Regional or general anesthesia for fast-track hip and knee replacement - what is the evidence?

Abstract

Regional anesthesia for knee and hip arthroplasty may have favorable outcome effects compared with general anesthesia by effectively blocking afferent input, providing initial postoperative analgesia, reducing endocrine metabolic responses, and providing sympathetic blockade with reduced bleeding and less risk of thromboembolic complications but with undesirable effects on lower limb motor and urinary bladder function. Old randomized studies supported the use of regional anesthesia with fewer postoperative pulmonary and thromboembolic complications, and this has been supported by recent large non-randomized epidemiological database cohort studies. In contrast, the data from newer randomized trials are conflicting, and recent studies using modern general anesthetic techniques may potentially support the use of general versus spinal anesthesia. In summary, the lack of properly designed large randomized controlled trials comparing modern general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia for knee and hip arthroplasty prevents final recommendations and calls for prospective detailed studies in this clinically important field.