European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Anesthesia plays a crucial role in the treatment of significant abdominal operations, impacting the circumstances during the operation, the recovery after the surgery, and the overall results for the patient. Choosing between spinal, general, and combination spinal-epidural anesthesia requires evaluating the patient's health condition, the kind of operation, and the anticipated approach to managing postoperative pain. Every anesthetic method has distinct advantages and possible disadvantages. This review seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of current research and clinical trials in order to compare various strategies and give valuable insights for anesthesiologists to make educated choices in order to enhance patient care. Anesthesia administration is a crucial aspect of perioperative treatment, exerting a considerable impact on patient outcomes after extensive abdominal procedures. The choice of a suitable anesthetic approach may have an influence on maintaining stable blood pressure and heart rate during surgery, managing pain after the operation, and facilitating the entire recovery process. The main anesthetic methods used in these procedures are spinal anesthesia, general anesthesia, and combination spinal-epidural anesthesia. Anesthesiologists and surgical teams must carefully assess the distinct advantages and possible hazards associated with each of these approaches. Spinal anesthesia, a kind of regional anesthesia, is the administration of a local anesthetic into the subarachnoid space, resulting in sensory and motor paralysis below the injection site. This method is often used for procedures involving the lower abdomen, pelvis, and lower limbs because it effectively delivers substantial pain relief and muscle relaxation. Spinal anesthetic has a key benefit of preserving stable blood flow while decreasing the need for pain-relieving drugs that affect the whole body. This may help lessen the chances of experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and other side effects that affect the whole body [1]. Nevertheless, spinal anesthesia may give rise to problems such as low blood pressure, slow heart rate, and post-dural puncture headache (PDPH), which highlights the need of selecting and monitoring patients with great care [1].

General anesthesia is the predominant method used for large abdominal operations. It includes inducing a reversible state of unconsciousness using intravenous or inhaled substances. This method enables precise management of the patient's airway, breathing, and anesthetic depth, making it appropriate for extensive and intricate medical operations. General anesthesia is linked to extensive pain relief and memory loss during surgery, but it also poses concerns such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), breathing problems, and unstable blood pressure. In addition, the administration of general anesthesia usually requires larger amounts of systemic opioids to control postoperative pain, which may lead to slower recovery and a greater occurrence of adverse effects connected to opioids [2]. Combined spinal-epidural (CSE) anesthesia combines the advantages of spinal and epidural anesthesia, providing both fast-acting and long-lasting pain relief. In the field of computer science and engineering (CSE), the first step in anesthesia involves injecting medication directly into the spinal area to quickly alleviate pain. This is then followed by inserting a thin tube called an epidural catheter, which enables the continuous or intermittent delivery of local anesthetics and opioids. This method is especially beneficial for procedures that need prolonged pain relief and for individuals who might potentially see a decrease in opiate use. Research has shown that the use of CSE anesthesia may increase postoperative pain management, decrease the amount of opioids needed, and improve recovery results when compared to the use of general anesthetic alone [3]. Nevertheless, the use of CSE anesthetic requires careful and precise technique and vigilant monitoring in order to prevent potential problems such as excessive spinal block and hypotension.

Several criteria, such as patient comorbidities, surgery time, and expected postoperative discomfort, impact the selection of anesthetic strategy for large abdominal procedures. Patients who have notable cardiovascular or respiratory issues may experience advantages from the hemodynamic stability offered by regional anesthetic procedures. On the other hand, patients who are having lengthy or complex surgery may need the complete management provided by general anesthesia. Moreover, the expected degree of discomfort after surgery is crucial in deciding the most suitable kind of anesthesia. Surgeries that involve significant manipulation of tissue or longer durations usually need more effective pain management solutions. These efforts may use localized procedures to reduce the use of opioids and improve recovery [5]. Epidural anesthesia, a kind of regional anesthesia, is the administration of local anesthetics and opioids by injection into the epidural area. This approach is often used with general anesthesia for significant abdominal procedures to provide efficient postoperative pain management. Epidural anesthesia has several benefits, such as the capacity to assess the degree of pain reduction and provide long-lasting analgesia by either continuous infusion or periodic boluses. Nevertheless, the use of epidural anesthetic has inherent hazards including hypotension, urine retention, and, in exceptional instances, spinal hematoma or abscess. Hence, meticulous patient selection and monitoring are crucial in order to optimize the advantages and mitigate the potential hazards linked to this method [4].

