraxial blockade. It is a recognised complication of all neuraxial techniques in obstetric anaesthesia. Its incidence and outcomes have not been evaluated. There is compelling evidence that TSA continues to be a problem in contemporary practice, having the capacity to cause significant morbidity and mortality if not recognised early and promptly treated. This review based on a literature search aims to clarify the epidemiology of TSA, summarise its pathophysiology, and identify risk factors and effective treatments.
METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases using specified search terms for materials published using search terms. For each case, the type of block, the difficulty of the procedure, the dose of local anaesthetic, positivity of aspiration before and after the event, maternal outcome, Apgar score, onset of symptoms, cardiorespiratory and neurological manifestations, cardiorespiratory support employed, admission to an intensive care unit, cardiac arrest events and duration of mechanical ventilation were extracted.
RESULTS: A total of 605 cases were identified, of which 51 were sufficiently detailed for analysis. Although TSA is described after all neuraxial techniques, spinal after epidural was a particular concern in recent reports. Respiratory distress was universal but apnoea was not. The onset of apnoea was variable, ranging from 1 to 180 min. Hypotension was not invariable and occurred in approximately half of cases. Multiple fatalities and neurological injuries were reported, often in under-resourced areas when providers were not skilled in airway management or when recognition and intervention were delayed. In the most recent reports good outcomes were achieved when effective treatments were rapidly provided.
CONCLUSIONS: The available literature confirms that TSA remains an active clinical problem and that with prompt recognition and treatment good outcomes can be achieved. This requires anticipation and preparedness in all clinical areas where neuraxial techniques are performed.

UNASSIGNED: Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is a common and incapacitating condition affecting patients with previous spine surgery in whom treatment approach can be challenging. This study aimed to summarize existing secondary studies and up-to-date randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assess the effectiveness of available treatment options for FBSS.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic searches were carried out in five databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Scielo, Epistemonikos, and Google scholar) for all systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatment options for FBSS published after 2012. Outcomes of interest were pain levels measured through visual analog scale or numeric rating scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and quality of life. Methodological and risk of bias assessments were performed with the AMSTAR-2 tool for systematic reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for RCT. Prospective PROSPERO registration: CRD42022307609.
UNASSIGNED: Fifteen studies, seven systematic reviews, and eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria and fulfilled the methodological quality assessment. Of the 15 included studies, 8 were on neurostimulation, 4 on adhesiolysis, 4 on epidural or intrathecal injections, and 3 on other treatment modalities. The risk of bias was low in seven studies, moderate in five, and high in three.
UNASSIGNED: Based on this systematic overview and the considerable heterogeneity among studies, the FBSS therapeutic approach must be individualized. FBSS treatment should start with conservative management, considering the implementation of neurostimulation, a technique with the most robust evidence of effective results, in cases of refractory axial or neuropathic pain. As the last resource, in light of the evidence found, more invasive procedures or new surgical interventions are indicated.

UNASSIGNED: It is still no consensus on the use of ropivacaine or bupivacaine in epidural anesthesia for cesarean section (CS), because their anesthetic potency and relative complications remains controversial. This system review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs and investigate relative complications for parturients and neonates.
UNASSIGNED: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Science-Direct, and Google Scholar to June 30, 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared epidural ropivacaine with bupivacaine for elective CSs. The success rate of epidural anesthesia (EA) was primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included onset times of sensory block, maternal side effects, neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed 8 RCTs with 532 parturients. 0.75% ropivacaine is associated with a shorter onset time of sensory block than 0.5% bupivacaine (SMD = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.70 to -0.17; p = .001). 0.5% ropivacaine resulted in a reduced nausea than 0.5% bupivacaine (RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.83; p = .008). In addition, there were no significant difference between ropivacaine and bupivacaine groups in terms of success rate of epidural anesthesia, maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH.
UNASSIGNED: The findings suggest that there were no significant difference between epidural ropivacaine and bupivacaine for elective CSs in terms of the success rate (85.9% vs. 83.5), maternal side effects (hypotension, bradycardia, shivering), and neonatal Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH. But compared with 0.5% bupivacaine, epidural 0.75% ropivacaine was mildly effective for reducing onset time of sensory block and 0.5% ropivacaine reduced the incidence of maternal nausea.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify the difference on pain intensity and disability between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injections in patients with lumbar radicular pain. Subgroup analysis by study design, type of particulate steroid, and follow-up duration were performed.
METHODS: We performed the literature search in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up March, 2023.
METHODS: Studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies, that compared particulate steroid injection and nonparticulate steroid injection in patients with lumbar radicular pain were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers for eligibility for inclusion.
METHODS: Outcomes of interest were pain intensity and disability. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2.0) tool for RCTs and the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions Tool (ROBINS-I) for nonrandomized studies. Effect sizes were estimated using mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD).
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference in visual analog scale, disability score and the numbers of patients with 50% pain reduction between particulate and nonparticulate steroid injection groups (P>.05). Particulate steroid injections showed significant better effect in pain scale in RCTs (MD=0.62; 95% CI 0.08-1.16, P=.02). In subgroup analysis with steroid types, methylprednisolone showed better effect compared with dexamethasone, while dexamethasone showed better effect compared with betamethasone.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggested no significant differences between the particulate and nonparticulate steroid groups in pain or disability score. Therefore, considering the safety profile of nonparticulate steroids, nonparticulate steroid injection may be helpful in patients with lumbar radicular pain.

