You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
International Journal of Translational Medicine
Download PDF
  • Review
  • Open Access

17 November 2025

Abdominal Surgery Performed in Awake Patients Under Neuraxial Anesthesia: A Systematic Review Across Surgical Specialties

,
,
,
,
,
,
and
1
Division of General Surgery, Vizzolo Predabissi Hospital, ASST Melegnano e Martesana, Via Pandina 1, Vizzolo Predabissi, 20077 Milan, Italy
2
Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milan, Italy
3
Division of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Vizzolo Predabissi Hospital, ASST Melegnano e Martesana, Via Pandina 1, Vizzolo Predabissi, 20077 Milan, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Transl. Med.2025, 5(4), 53;https://doi.org/10.3390/ijtm5040053 
(registering DOI)
Version Notes
Order Reprints
Review Reports

Abstract

Background: Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) is increasingly utilized across various surgical specialties, particularly for abdominal procedures, making it a potential alternative to general anesthesia (GA). Methods: This narrative review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews to report on the application of NA worldwide and across various surgical fields. Results: The findings indicate that while NA is gaining popularity, its adoption varies significantly by procedure type and specialty. Evidence supporting its use in major abdominal surgeries remains limited, with most studies focusing on pelvic and minor procedures. The emerging concept of awake surgery under NA shows promising potential, as preliminary data suggest benefits in reducing perioperative morbidity and enhancing recovery. Despite these advancements, gaps in the literature highlight the need for further high-quality trials to establish NA as a safe and routine alternative to GA. Conclusions: NA is increasingly explored across different surgical specialties as a feasible and effective option for abdominal procedures. However, despite this growing interest, solid evidence supporting its use in major abdominal surgery remains limited.

1. Introduction

The origin of neuraxial anesthesia (NA) sinks its roots to the end of 19th century [], when J. Leonard Corning (1855–1923) injected two doses of about 2 mL of 3% cocaine into the T11–T12 interspinous space, demonstrating a progressing pinprick sensation impairment in the legs, genitalia, and lumbar region which advanced over twenty minutes. The effects completely and spontaneously reverted with no sensory alterations. Although Corning appreciated the clinical value of spinal anesthesia, both in animal and human subjects, he never applied it in a surgical procedure and published his results in 1885 [].
This anesthesiologic practice quickly advanced with the refinement of techniques and tools, such as the development of the epidural block and continuous anesthesia methods. Over the decades, innovations like multi-lumen needles and combined techniques have further enhanced safety and effectiveness, making NA a cornerstone of modern anesthetic practice. This progress has revolutionized pain management and surgical procedures, offering patients safer and more effective options for anesthesia. Neuraxial anesthesia has evolved into a versatile alternative to general anesthesia (GA) across various surgical contexts. While GA has traditionally been the standard for major surgeries due to its ability to ensure unconsciousness and airway control [], advances in neuraxial techniques have broadened options for both open and laparoscopic procedures []. NA is particularly beneficial for elderly and frail patients [] who may not tolerate the systemic stress of GA, while undergoing surgeries for conditions such as hernias, colorectal diseases, urologic and gynecologic problems, many of which are now treated laparoscopically. NA has the potential to minimize risks such as delirium, ileus, and ventilation-related complications, supporting quicker and safer recoveries []. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the value of NA, as it avoids aerosol-generating procedures like intubation [], thereby reducing the risk of viral transmission to healthcare workers. During this time, many hospitals adopted NA for eligible patients, especially those with or suspected of having COVID-19 []. This approach ensured timely surgical care while reducing ICU admissions and the need for mechanical ventilation, alleviating strain on healthcare systems []. Consequently, NA has gained recognition as a safe and efficient anesthetic choice in diverse clinical scenarios. The potential of NA in abdominal procedures remains largely unexplored. Its current applications are sporadic, and a comprehensive review is lacking.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Objectives

The primary outcome was to provide a narrative overview of the state-of-the-art regarding the application of NA in abdominal surgical procedures.

2.2. Protocol and Registration

Methods of the analysis and inclusion criteria were not specified in advance nor documented in a protocol. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines []. The present systematic review is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io; registration number: DZP6B).

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

Published, peer-reviewed papers including case reports and original studies regarding the application of NA in abdominal surgical procedures were considered eligible to be included in the study. Animal studies, abstracts only or unpublished data, were excluded. Any language except English was excluded from the analysis, to facilitate reproducibility from other researchers. Studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses were screened and included in the bibliography, if not already present.

2.4. Information Sources

A MEDLINE bibliographical search was performed up to 31 August 2024. No backward date restrictions were applied to the research. References of the papers deemed eligible to be included in the review were manually assessed to detect any important missing study.

2.5. Search

We applied the following research queries with Boolean operators:
-
awake AND surgery NOT neurosur*
-
neuraxial AND minimally AND invasive
-
neuraxial AND surgery NOT neurosur*
-
neuraxial AND colect*neuraxial AND abdom*
-
(non-intubated) AND surgery NOT neurosurg*
-
neuraxial AND laparosc*
-
thoracic spinal-epidural anesthesia
-
spinal AND abdom* AND surgery
-
((laparosc*) AND (conscious)) AND (sedation)

2.6. Study Selection

Two independent authors (J.C. and C.F.) screened the titles and abstract of all retrieved articles searching for potentially eligible studies. In case of uncertainty during title screening, papers were initially included, and the full-length abstracts and texts were later inspected to assess their appropriateness. Studies were considered eligible if the following criteria were met: (1) at least one major or minor abdominal procedure under pure NA, (2) abdominal wall reconstruction surgeries entering the peritoneal cavity and (3) both open and laparoscopic approaches.
Exclusion criteria included the following: (1) non-abdominal procedures (e.g., thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery), (2) pediatric population, and (3) obstetric or transvaginal gynecological procedures, (3) cesarean delivery, (4) neuraxial techniques used for sole analgesia (alone or in adjunct to GA), and (5) animal studies. In the case of duplicate publications, only the most recent or most informative studies were included in the analysis. Once retrieved the final list of studies to be included, results were compared, and disagreements regarding their inclusion or not were resolved by consensus with a third reviewer (C.M.).

2.7. Data Extraction

This systematic review was performed using Rayyan© (https://www.rayyan.ai). After reviewing the full texts of eligible studies, two authors (J.C. and C.F.) independently performed the data extraction through a data-extraction sheet and cross-checked all the results. Extracted variables included general study characteristics (e.g., title, first author, year of publication, country of origin, study design and study population), clinical data (e.g., surgical specialty, surgical approach, surgical procedure, type of anesthesia with its related number of subjects), outcomes and conclusions. No variables were added after the beginning of the review.