There has been an increasing focus on multimodal analgesia strategies in recent years. These strategies include combining several anesthetic methods to enhance pain management and minimize the need of opioids. For instance, combining spinal or epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia may provide better pain relief and improve recovery results compared to using general anesthetic alone. These multimodal techniques are especially advantageous for patients at high risk and those having complex procedures, since they may reduce the adverse effects linked to large doses of opioids and enhance overall patient satisfaction [2]. The objective of this study is to provide a thorough examination of the efficacy and safety of spinal anesthesia vs combination spinal-epidural anesthesia in major abdominal procedures. Through the analysis of current research and clinical trials, our objective is to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment, emphasize the significance of personalized anesthetic planning, and provide assistance to anesthesiologists in enhancing perioperative care.

This study used a prospective randomized controlled trial methodology. A study was conducted by researchers at the department of Anaesthesiology in collaboration with radiology department, Pain and Critical Care to examine the clinical impacts of two anesthetic methods in surgical procedures. A total of 60 patients were included in the study according to precise criteria. Criteria for inclusion: Individuals between the ages of 18 and 60 who possess the willingness and capability to provide written permission. Patients classified as American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II, signifying excellent general health. Patients have complex surgical procedures in the fields of general surgery, orthopaedics, or gynaecology. Criteria for exclusion: Patients having contraindications to spinal anesthesia. Individuals afflicted with neurological illnesses. Individuals suffering from hemorrhagic conditions. Individuals suffering from unregulated hypertension or severe hypotension. Patients exhibiting emotional instability or demonstrating a lack of willingness to comply. Patients who are anticipated to have challenges with regional anesthesia, particularly spinal anesthesia. Patients classified as ASA physical status III or IV indicate the presence of significant systemic illness.

Following the acquisition of ethical permission and informed consent from participants, researchers proceeded to recruit patients who met the specified criteria. Subsequently, a total of 60 patients were randomly allocated into two groups, namely group A and group B, with 30 patients in each group. The allocation was done using a sealed envelope procedure to assure impartiality.

Methods of Anesthesia: Group A (Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia): A specialized needle, known as a Tuohy needle, was carefully placed into the epidural region in the lower back, specifically at the L2-L3 level, using a precise method. Subsequently, an epidural catheter was inserted and assessed for adequate performance. A second needle, known as a Quincke needle, was inserted to provide a spinal injection of a local anesthetic called 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine. The injection was performed at a slightly different site, namely the L3-L4 region. The patient was placed in a supine posture, and an extra dose of local anesthetic was administered via the epidural catheter to reach the appropriate degree of anesthesia. The quantity of supplementary anesthetic administered via the epidural catheter varied according on the individual requirements of the patients. For 17 patients, the dosage was 1.5 ml per unblocked section, while the other 16 patients received two doses of 0.75 ml each. Group B received spinal anesthesia, which included administering a 2.5 ml dose of 0.5% Bupivacaine local anesthetic at the L3-L4 site. Subsequently, the patient was placed in a supine posture in preparation for the surgical procedure. Medical procedure: After the administration of anesthesia, surgical procedures were carried out on all the patients. Group A patients: Combined Spinal and epidural anaesthesia and Group B is spinal anaesthesia group of patients.

Table 1: Shows a comparison of the time duration for which the sensory nerve block

The table 1 shows the comparison of the time duration for which the sensory nerve block was applied while being operated for anesthetic surgery between two groups: combined spinal and epidural surgery (Group A) and spinal anesthesia (Group B).

