1. science
2. medicine
3. surgery

Regional techniques and outcome: what is the evidence?
Marie N. Hanna, Jamie D. Murphy, Kanupriya Kumar and Christopher L. Wu
Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care
Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA
Correspondence to Christopher L. Wu, MD, The Johns
Hopkins Hospital, Carnegie 280, 600 North Wolfe
Street, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA
Tel: +1 410 614 0401; fax: +1 410 614 1796;
e-mail: chwu@jhmi.edu
Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 2009,
22:672–677
Purpose of review
Despite some controversy regarding the strength of the available data, the use of
regional anesthesia and analgesia does provide improvement in patient outcomes.
Although the majority of available data have examined the effect of epidural anesthesia
and analgesia on patient outcomes, an increasing number of studies recently have
investigated the effect of peripheral regional techniques on patient outcomes.
Recent findings
Data generally indicate that the perioperative use of regional anesthesia and analgesia
may be associated with improvement in both major (e.g. mortality, major morbidity)
outcomes and rehabilitation. The majority of evidence favors an ability of epidural
analgesia to reduce postoperative cardiovascular and pulmonary complications and
there is also consistent evidence that epidural analgesia with local anesthetics is
associated with faster resolution of postoperative ileus after major abdominal surgery.
Overall, regional analgesic techniques provide statistically superior analgesia compared
with systemic opioids.
Summary
Perioperative use of regional analgesic techniques may provide improvement in
conventional outcomes, although the benefit appears to be limited to high-risk patients
and those undergoing high-risk procedures. The benefits conferred by perioperative
regional anesthetic techniques need to be weighed against any potential risks and this
should be assessed on an individual basis.
Keywords
epidural, outcomes, peripheral nerve block
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 22:672–677
ß 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
0952-7907
Introduction
Perioperative use of regional anesthesia and analgesia
may attenuate adverse perioperative pathophysiology
and improve patient outcomes. Overall, the data suggest
that the perioperative use of regional anesthesia and
analgesia may improve both conventional (i.e. mortality
and morbidity) and patient-centered outcomes. Although
the majority of available data have examined the effect of
epidural anesthesia and analgesia on patient outcomes, an
increasing number of studies recently have investigated
the effect of peripheral regional techniques on outcomes.
We will review the recent data on the effect of perioperative regional anesthesia and analgesia on both conventional and patient-centered outcomes.
Beneficial outcomes associated with regional
anesthesia and analgesia
Through the attenuation of perioperative pathophysiology and provision of superior analgesia, regional anesthesia–analgesia may improve patient outcomes; however,
the benefits of perioperative regional anesthesia–
0952-7907 ß 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
analgesia are most apparent in patients with decreased
physiologic reserves or who are undergoing higher risk
procedures (e.g. thoracotomy).
Mortality
Prior meta-analyses and database analyses have
examined the association of perioperative epidural
anesthesia–analgesia and patient mortality; however,
the overall effect of epidural analgesia and patient
mortality has been uncertain. The largest meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing
intraoperative neuraxial to general anesthesia (141
RCTs, 9559 patients) indicated a decrease in mortality
[1.9 vs. 2.8%; odds ratio (OR) ¼ 0.7, 95% confidence
interval (CI) 0.54–0.90] [1]; however, other smaller,
procedure-specific meta-analyses (e.g. open abdominal
aortic surgery, coronary artery bypass grafting, hip and
knee replacement surgery) have not shown any difference in mortality [2–5]. A 5% random sample of the
Medicare claims database found that the presence of
postoperative epidural analgesia was associated with a
significantly lower incidence for both 7-day mortality
DOI:10.1097/ACO.0b013e32832f330a
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Regional techniques and outcome Hanna et al. 673
(0.5 vs. 0.8%, OR ¼ 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.73) and 30-day
mortality (2.1 vs. 2.5%, OR ¼ 0.74, 95% CI 0.63–0.89),
with the benefit for decreased mortality apparent in
patients undergoing higher risk procedures (e.g. lung
resection, colectomy) but not in lower risk procedures
(e.g. total knee replacement, hysterectomy) [6].
