Spinal versus general anesthesia for hip arthroscopy—a pandemic (COVID) and epidemic (opioid) driven study

Thomas J. W.,Kay S Jones,Nicole Dwyer,Amy M McManus,Ellen B Byrd,Wallace L Freeman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnae009

2024-03-27

Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery

Abstract:ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to compare general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA) for hip arthroscopy, based on measurable perioperative parameters. The pandemic signaled a change from GA to SA, and thus a retrospective review was performed of the first 120 consecutive SA cases compared to the last 120 GA cases prior to the pandemic. Demographic data included age, sex, BMI, preop narcotic usage and procedure performed. The groups were compared for post-anesthesia care unit length of stay, entry and discharge visual analog scale (VAS) scores, morphine mg equivalent usage, need for regional blocks and untoward events. Additionally, the length of time from entry to the operating room until completion of induction anesthesia was compared. Demographically, the groups were virtually identical. SA used significantly less morphine mg equivalent (6.0 versus 8.1; P = 0.005), had more needing no narcotics (17 versus 7; P = 0.031), fewer requiring blocks (1 versus 14; P = 0.001) and lower entry VAS scores (5.2 versus 6.2; P = 0.003). Five early SA patients required catheterization for urinary retention, and this was avoided later in the study by having patient void on call to operating room and avoiding anticholinergic agents. Completion of induction anesthesia was 0.8 min longer for SA. Hip arthroscopy can be effectively performed with either GA or SA. SA results in statistically significant better post-anesthesia care unit pain control, reflected by lower entry VAS, less need for narcotics and fewer requiring regional blocks compared to GA. Urinary retention, a potential problem of SA, is minimized with routine precautions.

orthopedics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: to compare the effects of spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA) in hip arthroscopy, especially the differences in peri - operative measurable parameters. Specifically, the study aims to evaluate the performance of the two anesthesia methods in the following aspects:

1. **Post - Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) stay time**: Compare the patients' stay time in the Post - Anesthesia Care Unit.
2. **Pain score (VAS)**: Compare the visual analogue pain scores of patients when entering and leaving the Post - Anesthesia Care Unit.
3. **Opioid use**: Compare the morphine milligram equivalents (MME) used by patients in the two groups in the Post - Anesthesia Care Unit.
4. **Need for regional block**: Compare whether patients in the two groups need additional regional block to control pain.
5. **Adverse events**: Compare the adverse events occurred in patients of the two groups, such as nausea, urinary retention, etc.

In addition, the study also compared the time from entering the operating room to completing anesthesia induction.

### Research background
During the COVID - 19 pandemic, in order to reduce the risk of healthcare workers being exposed to the virus and save the consumption of personal protective equipment, the standard anesthesia method for hip arthroscopy was changed from general anesthesia (GA) to spinal anesthesia (SA). This change prompted researchers to conduct a retrospective study to compare the effects of these two anesthesia methods.

### Main findings
- **Pain control**: Patients in the spinal anesthesia (SA) group had lower pain scores in the Post - Anesthesia Care Unit, required less opioids, and fewer patients needed regional block.
- **Urinary retention problem**: A small number of patients in the spinal anesthesia (SA) group had urinary retention, but this problem could be effectively reduced through routine preventive measures (such as emptying the bladder before surgery and avoiding the use of anticholinergic drugs).
- **Anesthesia induction time**: The anesthesia induction time of spinal anesthesia (SA) was 0.8 minutes longer than that of general anesthesia (GA), but it was of little clinical significance.

### Conclusion
Spinal anesthesia (SA) can effectively replace general anesthesia (GA) in hip arthroscopy, and shows significant advantages in pain control in the Post - Anesthesia Care Unit, reducing the use of opioids and the need for regional block. Although there is a risk of urinary retention, it can be minimized through routine preventive measures.