3. Results

The diagram of the selection process is shown in Figure 1, while the characteristics of the eligible studies and main outcomes are summarized in Table S1.
Figure 1. Study flow chart.
The systematic search identified 14,848 studies. Among them, 614 duplicated results were excluded, and 13,971 studies were excluded by title screening, eventually leaving 263 studies for abstract and full-text review. Of these, 165 studies were excluded because they were systematic narrative/technical review or metanalyses (n = 33); studies including non-trans-abdominal procedures (n = 19) or non-abdominal procedures (e.g., thoracic, orthopedic, neurosurgical) (n = 19); studies including NA as adjunct to GA (n = 16); studies including a pediatric population (n = 9); letters to the editor, commentaries, surveys, economic appraisals or historical papers (n = 16); abstracts only (n = 7); studies assessing truncal blocks or local anesthesia (n = 23), unknown surgical procedures (n = 10), or a trial protocol (n = 1); studies in a language other than English (n = 1); or studies not reporting surgical data (n = 8), or for other reasons (n = 3). Twenty-one studies were included at this time after inspection of the citations of the systematic reviews. Eventually, 119 publications were included in the review.
Abdominal surgery performed with NA has been reported worldwide. A total of 31 countries have contributed to the literature, with 3 publications being multinational. The top 3 contributors were Italy (n = 25), India (n = 20), and the U.S.A. (n = 16). Figure 2 graphically represents the number of contributing manuscripts per country.
Figure 2. Publications number per nation worldwide.
The oldest contribution to the literature is the manuscript by Stanley L.L. et al. [], published in 1919. However, there has been a clear increase in publications in recent years, particularly over the last decade. The peak year for publications on abdominal surgery performed with NA was 2023, with 11 publications. Figure 3 visually illustrates the rising trend in publications over time.
Figure 3. Publications trend over the years.
Despite the increasing number of published manuscripts, the majority remain low-evidence studies, predominantly case reports and case series, which account for 62% of total publications. The second most common study type is randomized controlled trials (RCTs), representing 22% of the publications. Figure 4 presents the distribution of study types and their frequency.
Figure 4. Study types and frequency.