More recently, another database analysis also found that
epidural anesthesia was associated with a reduction in 30day mortality [1.7 vs. 2.0%; relative risk (RR) ¼ 0.89, 95%
CI 0.81–0.98, P ¼ 0.02] [7]. The authors used a population-based linked administrative database to analyze a
retrospective cohort study of 259 037 patients (aged 40
years) who underwent elective intermediate-to-high risk
noncardiac surgical procedures over a 10-year period.
Although this most recent study does provide additional
evidence that epidural analgesia may be associated with a
decrease in perioperative mortality, these results should
be interpreted cautiously as the overall evidence for
reduction of mortality with epidural analgesia is inconsistent and there are methodologic issues with both metaanalysis and database analyses [6,8].
function and decrease arrhythmias after aortic cross
clamp release through increased expression of vascular
endothelial growth factor and inducible nitric oxide
synthase [12]. Thus, there is consistent evidence that
use of TEA may reduce the risk of cardiovascular morbidity in higher risk patients or those undergoing higher
risk surgical procedures, although these benefits should
be weighed against the risks of epidural hematoma on an
individual basis [8,13].
Pulmonary
Several older meta-analyses indicate that use of epidural
anesthesia–analgesia may significantly decrease the risk
of perioperative pulmonary morbidity including postoperative pulmonary complications, pulmonary infections [3,14], and respiratory failure [2]. Some large RCTs
also suggest some benefit for epidural analgesia in
decreasing postoperative pulmonary complications with
TEA [15,16]. These benefits may be related in part to the
superior analgesia [17,18] provided by regional techniques, which may result in improved pulmonary function and decreased atelectasis, particularly in patients
undergoing thoracic surgery [19,20].
Cardiovascular
At least three prior meta-analyses have indicated that the
use of thoracic epidural anesthesia and analgesia (TEA)
primarily utilizing a local anesthetic-based regimen may
be associated with a reduction in perioperative cardiovascular events in high-risk patients or those undergoing
high-risk procedures [1,3,9]. For instance, a meta-analysis
examining RCTs in which epidural analgesia was used for
a period of at least 24 h postoperatively, use of TEA (but
not lumbar epidural analgesia) was associated with a
significant reduction in the rate of myocardial infarction
(OR ¼ 0.43, 95% CI 0.19–0.97, P ¼ 0.04) [9]. Use of TEA
compared with systemic analgesia was associated with a
significant reduction in risk of cardiovascular complications (RR ¼ 0.74, 95% CI 0.56–0.97), myocardial infarction (RR ¼ 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93) (open abdominal
aortic surgery) [2], and incidence of dysrhythmias (17.8
vs. 30%, OR ¼ 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.93) (coronary artery
bypass surgery) [3].
More recent studies continue to suggest a benefit for
regional anesthesia and analgesia in reducing cardiovascular events, although whether there is greater hemodynamic stability is uncertain [10]. In patients undergoing
off-pump coronary bypass graft surgery, patients who
were randomized to receive a combined thoracic epidural–general anesthesia regimen had a significant
reduction in epinephrine serum levels and lower incidence of perioperative dysrhythmias (3 vs. 23.7% for
general anesthesia only, P < 0.01) [11]. Although the
mechanisms for these benefits are uncertain, recent data
suggest that TEA may preserve cardiac/hemodynamic
More recent systematic reviews continue to indicate that
the use of perioperative regional analgesia (including
both epidural and paravertebral catheters) is associated
with a decrease in pulmonary complications in patients
undergoing abdominal and thoracic surgery. A metaanalysis examining the effects of epidural analgesia on
pulmonary complications after abdominal and thoracic
surgery noted that the odds of pneumonia were decreased
with epidural analgesia (OR ¼ 0.54; 95% CI 0.43–0.68),
independent of site of surgery or catheter insertion,
duration of analgesia, or regimen [21]. Although epidural analgesia reduced the need for prolonged ventilation or reintubation and improved lung function/blood
oxygenation, it was also associated with an increased risk
of hypotension, urinary retention, and pruritus [21].
Another systematic review noted that paravertebral
analgesia was associated with a significant reduction in
the incidence of pulmonary complications compared with
systemic analgesia and continuous paravertebral block
was as effective as TEA with local anesthetic but with a
reduced incidence of hypotension [22].
