Hypobaric Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia versus General Anaesthesia in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgical Repair: A Prospective Randomised Open Trial
- PMID: 29744247
- PMCID: PMC5937458
- DOI: 10.5152/TJAR.2018.90699
Hypobaric Unilateral Spinal Anaesthesia versus General Anaesthesia in Elderly Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgical Repair: A Prospective Randomised Open Trial
Abstract
Objective: Intraoperative hypotension during hip fracture surgery is frequent in the elderly. No study has compared the haemodynamic effect of hypobaric unilateral spinal anaesthesia (HUSA) and standardised general anaesthesia (GA) in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgical repair.
Methods: We performed a prospective, randomised open study, including 40 patients aged over 75 years, comparing the haemodynamic effects of HUSA (5 mg isobaric bupivacaine with 5 μg sufentanil and 1 mL sterile water) and GA (induction with etomidate/remifentanil and maintenance with desflurane/remifentanil). An incidence of severe hypotension, defined by a decrease in systolic blood pressure of >40% from baseline, was the primary endpoint.
Results: The incidence of severe hypotension was lower in the HUSA group compared with that in the GA group (32% vs. 71%, respectively, p=0.03). The median [IQR] ephedrine consumption was lower (p=0.001) in the HUSA group (6 mg, 0-17 mg) compared with that in the GA group (36 mg, 21-57 mg). Intraoperative muscle relaxation and patients' and surgeons' satisfaction were similar between groups. No difference was observed in 5-day complications or 30-day mortality.
Conclusion: This study shows that HUSA provides better haemodynamic stability than GA, with lower consumption of ephedrine and similar operating conditions. This new approach of spinal anaesthesia seems to be safe and effective in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture surgery.
Keywords: Frail elderly; bupivacaine; fractures; hip; spinal anesthesia.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
Figures
 
              
              
              
              
                
                
                 
              
              
              
              
                
                
                 
              
              
              
              
                
                
                References
- 
    - Sutcliffe AJ, Parker M. Mortality after spinal and general anaesthesia for surgical fixation of hip fractures. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:237–40. - PubMed
 
- 
    - O’Hara DA, Duff A, Berlin JA, Poses RM, Lawrence VA, Huber EC, et al. The effect of anesthetic technique on postoperative outcomes in hip fracture repair. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:947–57. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-200004000-00011. - DOI - PubMed
 
- 
    - Urwin SC, Parker MJ, Griffiths R. General versus regional anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:450–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013468. - DOI - PubMed
 
- 
    - Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, McKee A, Kehlet H, van Zundert A, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials. BMJ. 2000;321:1493. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7275.1493. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
 
- 
    - Parker MJ, Handoll HH, Griffiths R. Anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004:CD000521. - PubMed
 
LinkOut - more resources
- Full Text Sources
- Other Literature Sources