4. Discussion

Our systematic review highlights the extensive and increasing use of NA reported in the literature. NA is utilized across multiple specialties and countries worldwide. Abdominal procedures in the pelvis are the most commonly performed with NA possibly due to their favorable anatomical location and involvement of lower spinal segments. A significant number of cholecystectomies are also conducted using this technique, particularly in highly populated countries. While the routine application of NA in major abdominal procedures remains limited, emerging evidence suggests its potential utility in vascular and general surgery. Key outcomes investigated include pain control, length of hospital stay, feasibility, and overall effectiveness. From our study, NA may offer effective pain relief without significant respiratory or cardiovascular impairment, even in patients with comorbidities. NA may minimize the need for sedatives, opioids, and airway management, reducing the potential for adverse effects.
Older patients are at greater risk of perioperative complications due to the natural decline in physiological function and reduced functional reserve. This decline diminishes the body’s ability to cope with acute stress, posing significant challenges for surgical and anesthetic management in the elderly []. However, today the paradigm is shifting, and age alone is no longer regarded as a reliable predictor of perioperative risk. A new concept is emerging, where frailty—a state of diminished physiological reserve beyond normal aging—has become a key predictor of poor surgical outcomes []. In surgical populations, frailty rates range from 10.4% to 37% in general surgery patients [], and 19% to 62% in patients undergoing vascular, cardiac, thoracic, and orthopedic surgeries []. Great concern arises from the potential consequences of GA in elderly patients, and new techniques such as NA are emerging as possible alternatives.
A potential advantage of NA for frail patients is the need of minimal sedation during surgery, which could theoretically reduce the risk of POCD []. In older adults, anesthesia can increase the risk of persistent postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) []. POCD occurs in more than one third of cardiac surgeries and up to 26% of non-cardiac surgeries; this not only increases mortality and prolongs hospital stays but also diminishes quality of life and raises healthcare costs []. A key challenge remains whether pharmacological interventions can effectively reduce the impact of perioperative brain damage.
Despite mixed findings in the literature, regional anesthesia is suggested for frail patients as it has also been linked to reduced risks of thrombolytic events, blood loss, and deep vein thrombosis []. Additionally, regional anesthesia provides better postoperative pain control, improving patients’ comfort and reducing the likelihood of adverse cardiac events []. For these reasons, alternative techniques to GA are being proposed for operations that have historically required the use of patient intubation.
GA is typically used during radical prostatectomy, but recent studies suggest that NA, including epidural or spinal blocks, can be a safe and effective alternative in urological surgeries [,,,,,,,,,]. Research by Karl et al. [] showed that NA could reduce both morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing open radical cystectomy. Additionally, studies by Salonia et al. [] demonstrated that open radical prostatectomy performed under NA resulted in reduced blood loss, less postoperative pain, and quicker recovery. Another case series by Bhosale et al. [] suggests that NA may be practical and beneficial in renal transplant surgery.
Similarly to urologic surgery, GA is the standard anesthesiologic approach used for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, but it can exacerbate existing pulmonary issues in obese patients, leading to postoperative complications, and, in turn, to increased mortality []. In contrast, NA is emerging as a promising alternative, preventing the typical drawbacks of mechanical ventilation. While little research has focused on regional anesthesia in bariatric surgery, a few case series and retrospective studies suggest it is effective and well-received by patients, surgeons, and anesthetists alike []. In the positive experience of Soltan et al. [] on about 100 cases, regional anesthesia demonstrated significant advantages over GA, including faster recovery, reduced opioid use, and fewer complications, making it a valuable alternative for morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.
The successful use of NA in patients with cardio-pulmonary diseases [] undergoing gastrectomy for cancer has demonstrated that a tailored anesthetic approach enables curative intent surgery with minimal peri-operative risk, in patients for whom GA would have increased the risk of difficult weaning and severe postoperative complications.
Within the field of abdominal surgery, numerous studies have investigated the use of NA during cholecystectomy [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. A retrospective cohort study of 3492 patients by Sinha et al. [] affirms that laparoscopic cholecystectomy done under spinal anesthesia should be the anesthesia of choice, as it does not require any change in technique and, at the same time, offers numerous advantages in both intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, as compared to GA. A retrospective randomized study by Donmez et al. [] suggest that spinal anesthesia may be a promising approach for laparoscopic surgery with less to null occurrence of shoulder pain compared to GA, however larger prospective studies are required to validate these findings. A meta-analysis by Longo et al. [] found that NA was associated with a 25% prevalence of shoulder pain, higher rates of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia, and a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared to GA, requiring conversion in only 3.4% of cases and showing no respiratory advantages for patients with normal pulmonary function. In conclusion, a large number of studies affirm that NA for cholecystectomy either open or minimally invasive is safe and feasible and some emphasize the use of NA in patients with pre-existing comorbidities.
In the field of hepatobiliary surgery, only a few studies have reported experiences with the use of NA [,,]. A pilot retrospective study of 46 patients by Rocca et al. [] shows that NA is safe and feasible, allowing minor and major liver resections as well as pancreatic surgery including a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic) if surgery is performed in referral centers by experienced anesthesiologists and surgeons.
Some case reports lead the way to a promising use of NA in robotic surgery showing that the combination of robotic surgery and locoregional anesthesia guarantees both surgical and anesthetic minimal invasiveness for hepatic wedge resection [] and for partial nephrectomy [].
The use of NA for laparoscopic appendectomy highlights its prospective in emergency surgery including a good postoperative pain control, absence of post-operative nausea and vomiting as well as intubation-associated complications [], and shorter hospital length of stay compared to GA [,,].
Although some anesthetists and surgeons may be reluctant to use regional anesthesia for both elective and emergency ventral hernia repair, some case series show that NA may represent an excellent option in obese patients with a high respiratory risk [] or geriatric patients with severe respiratory diseases [,,,,]. A case series of 58 patients reports no difference between spinal and general anesthesia in postoperative quality of life after TAPP inguinal hernia repair [].
NA is primarily utilized in vascular surgery for limb revascularization procedures, where it offers effective regional control of pain and reduces the need for GA. This translates into reduced morbidity and possibly mortality, as suggested by randomized and non-randomized data. However, its application has also been explored in selected cases of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, particularly in patients with severe pulmonary disease who are unsuitable for GA and not eligible for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). In these cases, NA provides a valuable alternative by minimizing the respiratory complications associated with GA, making surgery possible for high-risk patients. Although evidence is limited to case reports [,,,], the technique shows promise for improving outcomes in patients who would otherwise face significant perioperative risks.
Neuraxial labor analgesia remains the gold standard for its effective and flexible pain management during childbirth, with the added benefit of conversion to cesarean delivery anesthesia when needed, reducing the need for general anesthesia and thereby lowering the associated risks in this population []. However, a literature search on NA in gynecological surgery highlights its efficacy and potential advantages across a variety of procedures, including transabdominal hysterectomy, adnexectomy, and myomectomy [,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. Techniques such as single-shot spinal, combined spinal-epidural, and epidural anesthesia have been extensively evaluated, demonstrating reliable pain control and feasible application in both open and laparoscopic surgeries. For example, Wodlin et al. [] demonstrated that spinal anesthesia reduced the need for postoperative care and improved recovery outcomes in gynecologic abdominal surgeries. Similarly, Hwang et al. [] found combined spinal-epidural to be a safe and feasible option for non-obese patients undergoing gasless laparoscopic surgery. Moreover, Wodlin et al. [] also emphasized that spinal anesthesia reduces the requirement for postoperative opioid use, highlighting its advantage in minimizing the consumption of morphine and other opioids. In their case report, Moawad et al. [] proposed that total laparoscopic hysterectomy under epidural anesthesia was feasible with bilevel positive airway pressure augmentation for respiratory support, illustrating the versatility of NA even in fragile patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. These findings collectively underscore that NA is a safe and effective alternative to GA in gynecological surgeries, offering particular benefits in terms of enhanced postoperative recovery, reduced opioid consumption, and improved pain management.
Most of the studies regarding the application of NA in colorectal surgery consist of case reports [,] or small case series [,], with only one randomized clinical trial [] standing out among them. This disparity in study designs underscores a widespread deficiency in large-scale, high-quality research within this domain [,,,,,,,]. Most procedures were conducted using the open surgical approach, with comparatively fewer utilizing laparoscopic or other minimally invasive techniques. Anesthetic strategies varied considerably among the studies, including differences in the type of anesthesia, drugs administered, and sensory targets, highlighting the absence of a standardized best practice. Additionally, the outcomes reported were often broad, poorly defined, or inconsistently documented, with some studies failing to clearly specify the metrics used to evaluate success. This lack of clarity complicates efforts to compare results across studies and limits the ability to draw reliable conclusions about the efficacy of the approaches examined. Furthermore, many studies suffered from limited statistical power due to small sample sizes and methodological shortcomings, thereby diminishing the reliability and generalizability of their findings. Collectively, these investigations exhibit a lack of systematic design, characterized by inconsistent methodologies and outcome reporting.
Despite randomization and blinding, the trial by Ellakany et al. [] included heterogeneous surgical procedures ranging from colic to gastric, as well as pancreatic resection. Their data showed shorter post-anesthesia care unit stay, better postoperative pain relief and patient satisfaction for NA rather than GA. Nevertheless, strong conclusions or evidence-based recommendations cannot be drawn, emphasizing the urgent need for rigorous and well-structured research to better evaluate these techniques. Despite these limitations, authors frequently suggested that NA may hold promise for successful application in both upper and lower-gastrointestinal surgery [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,].
Minimally invasive procedures represent an interesting field of application for NA. The conventional reliance on GA for such surgeries is primarily driven by the need for pneumoperitoneum induction—a cornerstone of minimally invasive techniques—and the associated requirement for muscle relaxation. However, there is a growing body of evidence supporting the feasibility of NA in minimally invasive surgery [,,]. Regional anesthesia in laparoscopy offers several advantages, including faster recovery, a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting, less pain, shorter hospital stays, cost savings, improved patient satisfaction, and overall safety []. NA avoids common issues like sore throat, muscle pain, and airway trauma that are generally associated with GA [].
Recent evidence highlights the protective role of regional anesthesia, particularly NA, in reducing the perioperative stress response. Epidural anesthesia has been found to attenuate the endocrine and metabolic response to surgery, lowering the levels of stress markers like catecholamines and cortisol, which are typically elevated during general anesthesia []. This reduction in surgical stress response positively impacts postoperative recovery, including faster restoration of gastrointestinal function, improved glucose tolerance, and a shorter hospital stay []. Notably, epidural anesthesia has also been shown to decrease postoperative ileus and improve pain management, which contributes to better surgical outcomes []. Overall, regional anesthesia, by mitigating the trauma-related stress response, enhances recovery and reduces postoperative complications, underscoring its importance in modern surgical care.
Negative results regarding the use of regional anesthesia were reported by the largest randomized trial comparing regional and general anesthesia for hip surgery in older adults, the REGAIN trial []. This study found no difference in the incidence of postoperative delirium between patients undergoing hip surgery under general or regional anesthesia. Its findings were later confirmed by another randomized trial that focused on similar outcomes []. Despite this evidence, the potential role of NA compared with GA remains unexplored in abdominal procedures, where patients frequently present with complex systemic conditions and surgery is typically performed under GA. Demonstrating that NA can achieve comparable outcomes in this setting could broaden therapeutic options for abdominal surgery patients and prompt a renewed evaluation of the risk-benefit profile, particularly in the aging population.
To achieve adequate anesthesia of the abdominal metameres, NA is often administered through thoracic spinal anesthesia. This technique remains debated due to safety concerns, particularly the risk of spinal cord injury and potential neurological complications []. Nevertheless, available studies and clinical experience demonstrate that it can be safely applied without risk of permanent neurological damage []. Additional concerns include excessive cephalad spread of the anesthetic, hypotension, and bradycardia, although these effects are generally transient and manageable. Respiratory compromise has also been discussed but appears minimal, as diaphragmatic function is largely preserved and exhalation remains unaffected except during forced expiration [].
Anesthesia awareness refers to the postoperative recall of sensory perception while under general anesthesia, thus equipped with breathing devices like an endotracheal tube or laryngeal mask airway [,]. This undesired event can lead to severe psychological effects, including the onset of chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) []. However, a shift to this concept is emerging []; a standardized and reproducible approach to NA allows constant interaction between all key players involved in the surgical procedure—surgeons, anesthesiologists, the care team and the patient. The latter is conscious, breathing spontaneously, and able to communicate, even during surgeries that typically require GA. This approach extends the concept of minimally invasiveness also to anesthesia, potentially extending the surgical indication also to those considered unfit (or at extremely high risk) for GA.
A number of limitations affect the present investigation. With the objective of reporting a broader range of experiences with NA, a meta-analysis focusing on a specific outcome was not performed, which limits the scientific impact of the present study. Furthermore, case reports and case series on the topic, being of low levels of evidence, may introduce bias in favor of NA. Therefore, the findings of individual studies, as well as the overall conclusions of this systematic review, should be interpreted with caution.