Thus, meta-analyses and large RCTs suggest that use of
TEA analgesia may decrease the risk of perioperative
postoperative pulmonary complications; however, these
benefits may be limited to patients with decreased
physiologic reserves or those undergoing high-risk
surgery such as abdominal aortic or thoracic surgery.
Nevertheless, these benefits are not definitive, as quantitative meta-analyses are limited by heterogeneity in
study design and the relative small sample size [22]. In
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
674 Regional anaesthesia
addition, over the past 35 years, the incidence of pneumonia with epidural analgesia remained about 8% but has
decreased from 34 to 12% with systemic analgesia, and, as
a result, the relative benefit of epidural analgesia has
diminished [21].
may contribute to the earlier rehabilitation in these
patients. Some other recent data also suggest that use
of perioperative regional analgesic techniques may be
associated with shorter hospital stays and reduction in
overall costs, although additional studies are needed to
confirm these findings [37,38,39].
Gastrointestinal
Prior data suggest that use of TEA with local anestheticbased solutions, compared with systemic and neuraxial
opioids, is associated with faster recovery of bowel function after open abdominal surgery [23–25]. An earlier
meta-analysis (22 RCTs, n ¼ 1023 patients) suggested
that TEA with local anesthetics was associated with
reduced time in return of gastrointestinal function (vs.
systemic opioids 37 h, 95% CI 55 to 19 h; vs. epidural opioids 24 h, 95% CI 38 to 10 h) [23]. A
subsequent meta-analysis noted that presence of epidural
analgesia significantly reduced pain and duration of ileus
but was associated with a significant increase in the
incidence of pruritus, urinary retention, and hypotension
[24].
More recent data also indicate that epidural analgesia is
associated with reduced pain [26,27]. Unlike that seen
for open abdominal procedures, the benefit of epidural
analgesia in facilitating return of gastrointestinal function
after laparoscopic procedures is equivocal [26,27]. Thus,
the available meta-analyses suggest that TEA with local
anesthetics (compared with both systemic and epidural
opioids) facilitates return of postoperative gastrointestinal function after open abdominal surgery by 24–37 h;
however, the overall effect of TEA on gastrointestinal
function after laparoscopic procedures and on other outcomes, such as length of stay, is unclear. The benefits of
TEA are maximized when combined as part of a multimodal approach to postoperative rehabilitation (i.e. ‘fasttrack surgery’ [28]).
Other outcomes
Some data suggest that surgery induces suppression of
antimetastatic cell-mediated immunity (CMI) at this
critical period, which is suggested to worsen patients’
prognosis [40]. It is clear that perioperative regional
anesthesia–analgesia may attenuate adverse metabolic,
inflammatory, and immunologic responses [41,42,43,
44] such that regional anesthesia–analgesia may diminish
perioperative immunosuppression [45,46]. Theoretically,
patients undergoing cancer surgery might benefit from
attenuation of perioperative immunosuppression (i.e.
longer survival) by regional anesthesia–analgesia. Two
retrospective analyses suggest that use of perioperative
regional anesthesia–analgesia is associated with a lower
risk of recurrence/metastasis and substantially less risk of
biochemical cancer recurrence [47,48].
Risks associated with regional anesthesia
and analgesia
Despite the benefits associated with using perioperative
regional anesthesia–analgesia, the potential risks from
each regional technique should be considered on an
individual basis. Although a comprehensive review of
risks from regional analgesic techniques are beyond the
scope of this review, the recent controversial topics
regarding complications and safety with regional techniques will be discussed.