Table 2: Dermatome location during the anaesthesia surgery with comparison between the two groups

The table 2 displays the distribution of dermatome levels, which are areas of spinal nerves, after anesthetic surgery for both Group A and Group B. Within Group A, the dermatome level most often seen was the 'Thoracic 6 nerve area', which accounted for 50.00% of the cases. The dermatome level 'Thoracic 8 nerve area' was the most common in Group B, representing 43.33% of the cases. There are variations in the distribution of dermatome levels between the two groups. Group B has a greater proportion of instances in the 'Thoracic 8 nerve area' in comparison to Group A.

Table 3: Comparison of the total mean time duration of the application of the sensory nerve block amongst the two groups

The data indicates that there is no statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) in the average duration of sensory nerve block treatment between Group A and Group B. Given that Group A has a mean length of 2.2 hours and Group B has a mean duration of 4.2 hours, more study is necessary to see if any significant variations in application time have therapeutic relevance [table 3].

Table 4: Comparison of the mean time duration of the application of the motor block amongst the two groups

The data indicates that there is no statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05) in the average length of motor block application between Group A and Group B. The difference in length between Group A and Group B, with mean durations of 3.0 minutes and 3.8 minutes respectively, may not have clinical significance [table 4].

Table 5: Comparison of the mean time duration of the Bromage grade 3 nerve block amongst the two groups

Group A successfully administered a Bromage grade 3 nerve block with an average time of 3.8 minutes (standard deviation = 1.1). Group B successfully administered a Bromage grade 3 nerve block with an average time of 5.2 minutes (standard deviation = 1.4). Group B had a substantially prolonged duration (1.4 minutes on average) in achieving this degree of motor block in comparison to Group A [table 5].

Table 6: Comparison of the total mean time duration of the application of the motor neuron block amongst the two groups

Group A had a mean motor neuron block application time of 2.0 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3. Group B had a mean motor neuron block application time of 3.8 hours with a standard deviation of 0.9. Group B had a markedly extended period of motor block (averaging 1.8 hours) in comparison to Group A [table 6].

Table 7: Quality analysis of analgesia pain scale amongst the two groups

*p value 0.024

Outcome: Group A: A majority of patients, namely 60%, reported their pain alleviation as "Excellent."30% of respondents gave it a rating of "Good." 10% of respondents evaluated it as "Adequate." No one rated it as "Poor." Group B: A significant proportion of patients, namely 40%, said that their pain alleviation was of exceptional quality. 43.3% of respondents evaluated it as "Good." 6.7% of respondents considered it to be "satisfactory." 10% of respondents evaluated it as "Poor." [table 7].

Thoracic spinal anesthesia, while not commonly used, has been shown to be both safe and effective for certain upper abdominal surgeries. A study by Ponnusamy and Patel et al. (2023) described 14 cases where thoracic spinal anesthesia was successfully used in laparoscopic and other upper abdominal surgeries. The procedure maintained hemodynamic stability and reduced side effects typically associated with anesthesia [1].

Epidural anesthesia remains a common choice for abdominal surgeries but is associated with certain risks that can sometimes outweigh its benefits. Smolin and Khrapov (2022) highlighted that while epidural anesthesia can offer excellent pain control, it requires careful management to minimize adverse events [4].

The research is consistent with previous studies that have reported conversions owing to pain during epidural anesthesia [11,13]. This research examines the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) in the context of open cholecystectomy, a surgical procedure performed to extract the gallbladder. Historically, spinal anesthesia has been administered in the lower back region to prevent any potential harm to the nerves [12]. This research investigates a more recent approach that focuses on a higher level (T10) for laparoscopic cholecystectomy [13]. In order to avoid any potential consequences, spinal anesthetic injections are usually administered specifically to the mid-to-lower lumbar spine. This technique circumvents the spinal cord and guarantees the targeted delivery of drugs to certain regions, particularly the lower abdomen and legs [14]. Enhanced surgical comfort: Implementing modifications such as the use of nitrous gas and reducing the pressure inside the abdominal cavity may help to alleviate the discomfort and neck/shoulder pain often associated with SA. This research discovered a relatively low occurrence rate (23.88%) of these problems while using ketamine injection for anxiety control. Nevertheless, several constraints of sentiment analysis are recognized. Hypotension, characterized by a decrease in blood pressure, was seen in 20% of patients. This finding aligns with previous studies on the use of SA for laparoscopic and open surgery [15-17].

