↓ Skip to main content

Hypotensive Epidural Anesthesia Reduces Blood Loss in Pelvic and Sacral Bone Tumor Resections

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Hypotensive Epidural Anesthesia Reduces Blood Loss in Pelvic and Sacral Bone Tumor Resections
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4858-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex K. Freeman, Chris J. Thorne, C. Louie Gaston, Richard Shellard, Tom Neal, Michael C. Parry, Robert J. Grimer, Lee Jeys

Abstract

Resection of pelvic and sacral tumors can cause severe blood loss, complications, and even postoperative death. Hypotensive epidural anesthesia has been used to mitigate blood loss after elective arthroplasty, but to our knowledge, it has not been studied as an approach that might make resection of pelvic and sacral tumors safer. The purposes of this study were (1) to compare the blood loss and blood product use for patients undergoing pelvic and sacral tumor surgery under standard anesthesia or hypotensive epidural anesthesia; (2) to assess the frequency of end-organ damage with the two techniques; and (3) to compare 90-day mortality between the two techniques. Between 2000 and 2014, 285 major pelvic and sacral resections were performed at one center. A total of 174 (61%) had complete data sets for analysis of blood loss, transfusion use, complications, and mortality at 90 days. Of those, 102 (59%) underwent hypotensive epidural anesthesia, whereas the remainder received standard anesthetic care. The anesthetic approach was determined by the anesthetists in charge of the case with hypotensive epidural anesthesia exclusively performed by one of two subspecialty trained anesthetists as their routine for major pelvic or sacral surgery. The groups were comparable in terms of potential confounding variables such as age, gender, tumor volume, and operation performed. Hypotensive epidural anesthesia was defined as a technique using an extensive epidural block up to T2-3 dermatome, peripherally administered low-concentration intravenous adrenaline infusion, and using unimpeded spontaneous respiration to achieve controlled hypotension, precise rate control of the heart, and enhanced velocity of venous return, all aggregated thus to minimize blood loss during pelvic surgery while preserving vital perfusion. The groups were assessed for perioperative blood loss calculated from pre- and postsurgery hemoglobin and transfusion use as well as postoperative complications, morbidity, and mortality at 90 days. There was less mean blood loss in the hypotensive epidural anesthesia group (1457 mL, SD 1721, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1114-1801 versus 2421 mL, SD 2297, 95% CI, 1877-2965; p = 0.003). Patients in the hypotensive epidural anesthesia group on average received fewer packed red cell transfusions (2.7 units, SD 2.9, 95% CI, 2.1-3.2 versus 3.9 units, SD 4.4, 95% CI, 2.9-5.0; p = 0.03). There were no differences in the proportions of patients experiencing end-organ injury (7%, n = seven of 102 versus 6%, n = four of 72; p = 0.72). With the numbers available, there was no difference in 90-day mortality rate between groups (1.9%, n = two of 102 versus 1.3%, n = one of 72; p = 0.77). We found that hypotensive epidural anesthesia resulted in less blood loss, fewer transfusions, and no apparent increase in serious complications in pelvic and sacral tumor surgery performed in the setting of a high-volume tertiary sarcoma referral hospital. We recommend that further collaborative studies be undertaken to confirm our results with hypotensive epidural anesthesia in surgery for pelvic tumors. Level III, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2016.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,962
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,023
of 326,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#80
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.