Neurologic complications of regional
techniques
Rehabilitation
Use of regional anesthesia–analgesia may facilitate
patient rehabilitation particularly after orthopedic procedures despite the potential for complications such as
falls associated with peripheral nerve blocks [29]. Earlier
RCTs have suggested that use of either continuous
peripheral nerve catheters or epidural analgesia may
improve early rehabilitation and decrease the time until
readiness for discharge [30,31]. Recent studies confirm
earlier findings in that use of continuous peripheral nerve
analgesia can be used in an outpatient setting and results
in decreases in the time to reach important predefined
discharge criteria [32,33]. Compared with systemic
opioids, regional analgesic techniques result in superior
postoperative analgesia (vs. systemic opioids) and fewer
opioid-related side effects [17,18,33,34,35,36], which
Both neuraxial and peripheral regional techniques may
be associated with perioperative neurologic injury
[49,50,51]. Although the mechanisms of neurologic
injury are often unclear or multifactoral, nerve injury
may occur when local anesthetics are injected intrafascicularly into peripheral nerves (particularly if the concentration is high or duration of exposure is prolonged),
needle penetration of a nerve is combined with local
anesthetic administration within the nerve fascicle, or
there is direct compression by a pronged tourniquet
application [52]. Despite the wide range of risks that
may occur from regional techniques, the risks of regional
anesthesia most commonly disclosed to patients are
benign in nature and occur frequently, whereas severe
complications associated with these techniques are far
less commonly disclosed [53]. In addition, recent data
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Regional techniques and outcome Hanna et al. 675
suggest that there is little agreement among regional
anesthesiologists regarding their perceived incidence of
complications following regional techniques [54]. There
are recent societal practice advisories on neurologic complications in regional anesthesia and pain medicine which
include an evidence-based and expert opinion-based
section on performing procedures on anesthetized or
heavily sedated patients [55,56]. Finally, the clinician
should be aware of the early treatment with 10% intravenous fat emulsion (i.e. Intralipid), which may help
prevent cardiac arrest and speed successful resuscitation
efforts due to local anesthetic toxicity [57].
Improvement of ‘safety’ of regional
techniques with use of ultrasound?
The utilization of ultrasound to guide needle placement
and monitor the injection of local anesthetics has been
associated with an improvement in the success rate of
various peripheral nerve blocks [58,59]. In addition,
ultrasound has been used to facilitate neuraxial blocks
particularly in neonates and children [60,61]. Ultrasound-guided nerve blocks may result in not only higher
success but also in faster onset and progression of sensorimotor block without an increase in block procedure
time [62].
One of the important and unanswered questions regarding the use of ultrasound to guide nerve blocks is whether
this technique will actually result in a lower incidence or
severity of neurologic complications compared with other
currently used techniques such as nerve stimulation [63].
As with any newer technique, there will be a learning
curve when introducing ultrasound into a clinician’s
practice and as such clinicians will need to be familiar
with the anatomical landmarks for their blocks and be
cognizant of the potential artifacts and pitfall errors
associated with ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
[64–67].
Conclusion
The use of regional anesthesia and analgesia may
improve perioperative patient outcomes. Although the
use of perioperative epidural anesthesia and analgesia
may improve cardiac, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal
outcomes, any benefits are limited to higher risk patient
and higher risk procedures. Use of continuous peripheral
regional analgesia may be associated with improvement
in patient rehabilitation. Although use of ultrasound may
be associated with an increase in success rate, whether
this technique may be associated with a decreased rate of
neurologic injury is uncertain. Future research should be
directed at emerging technologies [68] and the effect of
regional analgesic techniques on patient-reported outcomes [69,70].
Acknowledgement
The present study was supported by the Department of Anesthesiology
and Critical Care Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
MD, USA.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have
been highlighted as:
of special interest
of outstanding interest
Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current
World Literature section in this issue (pp. 696–697).
1
Rodgers A, Walker N, Schug S, et al. Reduction of postoperative mortality and
morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of
randomised trials. BMJ 2000; 321:1493.
2
Nishimori M, Ballantyne JC, Low JH. Epidural pain relief versus systemic
opioid based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery. Cochrane Database
Syst 2006:CD005059.
3
Liu SS, Block BM, Wu CL. Effects of perioperative central neuraxial analgesia
on outcome after coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2004; 101:153–161.
4
Werawatganon T, Charuluxanun S. Patient controlled intravenous opioid
analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal
surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD004088.
5
Choi PT, Bhandari M, Scott J, et al. Epidural analgesia for pain relief following
hip or knee replacement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003:CD003071.
6
Wu CL, Hurley RW, Anderson GF, et al. Effect of postoperative epidural
analgesia on morbidity and mortality following surgery in Medicare patients.
Reg Anesth Pain Med 2004; 29:525–533.
Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Austin PC, et al. Epidural anaesthesia and
survival after intermediate-to-high risk noncardiac surgery: a population-based
cohort study. Lancet 2008; 372:562–569.
The results suggest that perioperative epidural anesthesia–analgesia is associated with an improvement in 30-day survival and support the safety of perioperative epidural anesthesia.
7
8
Liu SS, Wu CL. Effect of postoperative analgesia on major postoperative
complications: a systematic update of the evidence. Anesth Analg 2007;
104:689–702.
9
Beattie WS, Badner NH, Choi P. Epidural analgesia reduces postoperative
myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2001; 93:853–858.
10 Luchetti M, Canella M, Zoppi M, et al. Comparison of regional anesthesia
versus combined regional and general anesthesia for elective carotid endarterectomy: a small exploratory study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:340–
345.
This study suggests that combined regional/general anesthesia provides greater
hemodynamic stability and patient comfort compared with regional anesthesia
during carotid endarterectomy.
11 Bakhtiary F, Therapidis P, Dzemali O, et al. Impact of high thoracic epidural
anesthesia on incidence of perioperative atrial fibrillation in off-pump coronary
bypass grafting: a prospective randomized study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg
2007; 134:460–464.
12 Gonca S, Kilic¸kan L, Dalc¸ik C, et al. The cardioprotective effects of thoracal
epidural anesthesia are induced by the expression of vascular endothelial
growth factor and inducible nitric oxide synthase in cardiopulmonary bypass
surgery. J Cardiovasc Surg 2007; 48:93–102.
13 Bergqvist D, Wu CL, Neal JM. Anticoagulation and neuraxial regional anesthesia: perspectives. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2003; 28:163–166.
14 Ballantyne JC, Carr DB, deFerranti S, et al. The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome: cumulative meta-analyses
of randomized, controlled trials. Anesth Analg 1998; 86:598–612.
15 Park WY, Thompson JS, Lee KK. Effect of epidural anesthesia and analgesia
on perioperative outcome: a randomized, controlled Veterans Affairs cooperative study. Ann Surg 2001; 234:560–569.
16 Rigg JR, Jamrozik K, Myles PS, et al. Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and
outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1276–1282.
17 Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ, et al. Efficacy of postoperative epidural
analgesia: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2003; 290:2455–2463.
18 Wu CL, Cohen SR, Richman JM, et al. Efficacy of postoperative patientcontrolled and continuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous
patient-controlled analgesia with opioids: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology
2005; 103:1079–1088.
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
676 Regional anaesthesia
19 Tenenbein PK, Debrouwere R, Maguire D, et al. Thoracic epidural analgesia
improves pulmonary function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Can J
Anaesth 2008; 55:344–350.
The results of this study suggest that thoracic epidural analgesia is associated with
decreased postoperative pain and atelectasis and improvement in pulmonary
function in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.
20 Behera BK, Puri GD, Ghai B. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with
fentanyl and bupivacaine provides better analgesia than intravenous morphine
patient-controlled analgesia for early thoracotomy pain. J Postgrad Med 2008;
54:86–90.
21 Po¨pping DM, Elia N, Marret E, et al. Protective effects of epidural analgesia on
pulmonary complications after abdominal and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 2008; 143:990–999.
This meta-analysis suggests that perioperative epidural analgesia may
reduce the need for prolonged ventilation or reintubation, improve lung function
and blood oxygenation, but may increase the risk of hypotension, urinary
retention, and pruritus. The data corroborate earlier meta-analyses on this
topic.
22 Joshi GP, Bonnet F, Shah R, et al. A systematic review of randomized trials
evaluating regional techniques for postthoracotomy analgesia. Anesth Analg
2008; 107:1026–1040.
This systematic review indicates that paravertebral block reduces the incidence
of pulmonary complications compared with systemic analgesia and either thoracic epidural analgesia with local anesthetics plus opioid or continuous paravertebral block with local anesthetics can be recommended. This review is
slightly different from prior reviews in that it examines the data for only one
procedure.
23 Jorgensen H, Wetterslev J, Moiniche S, et al. Epidural local anaesthetics
versus opioid-based analgesic regimens on postoperative gastrointestinal
paralysis, PONV and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst
Rev 2000:CD001893.