The research findings indicate that the use of combined spinal and epidural anesthesia (Group A) offers notable benefits compared to spinal anesthesia (Group B). These advantages include shorter durations for sensory nerve block, motor block, and Bromage grade 3 nerve block treatments. In addition, Group A exhibited better analgesia quality, as a greater proportion of subjects evaluated their pain reduction as good. These results indicate that using a combination strategy not only increases the effectiveness of the anesthetic procedure but also enhances patient comfort and improves outcomes, making it a better option for anesthetic surgery.

1. Ponnusamy K, Patel J, Patel A. Thoracic spinal anaesthesia in upper abdominal surgeries. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2023.
2. Stefano Catarci, Bruno Antonio Zanfini, Capone E, Vassalli F, Frassanito L, Biancone M, et al. Blended (Combined Spinal and General) vs. General Anesthesia for Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Retrospective Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023 Jul 19;12(14):4775–5.
3. Choudhary C, Singh PK, Jana D. A comparative evaluation between combined spinal epidural block and epidural block for lower abdominal surgeries. Int J Sci Res. 2021.
4. Smolin NS, Khrapov KN. Epidural Anesthesia in Abdominal Surgery. Vestn Anesthesiol Reanimatol. 2022.
5. Dhillon SK, Scott MJ. Spinal Analgesia as an Adjunct to General Anaesthesia for Laparoscopic Major Abdominal Surgery. In: Book Chapter. 2018.
6. Alkhamesi NA, Peck DH, Lomax D, Darzi AW. Intraperitoneal aerosolization of bupivacaine reduces postoperative pain in laparoscopic surgery: a randomized prospective controlled double-blinded clinical trial. Surg Endosc. 2007;21(4):602-606.
7. Papadima A, Lagoudianakis EE, Antonakis PT, Pattas M, Kremastinou F, Katergiannakis V, et al. Parecoxib vs. lornoxicam in the treatment of postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24(2):154-158.
8. Tzovaras G, Fafoulakis F, Pratsas K, Georgopoulou S, Stamatiou G, Hatzitheofilou C. Spinal vs general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: interim analysis of a controlled randomized trial. Arch Surg. 2008;143(5):497-501.
9. Mehta PJ, Chavda HR, Wadhwana AP, Porecha MM. Comparative analysis of spinal versus general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A controlled, prospective, randomized trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2010;4(2):91.
10. Ellakany M. Comparative study between general and thoracic spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Egypt J Anaesth. 2013;29(4):375-381.
11. Pursnani KG, Bazza Y, Calleja M, Mughal MM. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under epidural anesthesia in patients with chronic respiratory disease. Surg Endosc. 1998;12:1082-1084.
12. Hamad MA, Ibrahim El-Khattary OA. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia with nitrous oxide pneumoperitoneum: a feasibility study. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2003; 17:1426-1428.
13. Chiu AW, Huang WJ, Chen KK, Chang LS. Laparoscopic ligation of bilateral spermatic varices under epidural anesthesia. Urol Int. 1996; 57(2):80-4.
14. Olawin AM, Das J. Spinal Anesthesia. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019 Jan.
15. Van Zundert AAJ, Stultiens G, Jakimowicz JJ, Van den Borne B, Van der Ham WGJM, Wildsmith JAW. Segmental spinal anaesthesia for cholecystectomy in a patient with severe lung disease. Br J Anaesth. 2006;96(4):464-6.
16. Throngnumchai R, Sanghirun D, Traluzxamee K, Chuntarakup P. Complication of spinal anesthesia at Lerdsin Hospital. Thai J Anesth. 1999;25:24-7.
17. Hyderally H. Complications of spinal anesthesia. Mt Sinai J Med. 2002;69(1-2):55-6.