Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Mar 1;42(3):203-223.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000002098. Epub 2024 Nov 21.

Hypotension after unilateral versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia: A Systematic review with meta-analysis

Cansheng Gong  1 , Xiuming Ye, Yanling Liao, Peng Ye, Ting Zheng, Xiaochun Zheng
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Hypotension after unilateral versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia: A Systematic review with meta-analysis

Cansheng Gong et al. Eur J Anaesthesiol. .

Abstract

Background: Spinal anaesthesia is frequently used in surgical procedures involving the lower abdomen and extremities, however, the occurrence of hypotension remains a common and clinically important adverse effect. Unilateral spinal anaesthesia seems to be a promising approach to minimise this complication but the effectiveness of this remains controversial.

Objective: A meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the superiority of unilateral spinal anaesthesia over bilateral spinal anaesthesia with regard to the incidence of hypotension and other complications.

Design: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Date sources: PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from their inception to 5 March 2024.

Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unilateral spinal anaesthesia with bilateral spinal anaesthesia were eligible for inclusion. Observational studies, case reports, case series, and studies not conducted in humans were excluded. The incidence of hypotension, vasopressor requirement, and other complications were compared. Heterogeneity was assessed by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis.

Results: Twenty-one trials involving 1358 patients undergoing unilateral lower extremity surgery or lower abdominal surgery were included in the meta-analysis. Hyperbaric solutions were used in most trials. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effect model was used for the analysis of binary endpoints, reported as relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral spinal anaesthesia group compared with the bilateral spinal anaesthesia (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 38%). Subgroup analysis shows that the occurrence of hypotension was significantly lower in the unilateral subgroup, regardless of dosage, surgical site, adjuvants to the local anaesthetics, and different definitions of hypotension.

Conclusions: Unilateral spinal anaesthesia is associated with a significant reduction in the occurrence of hypotension, despite variations in the definition of hypotension, adjuvants, and site of surgery. These results favour the use of lateral spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing unilateral lower abdominal or lower limb surgery. However, the GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence was 'low' due to the high risk of bias and heterogeneity. All the results should be treated with caution.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram showing the identification and selection of studies.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
(a) Risk of bias summary of each item for each included study. (b) Overall risk of bias of the studies included.
Fig. 2 (Continued)
Fig. 2 (Continued)
(a) Risk of bias summary of each item for each included study. (b) Overall risk of bias of the studies included.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 3 (Continued)
Fig. 3 (Continued)
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 3 (Continued)
Fig. 3 (Continued)
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 3 (Continued)
Fig. 3 (Continued)
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 3 (Continued)
Fig. 3 (Continued)
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 3 (Continued)
Fig. 3 (Continued)
(a) Risk ratio (RR) of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower dose, same dose). (b) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: no adjuvants, with adjuvants). (c) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb, lower abdominal). (d) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: different definitions of hypotension). (e) RR of incidence of hypotension in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: adult subgroup and geriatric subgroup). (f) LFK analysis and Doi plot for hypotension.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Filled funnel plot of RR of hypotension.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Trial sequential analysis of unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
(a) RR of incidence of vasopressor requirement in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb and lower abdominal). (b) LFK analysis and Doi plot for vasopressor requirement.
Fig. 6 (Continued)
Fig. 6 (Continued)
(a) RR of incidence of vasopressor requirement in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia (subgroups: lower limb and lower abdominal). (b) LFK analysis and Doi plot for vasopressor requirement.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Filled funnel plot of RR of vasopressor requirement.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
(a) RR of incidence of bradycardia in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia. (b) LFK analysis and Doi plot for bradycardia. (c) Filled funnel plot of RR of bradycardia.
Fig. 8 (Continued)
Fig. 8 (Continued)
(a) RR of incidence of bradycardia in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia. (b) LFK analysis and Doi plot for bradycardia. (c) Filled funnel plot of RR of bradycardia.
Fig. 8 (Continued)
Fig. 8 (Continued)
(a) RR of incidence of bradycardia in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia. (b) LFK analysis and Doi plot for bradycardia. (c) Filled funnel plot of RR of bradycardia.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
RR of incidence of urinary retention in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia.
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
RR of incidence of nausea and vomiting in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia.
Fig. 11
Fig. 11
RR of incidence of spinal failure in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia.
Fig. 12
Fig. 12
RR of incidence of headache in unilateral spinal anaesthesia versus bilateral spinal anaesthesia.
Fig. 13
Fig. 13
Forest plot showing comparison of outcome: duration of sensory block.
Fig. 14
Fig. 14
Forest plot showing comparison of outcome: duration of motor block.
Fig. 15
Fig. 15
Forest plot showing comparison of outcome: time to discharge.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Carpenter RL, Caplan RA, Brown DL, et al. . Incidence and risk factors for side effects of spinal anesthesia. Anesthesiology 1992; 76:906–916. - PubMed
    1. Ferré F, Marty P, Bruneteau L, et al. . Prophylactic phenylephrine infusion for the prevention of hypotension after spinal anesthesia in the elderly: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Anesth 2016; 35:99–106. - PubMed
    1. Kouz K, Hoppe P, Briesenick L, et al. . Intraoperative hypotension: pathophysiology, clinical relevance, and therapeutic approaches. Indian J Anaesth 2020; 64:90–96. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Walsh M, Devereaux PJ, Garg AX, et al. . Relationship between intraoperative mean arterial pressure and clinical outcomes after noncardiac surgery: toward an empirical definition of hypotension. Anesthesiology 2013; 119:507–515. - PubMed
    1. Lee JE, George RB, Habib AS. Spinal-induced hypotension: incidence, mechanisms, prophylaxis, and management: summarizing 20 years of research. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2017; 31:57–68. - PubMed

MeSH terms