33 Ilfeld BM, Ball ST, Gearen PF, et al. Ambulatory continuous posterior lumbar
plexus nerve blocks after hip arthroplasty: a dual-center, randomized, triplemasked, placebo-controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2008; 109:491–501.
Compared with an overnight continuous lumbar plexus block, a 4-day ambulatory
continuous lumbar plexus block decreases the time to reach three predefined
discharge criteria by approximately 38% after hip arthroplasty. This study provides
additional evidence that continuous regional analgesia may improve rehabilitation
after orthopedic surgery.
34 Fowler SJ, Symons J, Sabato S, et al. Epidural analgesia compared with
peripheral nerve blockade after major knee surgery: a systematic review and
meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth 2008; 100:154–164.
This meta-analysis suggests that peripheral nerve blocks provide comparable
levels of analgesia to epidural analgesia for major knee surgery; however, hypotension occurred more frequently in patients who received epidurals.
35 Siddiqui ZI, Cepeda MS, Denman W, et al. Continuous lumbar plexus block
provides improved analgesia with fewer side effects compared with systemic
opioids after hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain
Med 2007; 32:393–398.
36 Richman JM, Liu SS, Courpas G, et al. Does continuous peripheral nerve
block provide superior pain control to opioids? A meta-analysis. Anesth Analg
2006; 102:248–257.
37 Ludot H, Berger J, Pichenot V, et al. Continuous peripheral nerve block for
postoperative pain control at home: a prospective feasibility study in children.
Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:52–56.
This study demonstrates that ambulatory continuous peripheral analgesia may be
used for children and decrease hospital stays (although with appropriate patient
selection and parental supervision).
38 Ilfeld BM, Mariano ER, Williams BA, et al. Hospitalization costs of total knee
arthroplasty with a continuous femoral nerve block provided only in the
hospital versus on an ambulatory basis: a retrospective, case-control, costminimization analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:46–54.
24 Marret E, Remy C, Bonnet F, et al. Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus
parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2007; 94:665–
673.
39 Bracco D, Noiseux N, Dubois MJ, et al. Epidural anesthesia improves outcome
and resource use in cardiac surgery: a single-center study of a 1293-patient
cohort. Heart Surg Forum 2007; 10:E449–E458.
25 Steinberg RB, Liu SS, Wu CL, et al. Comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl
patient-controlled epidural analgesia with morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative analgesia and recovery after open colon
surgery. J Clin Anesth 2002; 14:571–577.
40 Goldfarb Y, Ben-Eliyahu S. Surgery as a risk factor for breast cancer
recurrence and metastasis: mediating mechanisms and clinical prophylactic
approaches. Breast Dis 2007; 26:99–114.
26 Zingg U, Miskovic D, Hamel CT, et al. Influence of thoracic epidural
analgesia on postoperative pain relief and ileus after laparoscopic colorectal resection: benefit with epidural analgesia. Surg Endosc 2009; 23:
276–282.
27 Turunen P, Carpelan-Holmstro¨m M, Kairaluoma P, et al. Epidural analgesia
diminished pain but did not otherwise improve enhanced recovery after
laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc
2009; 23:31–37.
This study suggests that epidural analgesia would be useful even for lapaoscopic
procedures as this technique significantly decreases pain and opioids intake
during the first 48 h after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy.
28 Kehlet H. Postoperative ileus: an update on preventive techniques. Nat Clin
Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 5:552–558.
This article reviews techniques currently used to prevent or reduce the duration of
postoperative ileus. With current techniques, the duration of postoperative ileus
after open or laparoscopic abdominal surgery can be reduced to 24–48 h for most
patients; however, additional data on the effect of these techniques when applied
to major upper abdominal surgeries and emergency abdominal operations are
needed.
29 Muraskin SI, Conrad B, Zheng N, et al. Falls associated with lower-extremitynerve blocks: a pilot investigation of mechanisms. Reg Anesth Pain Med
2007; 32:67–72.
30 Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, et al. Effects of perioperative analgesic
technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major
knee surgery. Anesthesiology 1999; 91:8–15.
