Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research

R. L. Johnson, S. L. Kopp, C. M. Burkle, C. M. Duncan, A. K. Jacob, P. J. Erwin, Mohammad H Murad, Carlos Bernardo Mantilla, J. G. Hardman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: This systematic review evaluated the evidence comparing patient-important outcomes in spinal or epidural vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Methods: MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until March 2015 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials or prospective comparative studies investigating mortality, major morbidity, and patient-experience outcomes directly comparing neuraxial (spinal or epidural) with general anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or both were included. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We included 29 studies involving 10 488 patients. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia significantly reduced length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.40 days; 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.03; P=0.03; I2 73%; 12 studies). No statistically significant differences were found between neuraxial and general anaesthesia for mortality, surgical duration, surgical site or chest infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or thromboembolic disease when antithrombotic prophylaxis was used. Subgroup analyses failed to find statistically significant interactions (P>0.05) based on risk of bias, type of surgery, or type of neuraxial anaesthesia. Conclusions: Neuraxial anaesthesia for total hip or total knee arthroplasty, or both appears equally effective without increased morbidity when compared with general anaesthesia. There is limited quantitative evidence to suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Future investigations should compare intermediate and long-term outcome differences to better inform anaesthesiologists, surgeons, and patients on importance of anaesthetic selection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-176
Number of pages14
JournalBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume116
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

Comparative Effectiveness Research
Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
General Anesthesia
Hip
Anesthesia
Morbidity
Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Mortality
MEDLINE
Paralysis
Arthroplasty
Anesthetics
Meta-Analysis
Length of Stay
Thorax
Randomized Controlled Trials
Prospective Studies
Confidence Intervals
Infection

Keywords

  • anaesthesia, general
  • anaesthesia, spinal
  • pain, postoperative
  • postoperative complications

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Johnson, R. L., Kopp, S. L., Burkle, C. M., Duncan, C. M., Jacob, A. K., Erwin, P. J., ... Hardman, J. G. (2016). Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 116(2), 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev455

Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty : A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research. / Johnson, R. L.; Kopp, S. L.; Burkle, C. M.; Duncan, C. M.; Jacob, A. K.; Erwin, P. J.; Murad, Mohammad H; Mantilla, Carlos Bernardo; Hardman, J. G.

In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 116, No. 2, 01.02.2016, p. 163-176.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Johnson, R. L. ; Kopp, S. L. ; Burkle, C. M. ; Duncan, C. M. ; Jacob, A. K. ; Erwin, P. J. ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Mantilla, Carlos Bernardo ; Hardman, J. G. / Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty : A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research. In: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016 ; Vol. 116, No. 2. pp. 163-176.
@article{a9578f617c5b4e5085cee5be9b9b844a,
title = "Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research",
abstract = "Background: This systematic review evaluated the evidence comparing patient-important outcomes in spinal or epidural vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Methods: MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until March 2015 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials or prospective comparative studies investigating mortality, major morbidity, and patient-experience outcomes directly comparing neuraxial (spinal or epidural) with general anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or both were included. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We included 29 studies involving 10 488 patients. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia significantly reduced length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.40 days; 95{\%} confidence interval -0.76 to -0.03; P=0.03; I2 73{\%}; 12 studies). No statistically significant differences were found between neuraxial and general anaesthesia for mortality, surgical duration, surgical site or chest infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or thromboembolic disease when antithrombotic prophylaxis was used. Subgroup analyses failed to find statistically significant interactions (P>0.05) based on risk of bias, type of surgery, or type of neuraxial anaesthesia. Conclusions: Neuraxial anaesthesia for total hip or total knee arthroplasty, or both appears equally effective without increased morbidity when compared with general anaesthesia. There is limited quantitative evidence to suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Future investigations should compare intermediate and long-term outcome differences to better inform anaesthesiologists, surgeons, and patients on importance of anaesthetic selection.",
keywords = "anaesthesia, general, anaesthesia, spinal, pain, postoperative, postoperative complications",
author = "Johnson, {R. L.} and Kopp, {S. L.} and Burkle, {C. M.} and Duncan, {C. M.} and Jacob, {A. K.} and Erwin, {P. J.} and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Mantilla, {Carlos Bernardo} and Hardman, {J. G.}",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bja/aev455",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "116",
pages = "163--176",
journal = "British Journal of Anaesthesia",
issn = "0007-0912",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neuraxial vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty

T2 - A systematic review of comparative-effectiveness research

AU - Johnson, R. L.

AU - Kopp, S. L.

AU - Burkle, C. M.

AU - Duncan, C. M.

AU - Jacob, A. K.

AU - Erwin, P. J.

AU - Murad, Mohammad H

AU - Mantilla, Carlos Bernardo

AU - Hardman, J. G.

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - Background: This systematic review evaluated the evidence comparing patient-important outcomes in spinal or epidural vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Methods: MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until March 2015 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials or prospective comparative studies investigating mortality, major morbidity, and patient-experience outcomes directly comparing neuraxial (spinal or epidural) with general anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or both were included. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We included 29 studies involving 10 488 patients. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia significantly reduced length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.40 days; 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.03; P=0.03; I2 73%; 12 studies). No statistically significant differences were found between neuraxial and general anaesthesia for mortality, surgical duration, surgical site or chest infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or thromboembolic disease when antithrombotic prophylaxis was used. Subgroup analyses failed to find statistically significant interactions (P>0.05) based on risk of bias, type of surgery, or type of neuraxial anaesthesia. Conclusions: Neuraxial anaesthesia for total hip or total knee arthroplasty, or both appears equally effective without increased morbidity when compared with general anaesthesia. There is limited quantitative evidence to suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Future investigations should compare intermediate and long-term outcome differences to better inform anaesthesiologists, surgeons, and patients on importance of anaesthetic selection.

AB - Background: This systematic review evaluated the evidence comparing patient-important outcomes in spinal or epidural vs general anaesthesia for total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Methods: MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until March 2015 were searched. Eligible randomized controlled trials or prospective comparative studies investigating mortality, major morbidity, and patient-experience outcomes directly comparing neuraxial (spinal or epidural) with general anaesthesia for total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, or both were included. Independent reviewers working in duplicate extracted study characteristics, validity, and outcomes data. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We included 29 studies involving 10 488 patients. Compared with general anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia significantly reduced length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.40 days; 95% confidence interval -0.76 to -0.03; P=0.03; I2 73%; 12 studies). No statistically significant differences were found between neuraxial and general anaesthesia for mortality, surgical duration, surgical site or chest infections, nerve palsies, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or thromboembolic disease when antithrombotic prophylaxis was used. Subgroup analyses failed to find statistically significant interactions (P>0.05) based on risk of bias, type of surgery, or type of neuraxial anaesthesia. Conclusions: Neuraxial anaesthesia for total hip or total knee arthroplasty, or both appears equally effective without increased morbidity when compared with general anaesthesia. There is limited quantitative evidence to suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia is associated with improved perioperative outcomes. Future investigations should compare intermediate and long-term outcome differences to better inform anaesthesiologists, surgeons, and patients on importance of anaesthetic selection.

KW - anaesthesia, general

KW - anaesthesia, spinal

KW - pain, postoperative

KW - postoperative complications

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84961886758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84961886758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/bja/aev455

DO - 10.1093/bja/aev455

M3 - Article

C2 - 26787787

AN - SCOPUS:84961886758

VL - 116

SP - 163

EP - 176

JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia

JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia

SN - 0007-0912

IS - 2

ER -