5. Conclusions

Neuraxial anesthesia is increasingly adopted across multiple specialties for abdominal surgical procedures performed in awake patients, offering an alternative to GA. However, evidence in the literature remains limited, particularly for major abdominal surgeries. In contrast, NA appears to have gained more acceptance for pelvic and other minor procedures. The concept of awake surgery with NA shows significant potential based on the preliminary data highlighted in this review. Further investigation in a trial setting is warranted to evaluate NA as a safe and routine alternative to GA.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijtm5040053/s1, Table S1: Studies included in the review.

Author Contributions

(I) Conception and design: C.M., J.C., D.V., B.B. and R.S.; (II) Administrative support: All authors; (III) Collection and assembly of data: C.F., S.B. and P.F.; (IV) Data analysis and interpretation: S.B., J.C., C.F., B.B. and P.F.; (V) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VI) Final approval of manuscript: All authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not required given the nature of the systematic review.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mandabach, M.G. The early history of spinal anesthesia. Int. Congr. Ser. 2002, 1242, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Corning, J.L. Spinal anaesthesia and local medication of the cord. N. Y. Med. J. 1885, 42, 483–485. [Google Scholar]
  3. Robinson, D.H.; Toledo, A.H. Historical Development of Modern Anesthesia. J. Investig. Surg. 2012, 25, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Gulur, P.; Nishimori, M.; Ballantyne, J.C. Regional anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia, morbidity and mortality. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2006, 20, 249–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tsui, B.C.H.; Wagner, A.; Finucane, B. Regional Anaesthesia in the Elderly: A Clinical Guide. Drugs Aging 2004, 21, 895–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Li, Y.-W.; Li, H.-J.; Li, H.-J.; Zhao, B.-J.; Guo, X.-Y.; Feng, Y.; Zuo, M.-Z.; Yu, Y.-P.; Kong, H.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Delirium in Older Patients after Combined Epidural–General Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Major Surgery: A Randomized Trial. Anesthesiology 2021, 135, 218–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hotta, K. Regional anesthesia in the time of COVID-19: A minireview. J. Anesth. 2021, 35, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Uppal, V.; Sondekoppam, R.V.; Landau, R.; El-Boghdadly, K.; Narouze, S.; Kalagara, H.K.P. Neuraxial anaesthesia and peripheral nerve blocks during the COVID-19 pandemic: A literature review and practice recommendations. Anaesthesia 2020, 75, 1350–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 2010, 8, 336–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stanley, L.L. Spinal anesthesia in upper abdominal surgery. Calif. State J. Med. 1919, 17, 183–184. [Google Scholar]
  11. Khan, K.T.; Hemati, K.; Donovan, A.L. Geriatric Physiology and the Frailty Syndrome. Anesthesiol. Clin. 2019, 37, 453–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hewitt, J.; Long, S.; Carter, B.; Bach, S.; McCarthy, K.; Clegg, A. The prevalence of frailty and its association with clinical outcomes in general surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2018, 47, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bilotta, F.; Gelb, A.W.; Stazi, E.; Titi, L.; Paoloni, F.P.; Rosa, G. Pharmacological perioperative brain neuroprotection: A qualitative review of randomized clinical trials. Br. J. Anaesth. 2013, 110, i113–i120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alba, S.; Fimognari, D.; Crocerossa, F.; Ascalone, L.; Pullano, C.; Chiaravalloti, F.; Chiaradia, F.; Carbonara, U.; Ferro, M.; De Cobelli, O.; et al. Neuraxial anesthesia versus general anesthesia in patients undergoing three-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results of a prospective comparative study. Asian J. Urol. 2023, 10, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tseng, K.S.; Kulkarni, S.; Humphreys, E.B.; Ballentine Carter, H.; Mostwin, J.L.; Partin, A.W.; Han, M.; Wu, C.L. Spinal Anesthesia Does Not Impact Prostate Cancer Recurrence in a Cohort of Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: An Observational Study. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2014, 39, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bajwa, S.S.; Kaur, J.; Singh, A. A comparative evaluation of epidural and general anaesthetic technique for renal surgeries: A randomised prospective study. Indian J. Anaesth. 2014, 58, 410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Friedrich-Freksa, M.; Schulz, E.; Nitzke, T.; Wenzel, O.; Popken, G. Cystectomy and urinary diversion in the treatment of bladder cancer without artificial respiration. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2012, 38, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Piana, A.; Chiaravalloti, F.; Chiaradia, F.; Greco, A.; Lauria, J.; Zappalà, G.; Cappa, M.; Pagliarulo, V.; Pullano, C.; Checcucci, E.; et al. A New Concept in Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment in Renal Cancer: The Use of Neuroaxial Anesthesia During Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy. Eur. Urol. Open Sci. 2023, 57, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sprung, J.; Scavonetto, F.; Yeoh, T.Y.; Kramer, J.M.; Karnes, R.J.; Eisenach, J.H.; Schroeder, D.R.; Weingarten, T.N. Outcomes After Radical Prostatectomy for Cancer: A Comparison Between General Anesthesia and Epidural Anesthesia with Fentanyl Analgesia A Matched Cohort Study. Anesth. Analg. 2014, 119, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Castellani, D.; Starnari, R.; Faloia, L.; Stronati, M.; Venezia, A.; Gasparri, L.; Claudini, R.; Branchi, A.; Giampieri, M.; Dellabella, M. Radical cystectomy in frail octogenarians in thoracic continuous spinal anesthesia and analgesia: A pilot study. Ther. Adv. Urol. 2018, 10, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kofler, O.; Prueckner, S.; Weninger, E.; Tomasi, R.; Karl, A.; Niedermayer, S.; Jovanovic, A.; Müller, H.H.; Stief, C.; Zwissler, B.; et al. Anesthesia for Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Comparison between Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia and Combined General Epidural Anesthesia. Prostate Cancer 2019, 2019, 4921620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ehdaie, B.; Sjoberg, D.D.; Dalecki, P.H.; Scardino, P.T.; Eastham, J.A.; Amar, D. Association of anesthesia technique for radical prostatectomy with biochemical recurrence: A retrospective cohort study. Can. J. Anesth./J. Can. Anesth. 2014, 61, 1068–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Nicholls, A.J.; Tucker, V.; Gibbs, P. Awake Renal Transplantation; A Realistic Alternative to General Anesthesia. Transplant. Proc. 2010, 42, 1677–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Karl, A.; Schneevoigt, B.; Weninger, E.; Grimm, T.; Stief, C. Feasibility of radical cystectomy in exclusive spinal and/or epidural anaesthesia. World J. Urol. 2013, 31, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Salonia, A.; Crescenti, A.; Suardi, N.; Memmo, A.; Naspro, R.; Bocciardi, A.M.; Colombo, R.; Da Pozzo, L.F.; Rigatti, P.; Montorsi, F. General versus spinal anesthesia in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: Results of a prospective, randomized study. Urology 2004, 64, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bhosale, G.; Shah, V. Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Renal Transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 2008, 40, 1122–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Soltan, W.A.; Fathy, E.; Khattab, M.; Mostafa, M.S.; Hasan, H.; Refaat, A.; Eltantawy, M.A.M.; Ziada, H.F.M.; Sarhan, M.D. Combined Thoracic Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy; One Hundred Case Experience. Obes. Surg. 2022, 32, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. El Fawal, M.H.; Mohammed, D.A.; Abou-Abbass, H.; Abbas, M.; Tamim, H.; Kanawati, S. Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy under Awake Paravertebral Blockade Versus General Anesthesia: Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes. Obes. Surg. 2021, 31, 1921–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Scimia, P.; Sciamanna, P.; D’Agostino, M.L.; Venturoni, F.; Sepolvere, G.; Starnari, R. Neuraxial anesthesia for open gastrectomy: When the benefits outweigh the risks. Minerva Anestesiol. 2024, 90, 584–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chandra, R.; Misra, G.; Datta, G. Thoracic Spinal Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: An Observational Feasibility Study. Cureus 2023, 15, e36617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Agrawala, M.; Verma, A.; Kang, L. Thoracic epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy using either bupivacaine or a mixture of bupivacaine and clonidine: A comparative clinical study. Anesth. Essays Res. 2013, 7, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Mehta, N.; Dar, M.; Sharma, S.; Mehta, K. Thoracic combined spinal epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A feasibility study. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 32, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mehta, N.; Gupta, K.; Sharma, S.; Dar, M. Thoracic combined spinal epidural anesthesia in patient of dilated cardiomyopathy undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 32, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reidwan Dar, M.; Mehta, N.; Gupta, S.; Sharma, A. Thoracic combined spinal epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a geriatric patient with ischemic heart disease and renal insufficiency. Local Reg. Anesth. 2015, 8, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Daszkiewicz, A.; Copik, M.; Misiolek, H. Thoracic combined spinal-epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in an obese patient with asthma and multiple drug allergies: A case report. Innov. Surg. Sci. 2016, 1, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gautam, B. Spinal anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A feasibility and safety study. Kathmandu Univ. Med. J. 2009, 7, 360–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Gautam, B.; Baral, B. Spinal Anaesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Parkinson’s Disease. JNMA J. Nepal Med. Assoc. 2018, 56, 701–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Kar, M.; Kar, J.; Debnath, B. Experience of laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum—Prospective study of 300 cases. Saudi J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 17, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vincenzi, P.; Stronati, M.; Garelli, P.; Gaudenzi, D.; Boccoli, G.; Starnari, R. Segmental Thoracic Spinal Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy with the “Hypobaric” Technique: A Case Series. Local Reg. Anesth. 2023, 16, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mazzone, C.; Sofia, M.; Sarvà, I.; Litrico, G.; Di Stefano, A.M.L.; La Greca, G.; Latteri, S. Awake laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A case report and review of literature. World J. Clin. Cases 2023, 11, 3002–3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aissaoui, Y.; Bahi, M.; El Khader, A.; El Barni, R.; Belhadj, A. Thoracic spinal anaesthesia for abdominal surgery in a humanitarian military field hospital: A prospective observational study. BMJ Mil. Health 2024, 170, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aljuba, Y.M.; Amro, A.M.; Alkadi, A.T.; Taamrah, H.; Hamamdh, M.G. Thoracic Segmental Spinal Anesthesia for Emergency Cholecystectomy: A Case Report. Cureus 2022, 14, e30184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saini, H.; Angral, R.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, R.; Kumar, R. Comparision of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anesthesia. Anesth. Essays Res. 2020, 14, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ross, S.B.; Christodoulou, M.; Ross, N.; Sucandy, I.; Lubrice, K.; Saravanan, S.; Rosemurgy, A. Epidural versus general anesthesia for laparo-endoscopic single-site cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Surg. Endosc. 2024, 38, 1414–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arati, S.; Ashutosh, N. Comparative analisys of spinal vs general anaesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective randomized study. Internet J. Anesthesiol. 2009, 24. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:55677029 (accessed on 30 June 2024).
  46. Bessa, S.S.; Katri, K.M.; Abdel-Salam, W.N.; El-Kayal, E.-S.A.; Tawfik, T.A. Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Day-Case Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Study. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2012, 22, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bessa, S.S.; El-Sayes, I.A.; El-Saiedi, M.K.; Abdel-Baki, N.A.; Abdel-Maksoud, M.M. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Versus General Anesthesia: A Prospective, Randomized Study. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2010, 20, 515–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ellakany, M. Comparative study between general and thoracic spinal anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2013, 29, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Imbelloni, L.E.; Fornasari, M.; Fialho, J.C.; Sant’Anna, R.; Cordeiro, J.A. General Anesthesia versus Spinal Anesthesia for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Braz. J. Anesthesiol. 2010, 60, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kalaivani, V.; Pujari, V.S.; Sreevathsa, M.R.; Hiremath, B.V.; Bevinaguddaiah, Y. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anaesthesia vs. General Anaesthesia: A Prospective Randomised Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2014, 8, NC01–NC04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mehta, P.; Chavda, H.; Wadhwana, A.; Porecha, M. Comparative analysis of spinal versus general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A controlled, prospective, randomized trial. Anesth. Essays Res. 2010, 4, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ross, S.B.; Mangar, D.; Karlnoski, R.; Camporesi, E.; Downes, K.; Luberice, K.; Haines, K.; Rosemurgy, A.S. Laparo-endoscopic single-site (LESS) cholecystectomy with epidural vs. general anesthesia. Surg. Endosc. 2013, 27, 1810–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tiwari, S.; Chauhan, A.; Chaterjee, P.; Alam, M. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal anaesthesia: A prospective, randomised study. J. Minimal Access Surg. 2013, 9, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Turkstani, A.; Ibraheim, O.A.; Khairy, G.A.; Alseif, A.; Khalil, N.; Arab; Anesth, B. Spinal versus general anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A comparative study of cost effectiveness and side effects. Anaesth. Pain Intensive Care 2019, 13, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  55. 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, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gramatica, L.; Brasesco, O.E.; Mercado Luna, A.; Martinessi, V.; Panebianco, G.; Labaque, F.; Rosin, D.; Rosenthal, R.J.; Gramatica, L. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed under regional anesthesia in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Surg. Endosc. 2002, 16, 472–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sinha, R.; Gurwara, A.K.; Gupta, S.C. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Study of 3492 Patients. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2009, 19, 323–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Donmez, T.; Erdem, V.M.; Uzman, S.; Yildirim, D.; Avaroglu, H.; Ferahman, S.; Sunamak, O. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under spinal-epidural anesthesia vs general anaesthesia: A prospective randomised study. Ann. Surg. Treat. Res. 2017, 92, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Longo, M.A.; Cavalheiro, B.T.; De Oliveira Filho, G.R. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy under neuraxial anesthesia compared with general anesthesia: Systematic review and meta-analyses. J. Clin. Anesth. 2017, 41, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Papagni, V.; Piacente, C.; Varvara, M.; Vincenti, L. Unexpected duodenopancreatectomy in an “awake” gastrectomized patient: Case report and technical notes. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2021, 81, 105781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Elzohry, A.A.M.; Hegab, A.S.; Khalifa, O.Y.A.; Elhossieny, K.M.; Abdel Hameed, F.A.Z.H. Safety and Efficacy of Ultrasound-Guided Combined Segmental Thoracic Spinal Epidural Anesthesia in Abdominal Surgeries and Laparoscopic Procedures: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study. Anesth. Pain Med. 2024, 13, e138825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Graham, R.R.; Brown, W.E. Spinal anesthesia in abdominal surgery. Ann. Surg. 1939, 110, 863–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rocca, A.; Porfidia, C.; Russo, R.; Tamburrino, A.; Avella, P.; Vaschetti, R.; Bianco, P.; Calise, F. Neuraxial anesthesia in hepato-pancreatic-bilio surgery: A first western pilot study of 46 patients. Updates Surg. 2023, 75, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Delvecchio, A.; Pavone, G.; Conticchio, M.; Piacente, C.; Varvara, M.; Ferraro, V.; Stasi, M.; Casella, A.; Filippo, R.; Tedeschi, M.; et al. Awake robotic liver surgery: A case report. World J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2023, 15, 2954–2961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Gontero, P.; Oderda, M.; Calleris, G.; Allasia, M.; Balagna, R.; Gobbi, F. Awake Da Vinci robotic partial nephrectomy: First case report ever in a situation of need. Urol. Case Rep. 2022, 42, 102008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Uzman, S.; Donmez, T.; Erdem, V.M.; Hut, A.; Yildirim, D.; Akinci, M. Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: A prospective feasibility study. Ann. Surg. Treat. Res. 2017, 92, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. El Moheb, M.; Han, K.; Breen, K.; El Hechi, M.; Jia, Z.; Mokhtari, A.; Kongkaewpaisan, N.; Kongwibulwut, M.; Rodriguez, G.; Ortega, C.; et al. General Versus Neuraxial Anesthesia for Appendectomy: A Multicenter International Study. World J. Surg. 2021, 45, 3295–3301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mane, R.; Patil, M.; Kedareshvara, K.; Sanikop, C. Combined spinal epidural anesthesia for laparoscopic appendectomy in adults: A case series. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2012, 6, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. De Cassai, A.; Bertoncello, F.; Correale, C.; Sandei, L. Spinal anesthesia is a viable option for emergent laparoscopic procedure in high-risk patients. Saudi J. Anaesth. 2020, 14, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Germanò, P.; Siboni, S.; Milito, P.; Mautone, G.; Resta, M.; Bonavina, L. Ventral hernia repair under neuraxial anesthesia. Eur. Surg. 2022, 54, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Thalji, M.; Tarayrah, R.; Ruzaygat, A.; Motawe, D.; Ibedo, F. Classic incisional hernia repair under awake thoracic combined spinal -epidural anesthesia in a geriatric patient with multiple co-morbidities. Int. J. Surg. Case Rep. 2024, 119, 109744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ali, Y.; Elmasry, M.N.; Negmi, H.; Al Ouffi, H.; Fahad, B.; Rahman, S.A. The feasibility of spinal anesthesia with sedation for laparoscopic general abdominal procedures in moderate risk patients. Middle East J. Anesthesiol. 2008, 19, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar]
  73. Janež, J.; Preskar, J.; Avguštin, M.; Štor, Z. Surgical repair of a large ventral hernia under spinal anaesthesia: A case report. Ann. Med. Surg. 2019, 40, 31–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Zhang, M.; Wang, H.; Liu, D.; Pan, X.; Wu, W.; Hu, Z.; Zhang, H. Non-intubated laparoscopic repair of giant Morgagni’s hernia for a young man. J. Thorac. Dis. 2016, 8, E698–E701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Harold, K.H.; Webster, M. Spinal Anesthesia for Emergent Abdominal Surgery in a Patient with a Tricuspid Valvectomy: A Case Report. AA Pract. 2018, 10, 185–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sarakatsianou, C.; Baloyiannis, I.; Perivoliotis, K.; Georgopoulou, S.; Tzovaras, G. Quality of life after laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: Spinal vs general anesthesia. Hernia 2021, 25, 789–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sada, F.; Kavaja, F.; Hamza, A.; Ukperaj, B.M. A 74-Year-Old Man with Severe Comorbidities and Successful Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair with Thoracic Segmental Spinal Anesthesia: A Case Report. Am. J. Case Rep. 2024, 25, e943702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Berardi, G.; Ferrero, E.; Fadde, M.; Lojacono, N.; Ferri, M.; Viazzo, A.; Gaggiano, A.; Bianchi, A.; Maggio, D.; Ganzaroli, M.; et al. Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for open abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery in vigil patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ineligible for endovascular aneurysm repair. Analysis of results and description of the technique. Int. Angiol. 2010, 29, 278–283. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  79. Flores, J.A.; Nishibe, T.; Koyama, M.; Imai, T.; Kudo, F.; Miyazaki, K.; Yasuda, K. Combined spinal and epidural anesthesia for abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery in patients with severe chronic pulmonary obstructive disease. Int. Angiol. 2002, 21, 218–221. [Google Scholar]
  80. Meecham, L.; Torrance, A.; Vijay, S.; Burtenshaw, A.; Downing, R. Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Replacement in the Awake Patient. Int. J. Angiol. 2015, 26, 064–067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Toledano, R.D.; Leffert, L. What’s New in Neuraxial Labor Analgesia. Curr. Anesthesiol. Rep. 2021, 11, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Al-Husinat, L.; Barletta, F.; Gammaldi, V.; Alsabbah, A.; Gammaldi, D. Double neuraxial catheter (Subarachnoid and epidural) in obese patient cancer surgery: A case report. Ann. Med. Surg. 2022, 81, 104446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Holyachi, R.; Patil, B.; Karigar, S.L. Anesthetic management of a patient with bicuspid aortic valve and Hashimoto’s thyroiditis posted for abdominal hysterectomy. Indian J. Med. Sci. 2012, 66, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Ghirardini, G.; Baraldi, R.; Bertellini, C.; Bertoli, C.; Bianchini, A.; Castigliani, G.P.; Pellegrino, A.; Capelli, E.; Canova, S. Advantages of spinal anesthesia in abdominal gynecologic surgery. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 1998, 25, 105–106. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  85. de Carli, D.; Meletti, J.F.A.; Camargo, R.P.S.D.; Gratacós, L.S.; Gomes, V.C.R.; Marques, N.D. Effect of anesthetic technique on the quality of anesthesia recovery for abdominal histerectomy: A cross-observational study. Braz. J. Anesthesiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2021, 71, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Gautam, B.; Tabdar, S.; Shrestha, U. Comparison of Fentanyl and Dexmedetomidine as Intrathecal Adjuvants to Spinal Anaesthesia for Abdominal Hysterectomy. J. Nepal Med. Assoc. 2018, 56, 848–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Major, A.L.; Jumaniyazov, K.; Jabbarov, R.; Razzaghi, M.; Mayboroda, I. Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgeries under Spinal Anesthesia: Benefits and Challenges. J. Pers. Med. 2024, 14, 633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Massicotte, L.; Chalaoui, K.D.; Beaulieu, D.; Roy, J.-D.; Bissonnette, F. Comparison of spinal anesthesia with general anesthesia on morphine requirement after abdominal hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2009, 53, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lal, M.; Singh, S.; Gupta, A.; Rao, B. Combined spinal and epidural anaesthesia for abdominal surgery: A new technique. Med. J. Armed Forces India 1996, 52, 166–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lin, L.; Liu, C.; Tan, H.; Ouyang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, W. Anaesthetic technique may affect prognosis for ovarian serous adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2011, 106, 814–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Giampaolino, P.; Della Corte, L.; Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; Zizolfi, B.; Manzi, A.; De Angelis, C.; Bifulco, G.; Carugno, J. Emergent Laparoscopic Removal of a Perforating Intrauterine Device During Pregnancy Under Regional Anesthesia. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019, 26, 1013–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Chauvet, P.; Storme, B.; Bonnin, M.; Legros, M.; Pinot, A.; Canis, M.; Bourdel, N. Laparoscopic adnexectomy under regional anaesthesia: It is possible! J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 49, 101803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Asgari, Z.; Rezaeinejad, M.; Hosseini, R.; Nataj, M.; Razavi, M.; Sepidarkish, M. Spinal Anesthesia and Spinal Anesthesia with Subdiaphragmatic Lidocaine in Shoulder Pain Reduction for Gynecological Laparoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Pain Res. Manag. 2017, 2017, 1721460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pusapati, R.N.; Sivashanmugam, T.; Ravishankar, M. Respiratory changes during spinal anaesthesia for gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2010, 26, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kontrimaviciute, E.; Baublys, A.; Ivaskevicius, J. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy under spinal anaesthesia: A randomized study of ondansetron prophylaxis. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2005, 22, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Borendal Wodlin, N.; Nilsson, L.; Kjølhede, P.; For the GASPI Study Group. The impact of mode of anaesthesia on postoperative recovery from fast-track abdominal hysterectomy: A randomised clinical trial: Fast-track hysterectomy and mode of anaesthesia. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011, 118, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Hwang, J.H.; Kim, B.W. Comparison of General Anesthesia and Combined Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia for Gasless Laparoscopic Surgery in Gynecology. JSLS 2022, 26, e2022.00004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Moawad, N.S.; Santamaria Flores, E.; Le-Wendling, L.; Sumner, M.T.; Enneking, F.K. Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy Under Regional Anesthesia. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018, 131, 1008–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Vailati, D.; Bonvecchio, E.; Secco, G.; Magistro, C.; Basta, B. Neuraxial Anesthesia for Combined Left Nephrectomy and Left Hemicolectomy in a One-Lung Patient. Cureus 2024, 16, e59854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Marrone, F.; Fusco, P.; Lepre, L.; Giulii Capponi, M.; Villani, A.; Paventi, S.; Tomei, M.; Starnari, R.; Pullano, C. Neuraxial Anesthesia for an Open Low Anterior Rectal Resection: Tip the Scales in Patient’s Favor. Cureus 2024, 16, e57094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Romanzi, A.; Dragani, T.A.; Adorni, A.; Colombo, M.; Farro, A.; Maspero, M.; Zamburlini, B.; Vannelli, A. Neuraxial anesthesia for abdominal surgery, beyond the pandemic: A feasibility pilot study of 70 patients in a suburban hospital. Updates Surg. 2023, 75, 1691–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kumar, C.M.; Corbett, W.A.; Wilson, R.G. Spinal anaesthesia with a micro-catheter in high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer and other major abdominal surgery. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 17, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Ellakany, M. Thoracic spinal anesthesia is safe for patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery. Anesth. Essays Res. 2014, 8, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Romanzi, A.; Boleso, N.; Di Palma, G.; La Regina, D.; Mongelli, F.; Milanesi, M.; Putortì, A.; Rossi, F.; Scolaro, R.; Zanardo, M.; et al. Awake Major Abdominal Surgeries in the COVID-19 Era. Pain Res. Manag. 2021, 2021, 8763429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Oshimizu, M.; Yamaguchi, Y.; Tsuboi, S.; Sugawara, Y.; Hayami, H.; Tobias, J.D.; Inagawa, G. Combined Spinal-Epidural Anesthesia for Subtotal Colectomy in a Patient with Hamman Syndrome and Epidural Pneumatosis: A Case Report. AA Pract. 2021, 15, e01511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Nimma, S.; Gans, A.; Wardhan, R.; Allen, W. Remimazolam Sedation and Neuraxial Anesthesia in a Patient with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Undergoing an Open Colectomy: A Case Report. AA Pract. 2023, 17, e01733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Romanzi, A.; Galletti, M.; Macchi, L.; Putortì, A.; Rossi, F.; Scolaro, R.; Vannelli, A. Awake laparotomy: Is locoregional anesthesia a functional option for major abdominal surgeries in the COVID-19 era? Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2020, 24, 5162–5166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Coe, C.; Shuttleworth, P.W.; Rangappa, D.; Abdel-Halim, M. Locoregional Anaesthesia for Laparotomy: A Literature Review and Subsequent Case Series Highlighting the Potential of an Alternative Anaesthetic Technique. Cureus 2023, 15, e45529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Romanzi, A.; Moroni, R.; Rongoni, E.; Scolaro, R.; La Regina, D.; Mongelli, F.; Putortì, A.; Rossi, F.; Zanardo, M.; Vannelli, A. The management of “fragile” and suspected COVID-19 surgical patients during pandemic: An Italian single-center experience. Minerva Chir. 2020, 75, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Koltun, W.A.; McKenna, K.J.; Rung, G. Awake epidural anesthesia is effective and safe in the high-risk colectomy patient. Dis. Colon Rectum 1994, 37, 1236–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kopacz, D.J. Continuous spinal anaesthesia for abdominal surgery in a patient receiving amiodarone. Can. J. Anaesth. 1991, 38, 341–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kao, Y.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Yeh, C.-C.; Hu, C.-J.; Cherng, Y.-G.; Chen, T.-L.; Liao, C.-C. Complications and Mortality after Surgeries in Patients with Prior Stroke Who Received General and Neuraxial Anesthesia: A Propensity-Score Matched Study. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Roth, A.F.; Harris, M.J. Combined Spinal-Epidural for Loop Ileostomy in a Patient with End-Stage Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Case Report. AA Pract. 