31 Ilfeld BM, Vandenborne K, Duncan PW, et al. Ambulatory continuous interscalene nerve blocks decrease the time to discharge readiness after total
shoulder arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study.
Anesthesiology 2006; 105:999–1007.
32 Ilfeld BM, Le LT, Meyer RS, et al. Ambulatory continuous femoral nerve blocks
decrease time to discharge readiness after tricompartment total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:703–713.
Compared with an overnight continuous femoral nerve block, a 4-day ambulatory continuous femoral nerve block decreased the time to reach
three important discharge criteria by approximately 53% after tricompartment
total knee arthroplasty. This study provides additional evidence that an
continuous regional analgesia may improve rehabilitation after orthopedic
surgery.
41 Lugli AK, Donatelli F, Schricker T, et al. Epidural analgesia enhances the
postoperative anabolic effect of amino acids in diabetes mellitus type 2
patients undergoing colon surgery. Anesthesiology 2008; 108:1093–1099.
42 Lattermann R, Wykes L, Eberhart L, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the
anticatabolic effect of epidural analgesia and hypocaloric glucose. Reg
Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:227–232.
43 Bagry H, de la Cuadra Fontaine JC, Asenjo JF, et al. Effect of a continuous
peripheral nerve block on the inflammatory response in knee arthroplasty. Reg
Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:17–23.
This study provides evidence that continuous peripheral analgesia with local
anesthetics may be associated with an attenuation of the postoperative inflammatory response.
44 Martin F, Martinez V, Mazoit JX, et al. Antiinflammatory effect of peripheral
nerve blocks after knee surgery: clinical and biologic evaluation. Anesthesiology 2008; 109:484–490.
The authors indicate that peripheral nerve blocks may inhibit clinical inflammation
after total knee arthroplasty.
45 Hong JY, Lim KT. Effect of preemptive epidural analgesia on cytokine
response and postoperative pain in laparoscopic radical hysterectomy for
cervical cancer. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:44–51.
46 Ahlers O, Nachtigall I, Lenze J, et al. Intraoperative thoracic epidural anaes
thesia attenuates stress-induced immunosuppression in patients undergoing
major abdominal surgery. Br J Anaesth 2008; 101:781–787.
This study provides additional evidence that an intraoperative thoracic epidural
catheter with local anesthetic may attenuate the stress response and prevent
stress-induced perioperative impairment of proinflammatory lymphocyte function.
47 Biki B, Mascha E, Moriarty DC, et al. Anesthetic technique for radical
prostatectomy surgery affects cancer recurrence: a retrospective analysis.
Anesthesiology 2008; 109:180–187.
Compared with general anesthesia–opioid analgesia, regional anesthesia–analgesia was associated with a significantly less risk of biochemical cancer
recurrence. This is one of the few clinical studies to suggest that attenuation of
perioperative immunosuppression may result in improvement of cancer survival
rates.
48 Exadaktylos AK, Buggy DJ, Moriarty DC, et al. Can anesthetic technique for
primary breast cancer surgery affect recurrence or metastasis? Anesthesiology 2006; 105:660–664.
49 Sorenson EJ. Neurological injuries associated with regional anesthesia. Reg
Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:442–448.
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Regional techniques and outcome Hanna et al. 677
50 Neal JM. Anatomy and pathophysiology of spinal cord injury associated with
regional anesthesia and pain medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:423–
434.
51 Lee LA, Posner KL, Cheney FW, et al. Complications associated with
eye blocks and peripheral nerve blocks: an American Society of Anesthesiologists closed claims analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:416–
422.
This closed claims analysis suggests that the performance of eye blocks by
anesthesiologists significantly increases the liability profile, primarily related to
permanent eye damage from block needle trauma. The analysis also indicates that
although most peripheral nerve block claims are associated with temporary
injuries, local anesthetic toxicity is a major cause of death or brain damage in
these claims.
52 Hogan QH. Pathophysiology of peripheral nerve injury during regional anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:435–441.
53 Brull R, McCartney CJ, Chan VW, et al. Disclosure of risks associated with
regional anesthesia: a survey of academic regional anesthesiologists. Reg
Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:7–11.