UNASSIGNED: Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a medical emergency. Clinical deterioration can occur quickly and irreversibly. MSCC is caused predominantly by metastatic cancer spread to the epidural space by epithelial or haematological malignancies. The primary diagnostic test is full-spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) since it has excellent soft tissue spatial resolution, and MSCC is multi-level in around one-third of cases. The modalities of therapy for MSCC are steroids, radiotherapy, and surgery. Radiotherapy is a mainstay of treatment since indications for surgery are limited. Recently randomised clinical trials exploring long course vs. short course radiotherapy have been undertaken as well as novel incorporation of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). This review summarises these recent trials and identifies and discusses published data for novel treatment paradigms of MSCC.
UNASSIGNED: Multiple medical databases were searched through January 7th, 2023 and identified relevant studies that examined the use of radiotherapy with or without surgery in the management of MSCC.
UNASSIGNED: In addition to a detailed overview of the pathophysiology and diagnosis of cord compression, we also examine all recent phase III clinical trials to date on the use of conventional radiotherapy in managing MSCC. Our review also provides a comprehensive summary and discussion of the novel approaches to the management of cord compression, including the role of SABR and a non-traditional surgical approach as well.
UNASSIGNED: Shorter courses of radiotherapy can be considered for poor prognosis patients. For favourable prognosis patients, longer courses of treatment provide more durable local control. An emerging treatment paradigm is a hybrid approach of surgery and SABR, however this has not been studied prospectively.

UNASSIGNED: Optimal pain management for esophagectomy facilitates prevention of postoperative complications such as pneumonia, but also chronic pain. Historically, multimodal intravenous analgesia was employed. In the last decades, regional anesthesia including epidural and paravertebral analgesia is frequently used. In this narrative review, we provide a comprehensive overview of the available evidence for the different analgesia regimens for esophagectomy.
UNASSIGNED: A search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE database in November 2022. Only reports in English or Dutch were included. Editorials or articles lacking full text were excluded. A review of different analgesia regimens after esophagectomy is provided.
UNASSIGNED: Epidural analgesia (EA) was suggested to reduce postoperative pneumonia and prevent chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) as compared to opioid-based systemic analgesia and was considered the gold standard of pain management for esophagectomy. In the last decades, the side-effects of EA became more evident. Next to mild or moderate side-effects such as hypotension and urinary retention, several reports emphasized the incidence of serious neurologic complications to be much higher than estimated before. In addition, minimally invasive surgery fostered that other regional analgesia (RA) techniques are potential alternatives for EA. Paravertebral catheter placement can be performed under videoscope view during the thoracic phase of esophagectomy, making it a safe and easily placed block. Evidence on the effectiveness of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is limited in this context.
UNASSIGNED: Several analgesia regimens after esophagectomy are described. EA is most common, however paravertebral analgesia is a good alternative. Other techniques are also gaining ground but randomized clinical trials are lacking. Future studies should focus on the efficacy of paravertebral and erector spinae blocks for postoperative pain management for esophagectomy.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has become an increasingly common management strategy for traumatic rib fractures. Although historically managed with supportive care, patients with multiple rib fractures and flail chest increasingly undergo SSRF, and so the anesthesiologist must be well-versed in the perioperative management and pain control for these patients, as controlling pain in this population is associated with decreased length of stay and improved outcomes. There are multiple modalities that can be used for both pain control and as part of the anesthetic plan in patients undergoing SSRF. This narrative review provides a comprehensive summary of anesthetic considerations for surgical rib fracture patients, covering the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. We describe an approach to the assessment of high-risk patients, analgesic and anesthetic techniques including emerging techniques within locoregional anesthesia, ventilation strategies, and potential complications. This review also identifies areas where additional research is needed to ensure optimal anesthetic management for patients undergoing SSRF.

UNASSIGNED: Dural mater is punctured by using a spinal needle without drugs administrated into intrathecal space directly in dural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to summarize the evidence of benefits and risks of DPE analgesia with 25-G spinal needles for labor pain relief.
UNASSIGNED: DPE analgesia with EP analgesia for labor pain relief were systematically searched. The Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science databases were systematically searched till 6th November 2022 to find out randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DPE (using 25-G spinal needles) with conventional epidural (EP) analgesia. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Risk ratio, mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
UNASSIGNED: Seven RCTs with 761 parturients were identified. Pool data showed that DPE technique was associated with shorter time to pain score ⩽ 3/10, higher percentage with pain score ⩽ 3/10 at 10 min and 20 min, lower incidence of epidural top-up bolus and no S2 block, higher incidence of bilateral S2 blockade at 10 min and during labor, lower incidence of epidural top-up bolus and incidence of asymmetric block. No statistical difference in side effect and parturient satisfaction between DPE and EP technique.
UNASSIGNED: DPE technique with 25-G spinal needles was associated with faster analgesia onset and sacral coverage, greater sacral spread, lesser requirement of epidural top-up and lower incidence of asymmetric block. DPE technique with 25-G spinal needles showed a greater benefit to parturients.

Thoracic epidural placement is considered the gold standard for pain management for abdominal or thoracic surgery. It provides analgesia superior to that provided by opioids with a decreased risk of pulmonary complications. Insertion of a thoracic epidural catheter requires the knowledge and expertise of an anesthetist; epidural catheter insertion may be challenging especially when sited in the higher thoracic region, in patients with unusual neuraxial anatomy, patients unable to position adequately for insertion or morbidly obese patients. Postoperatively the anesthetic team is required to look after the patient and assess for any complications such as hypotension. Even though the incidence of complications may be low; however, some of these could have detrimental consequences for the patients such as epidural abscess, hematoma formation, and temporary or permanent neurological damage. In this case report, we will discuss a patient who underwent a three-stage esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma under general anesthesia with epidural analgesia. The epidural catheter (Portex® Epidural Minipack System with NRFit® connector, ICUmedical, USA) was found in the intrapleural space during video-assisted thoracoscopy for the thoracic part of esophagectomy. To facilitate surgical access, the catheter was removed immediately, and the patient was given patient-controlled analgesia with morphine for postoperative pain control.