2022, 16, e01588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Tsuji, H.; Asoh, T.; Takeuchi, Y.; Shirasaka, C. Attenuation of adrenocortical response to upper abdominal surgery with epidural blockade. J. Br. Surg. 1983, 70, 122–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Corda Teixeira, J.S.; Correia, M.J.D.; Haas, A.; Tralhão, A. Continuous spinal anaesthesia for partial gastrectomy in an adult patient with unrepaired tetralogy of Fallot. Cardiol. Young 2019, 29, 845–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Savas, J.F.; Litwack, R.; Davis, K.; Miller, T.A. Regional anesthesia as an alternative to general anesthesia for abdominal surgery in patients with severe pulmonary impairment. Am. J. Surg. 2004, 188, 603–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Spannella, F.; Giulietti, F.; Damiani, E.; Faloia, L.; Stronati, M.; Venezia, A.; Vincenzi, P.; Castellani, D.; Boccoli, G.; Dellabella, M.; et al. Thoracic continuous spinal anesthesia for high-risk comorbid older patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: One-year experience of an Italian geriatric hospital. Minerva Anestesiol 2020, 86, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Vincenzi, P.; Starnari, R.; Faloia, L.; Grifoni, R.; Bucchianeri, R.; Chiodi, L.; Venezia, A.; Stronati, M.; Giampieri, M.; Montalti, R.; et al. Continuous thoracic spinal anesthesia with local anesthetic plus midazolam and ketamine is superior to local anesthetic plus fentanyl in major abdominal surgery. Surg. Open Sci. 2020, 2, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Samuel, H.; Girma, B.; Negash, M.; Muluneh, E. Comparison of spinal versus general anesthesia on the perioperative blood glucose levels in patients undergoing lower abdominal and pelvic surgery: A prospective cohort study, Ethiopia. Ann. Med. Surg. 2023, 85, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Han, Q.; Wu, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, C. The choice of anesthesia for acute abdomen surgery patients and its influence on gastrointestinal function recovery. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021, 13, 9621–9626. [Google Scholar]
  121. Brill, J.; Stewart, D.E. Fractional spinal anesthesia for short upper abdominal surgery. Calif. Med. 1947, 66, 238–239. [Google Scholar]
  122. Tran, Q.H.D.; Kaufman, I.; Schricker, T. Spinal anesthesia for a patient with type I sialidosis undergoing abdominal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2001, 45, 919–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Stechishin, O. Nupercaine spinal anesthesia for upper abdominal surgery of long duration. Anesthesiology 1949, 10, 494–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sakamoto, M.; Kano, T.; Nakamura, M.; Higashi, K.; Sadanaga, M.; Morioka, T. Perioperative management of two patients with respiratory problems undergoing abdominal surgery with high spinal anesthesia. J. Anesth. 1993, 7, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Michaloudis, D.; Petrou, A.; Bakos, P.; Chatzimichali, A.; Kafkalaki, K.; Papaioannou, A.; Zeaki, M.; Flossos, A. Continuous spinal anaesthesia/analgesia for the perioperative management of high-risk patients. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2000, 17, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Abd Elrazek, E.; Thornton, M.; Lannigan, A. Effective awake thoracic epidural anesthetic for major abdominal surgery in two high-risk patients with severe pulmonary disease—A case report. Middle East J. Anesthesiol. 2010, 20, 891–895. [Google Scholar]
  127. Consani, G.; Amorese, G.; Boggi, U.; Comite, C.; Avagliano, E. Laparotomic sub-total gastrectomy under awake thoracic epidural anaesthesia: A successful experience. Updates Surg. 2013, 65, 255–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Karaca, O. Laparotomic gastrostomy under aweake thoracic epidural anaesthesia: A prospering experience. Agri 2018, 30, 138–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Le Roux, J.J.; Wakabayashi, K.; Jooma, Z. Emergency Awake Abdominal Surgery Under Thoracic Epidural Anaesthesia in a High-Risk Patient Within a Resource-Limited Setting. Cureus 2023, 15, e34856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Emyedu, A.; Kyoheirwe, B.; Atumanya, P. Continuous Spinal Anesthesia following Inadvertent Dural Puncture during Epidural Placement for an Emergency Laparotomy. Case Rep. Anesthesiol. 2021, 2021, 8819864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Manasra, M.R.; Heih, O.Q.; Adwan, R.F.; Maraqa, M.A. The Use of Thoracic Segmental Spinal Anaesthesia for Thoracoscopic Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair in an Adult with Cardiac Compromise. Cureus 2024, 16, e56029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Sinha, R.; Gurwara, A.K.; Gupta, S.C. Laparoscopic surgery using spinal anesthesia. JSLS 2008, 12, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
  133. Singh, R.K.; Saini, A.M.; Goel, N.; Bisht, D.; Seth, A. Major laparoscopic surgery under regional anesthesia: A prospective feasibility study. Med. J. Armed Forces India 2015, 71, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Gerges, F.J.; Kanazi, G.E.; Jabbour-Khoury, S.I. Anesthesia for laparoscopy: A review. J. Clin. Anesth. 2006, 18, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Hahnenkamp, K.; Herroeder, S.; Hollmann, M.W. Regional anaesthesia, local anaesthetics and the surgical stress response. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Anaesthesiol. 2004, 18, 509–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Jørgensen, H.; Wetterslev, J.; Møiniche, S.; Dahl, J.B. Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV and pain after abdominal surgery. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; The Cochrane Collaboration, Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Chichester, UK, 2001; p. CD001893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jørgensen, H.; Fomsgaard, J.S.; Dirks, J.; Wetterslev, J.; Andreasson, B.; Dahl, J.B. Effect of peri- and postoperative epidural anaesthesia on pain and gastrointestinal function after abdominal hysterectomy. Br. J. Anaesth. 2001, 87, 577–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Neuman, M.D.; Feng, R.; Carson, J.L.; Gaskins, L.J.; Dillane, D.; Sessler, D.I.; Sieber, F.; Magaziner, J.; Marcantonio, E.R.; Mehta, S.; et al. Spinal Anesthesia or General Anesthesia for Hip Surgery in Older Adults. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 385, 2025–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Li, T.; Li, J.; Yuan, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, C.; Daniels, J.; Mehta, R.L.; Wang, M.; Yeung, J.; Jackson, T.; et al. Effect of Regional vs General Anesthesia on Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Older Patients Undergoing Hip Fracture Surgery: The RAGA Randomized Trial. JAMA 2022, 327, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Staender, S.; Smith, A. Enhancing the quality and safety of the perioperative patient. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2017, 30, 730–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Liu, S.S.; Strodtbeck, W.M.; Richman, J.M.; Wu, C.L. A Comparison of Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Ambulatory Anesthesia: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Anesth. Analg. 2005, 101, 1634–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Le Roux, J.J.; Wakabayashi, K.; Jooma, Z. Defining the role of thoracic spinal anaesthesia in the 21st century: A narrative review. Br. J. Anaesth. 2023, 130, e56–e65, Correction in Br. J. Anaesth. 2025, 135, 520–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Sadiq, F.; Bauerle, J. Awareness Under Anesthesia. Mo. Med. 2023, 120, 459–463. [Google Scholar]
  144. Sandhu, K.; Dash, H. Awareness during anaesthesia. Indian J. Anaesth. 2009, 53, 148–157. [Google Scholar]
  145. Osterman, J.E.; Hopper, J.; Heran, W.J.; Keane, T.M.; Van Der Kolk, B.A. Awareness under anesthesia and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2001, 23, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Magistro, C.; Ferrari, C.; Vailati, D.; Basta, B.; Colasuonno, M.; Tresoldi, M.; Barbaro, S.; Crippa, J. Awareness surgery: Laparoscopic right colectomy in a heart transplant patient—A case report. J. Vis. Surg. 2024, 10, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Download PDF
Preclinical and Prodromal Frontotemporal Dementia: Challenges and Opportunities
Previous