54 Brull R, Wijayatilake DS, Perlas A, et al. Practice patterns related to block
selection, nerve localization and risk disclosure: a survey of the American
Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Reg Anesth Pain Med
2008; 33:395–403.
55 Neal JM, Bernards CM, Hadzic A, et al. ASRA Practice Advisory on Neurologic
Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Reg Anesth Pain
Med 2008; 33:404–415.
This is one of the few available practice advisories on this topic and addresses the
cause, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of these complications. The
practice advisory provides recommendations in attempt in part to potentially limit
neurologic complications that may occur during the practice of regional anesthesia
and pain medicine.
56 Bernards CM, Hadzic A, Suresh S, et al. Regional anesthesia in anesthetized or heavily sedated patients. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:449–
460.
57 McCutchen T, Gerancher JC. Early intralipid therapy may have prevented
bupivacaine-associated cardiac arrest. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:178–
180.
Intralipid has become widely recognized as a treatment option for local anestheticinduced cardiac arrest. The authors suggest that early (rather than later) treatment
with Intralipid may help prevent cardiac arrest and facilitate successful resuscitation efforts.
58 Kapral S, Greher M, Huber G, et al. Ultrasonographic guidance improves the
success rate of interscalene brachial plexus blockade. Reg Anesth Pain Med
2008; 33:253–258.
This study indicates that the use of ultrasound to guide needle placement and
monitor the spread of local anesthetic may improve the success rate of interscalene brachial plexus block.
59 Macaire P, Singelyn F, Narchi P, et al. Ultrasound- or nerve stimulation-guided
wrist blocks for carpal tunnel release: a randomized prospective comparative
study. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008; 33:363–368.
This study suggests that ultrasound-guided wrist nerve blocks are as efficient as
those performed with nerve stimulation.
60 Kil HK, Cho JE, Kim WO, et al. Prepuncture ultrasound-measured distance: an
accurate reflection of epidural depth in infants and small children. Reg Anesth
Pain Med 2007; 32:102–106.
61 Willschke H, Bosenberg A, Marhofer P, et al. Epidural catheter placement in
neonates: sonoanatomy and feasibility of ultrasonographic guidance in term
and preterm neonates. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:34–40.
62 Perlas A, Brull R, Chan VW, et al. Ultrasound guidance improves the success
of sciatic nerve block at the popliteal fossa. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2008;
33:259–265.
The authors demonstrate that ultrasound guidance enhances the quality of
popliteal sciatic nerve block compared with single injection, nerve stimulatorguided block.
63 Fredrickson MJ. The sensitivity of motor response to needle nerve stimulation
during ultrasound guided interscalene catheter placement. Reg Anesth Pain
Med 2008; 33:291–296.
64 Sites BD, Spence BC, Gallagher JD, et al. Characterizing novice behavior
associated with learning ultrasound-guided peripheral regional anesthesia.
Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:107–115.
65 Sites BD, Brull R, Chan VW, et al. Artifacts and pitfall errors associated with
ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. Part I: Understanding the basic principles of ultrasound physics and machine operations. Reg Anesth Pain Med
2007; 32:412–418.
66 Sites BD, Brull R, Chan VW, et al. Artifacts and pitfall errors associated with
ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia. Part II: A pictorial approach to understanding and avoidance. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:419–433.
67 Ajar A, Hoeft M, Alsofrom GF, et al. Review of brachial plexus anatomy as seen
on diagnostic imaging: clinical correlation with computed tomography-guided
brachial plexus block. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2007; 32:79–83.
68 Viscusi ER. Patient-controlled drug delivery for acute postoperative pain
management: a review of current and emerging technologies. Reg Anesth
Pain Med 2008; 33:146–158.
The author provides an update on the benefits and drawbacks of both existing and
emerging patient-controlled analgesia modalities and provides a critical evaluation
of their use in postoperative settings.
69 Wu CL, Rowlingson AJ, Partin AW, et al. Correlation of postoperative pain to
quality of recovery in the immediate postoperative period. Reg Anesth Pain
Med 2005; 30:516–522.
70 Liu SS, Wu CL. The effect of analgesic technique on postoperative patientreported outcomes including analgesia: a systematic review. Anesth Analg
2007; 105:789–808.
Copyright © Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.