PubMed · 2287445
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Celleno, G Capogna, G Varrassi. [Peripheral anesthesia for cesarean section].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2287445/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
PURPOSE: To assess the advantages of neuraxial blockade (NB) during and after vascular surgery and to confront them with the risk of epidural or spinal hematoma. MAIN FINDINGS: NB may reduce the risk of thrombotic occlusion following lower extremity vascular reconstruction. This effect of NB may be attributed to reduced hypercoagulability, decreased peripheral resistance and increased graft flow. In patients under general anesthesia, only those authors using an aggressive perioperative management (pulmonary artery catheter monitoring, intensive care unit admission) were able to report grafts patency rates similar to those obtained with NB. NB facilitates the modulation of the hemodynamic and hormonal stress responses during the perioperative period. It also produces superior postoperative analgesia. Still, the impact of NB on cardiac morbidity following aortic reconstructive surgery remains open to debate. Only very few cases of epidural hematomas associated to NB following vascular surgery have been reported. They implicated patients who received either fibrinolytic medication, continuous heparin infusion, or both. Low molecular weight heparins may increase the risk or epidural hematoma and, should their administration become more frequent during vascular surgery, the safety of NB would then have to be reassessed. CONCLUSION: NB during vascular surgery is a safe and well-established practice. It offers many theoretical and demonstrated advantages. NB is particularly beneficial and economical for lower extremity vascular reconstruction. Still, NB may not be the best approach if the administration of fibrinolityc medication or prolonged heparin infusion is contemplated.
OBJECTIVES: Neuraxial blockade (spinal or epidural anesthesia) is still widely used in patients undergoing vascular surgery. However, the combined administration of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents may compromise the safety of this technique with regards to the potential occurrence of a spinal or of an epidural hematoma. We review the benefits and risks of neuraxial blockade in light of the evolution of anticoagulation for vascular surgery. MAIN FINDINGS: Vascular surgery generally requires a high level of intraoperative anticoagulation. An increasing number of patients are also treated pre and post-operatively with antiplatelet agents. Their administration cannot be interrupted without serious risks to the patients' cardiovascular system and, further their continued use during surgery may improve graft permeability. Recent reports have emphasized the danger of neuraxial anesthesia in patients receiving low dose anticoagulation. So, high doses of heparins should carry an ever higher risk of serious complications in patients undergoing neuraxial blockade. Furthermore, no published data has ever demonstrated convincingly the benefit of either epidural or spinal anesthesia over general anesthesia. No differences have ever been documented in terms of cardio-vascular morbidity, graft patency, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Routine neuraxial blockade cannot be recommended in patients undergoing vascular surgery. The decision to perform a neuraxial block in such a patient may only be taken on a case by case basis, after careful consideration of expected benefits and potential risks.
A variety of laparoscopic procedures can be performed on patients under regional anesthesia. Diagnostic laparoscopy in elective and emergency patients, pain mapping, laparoscopy for infertility, and tubal sterilization are some examples. The key benefits of regional anesthesia include less emesis, less postoperative pain, shorter postoperative stay, improved patient satisfaction, and overall safety. Regional techniques, such as rectus sheath blocks, inguinal blocks, and caudal blocks, are useful adjuncts to general anesthesia and facilitate postoperative analgesia. Other techniques, such as spinal and epidural anesthesia, and combination of the two, are suitable as a sole anesthetic technique for laparoscopy. The physiologic changes during laparoscopy in the awake patient appear to be tolerated well under regional anesthesia. It is reasonable to assume that with advances in instrumentation and surgical techniques, the role of laparoscopy will increase in the future. The benefits conferred by regional anesthesia make it an attractive option to general anesthesia for many patients and procedures. Successful implementation of regional anesthesia is an important determinant of how anesthesiologists, surgeons, and surgical facilities cope with new challenges. In the future, it could be possible to provide "walk-in/walk-out" regional anesthesia with a real possibility of fast tracking patients through the recovery process after ambulatory surgery. For maximal patient safety, however, facilities offering regional anesthesia must have appropriately trained anesthesia personnel and the equipment necessary for monitoring and providing full resuscitation in the event of complications or a need to convert to general anesthesia.