neuraxial blockade after spinal surgery
Post on 10-Mar-2015
91 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Neuraxial Blockade in Patients with PreexistingSpinal Stenosis, Lumbar Disk Disease, or Prior SpineSurgery: Efficacy and Neurologic ComplicationsJames R. Hebl, MD,* Terese T. Horlocker, MD,* Sandra L. Kopp, MD,* and Darrell R. Schroeder, MS†
BACKGROUND: Patients with spinal canal pathology, including spinal stenosis and lumbar diskdisease, are often not considered candidates for neuraxial blockade because of the risk ofexacerbating preexisting neurologic deficits or developing new neurologic dysfunction. In contrast, ahistory of spine surgery is thought to increase the likelihood of difficult or unsuccessful block. In thisretrospective study we investigated the risk of neurologic complications and block efficacy in patientswith preexisting spinal canal pathology, with or without a history of spine surgery, after neuraxialanesthesia.METHODS: During the 15-year study period, all patients with a history of spinal stenosis or lumbarradiculopathy undergoing a neuraxial technique were studied. Patient demographics, preoperativeneurologic diagnoses and neurologic findings at the time of surgery/neuraxial block, details of theneuraxial block including technique (spinal vs. epidural, single injection vs. continuous), injectate,technical complications (paresthesia elicitation, bloody needle/catheter placement, inability to advancecatheter, accidental dural puncture), and block success were noted. New or progressive neurologic deficitswere identified. All patients were followed until resolution or last date of evaluation.RESULTS: There were 937 patients included, 207 (22%) of whom had undergone spinal surgery. Ahistory of spinal stenosis was present in 187 (20%), lumbar radiculopathy in 570 (61%), and peripheralneuropathy in 210 (22%) patients; 180 patients (19%) had multiple neurologic diagnoses. A majority ofpatients had active but stable neurologic symptoms at the time of surgery. Overall block success was97.2%. A history of spine surgery did not affect the success rate or frequency of technical complications.Ten (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5%–2.0%) patients experienced new deficits or worsening ofexisting symptoms. Three (1.4%) complications occurred in patients with a history of spinal surgery, andthe remaining 7 (1.0%) in patients without prior surgical decompression or stabilization (P � NS). Althoughan orthopedic procedure was not a risk factor, in 5 of the 6 patients in which the surgery was a unilaterallower extremity procedure, the postoperative deficit involved the operative side. Likewise, in both patientsundergoing bilateral orthopedic procedures who developed bilateral deficits, the outcome was worse onthe previously affected side. A surgical cause was presumed to be the primary etiology in 4 (40%) of 10patients. The primary etiology of the remaining 6 (60%) complications was judged to be nonsurgical(including anesthetic-related factors). The presence of a preoperative diagnosis of compressive radicu-lopathy (P � 0.0495) or multiple neurologic diagnoses (P � 0.005) increased the risk of neurologiccomplications postoperatively.CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that patients with preexisting spinal canal pathology have a higherincidence of neurologic complications after neuraxial blockade (1.1%; 95% CI 0.5%–2.0%) than thatpreviously reported for patients without such underlying pathology. However, in the absence of acontrol group of surgical patients with similar anatomic pathology undergoing general anesthesia, wecannot determine whether the higher incidence of neurologic injury is secondary to the surgicalprocedure, the anesthetic technique, the natural history of spinal pathology, or a combination offactors and the relative contributions of each. (Anesth Analg 2010;111:1511–9)
Patients with preexisting spinal canal pathology, in-cluding spinal stenosis and lumbar disk disease(with or without prior spine surgery), are often not
considered candidates for neuraxial blockade. For example,
previous case reports have specifically attributed the pres-ence of spinal stenosis or lumbar disk disease (with com-pressive radiculopathy) to an increased risk of neurologiccomplications. The mechanisms of injury are presumed tobe ischemic,1–3 mechanical trauma,4,5 local anesthetic tox-icity,6,7 or a multifactorial etiology. Large series and anincreasing number of case reports suggest that undiag-nosed spinal stenosis may be a significant contributor toneurologic complications after neuraxial block.3,5,6,8 Addi-tional surgical factors such as intraoperative positioning,prolonged tourniquet ischemia, or high tourniquet inflationpressure may contribute in a synergistic (rather than simpleadditive) manner.9–11 Furthermore, it is unclear whetherpatients who have undergone prior spine surgery (e.g.,laminectomy, diskectomy, spinal fusion) for these condi-tions are at additional risk of neurologic injury or blockfailure secondary to anatomic alterations or scarring of the
From the Departments of *Anesthesiology and †Health Sciences Research,Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
Accepted for publication July 30, 2010.
Terese T. Horlocker is section Editor of Regional Anesthesia for the Journal. Thismanuscript was handled by Gregory Crosby, section Editor of Neuroscience inAnesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine/Pediatric Neuroscience, and Dr.Horlocker was not involved in any way with the editorial process or decision.
Funding was provided by the Mayo Clinic Foundation.
Address correspondence to James R. Hebl, MD, Department of Anesthesi-ology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN55905. Address e-mail to hebl.james@mayo.edu.
Copyright © 2010 International Anesthesia Research SocietyDOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181f71234
December 2010 • Volume 111 • Number 6 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 1511
central canal. Previous investigations have included smallnumbers of patients, typically with a history of extensiveinstrumentation or fusion who underwent epidural cath-eter placement for labor analgesia.12–15 However, the ap-plicability of these results to other patient populations isunknown.
Therefore, the primary aim of this investigation was toexamine the overall success and neurologic complicationrates among patients with spinal stenosis or lumbar diskdisease, with or without a history of prior spinal surgery,undergoing neuraxial blockade.
METHODSAfter IRB approval and patient consent, the medicalrecords of all patients with a history of spinal stenosis orlumbar disk disease (i.e., compressive radiculopathy) whounderwent a subsequent spinal or epidural anestheticduring a 15-year study period were retrospectively re-viewed. Patients were identified if “spinal stenosis” or“lumbar disk disease” was entered on their Master Diag-nosis List within the Mayo Clinic database. Neurologicdiagnoses were limited to abnormalities of the spinal canaland did not include patients with primary central nervoussystems disorders such as multiple sclerosis, amyotrophiclateral sclerosis, or postpolio syndrome. All neurologicdiagnoses were confirmed by clinical examination andradiographic imaging by a neurologist or neurosurgeonbefore study inclusion. During the 15-year study period,multiple anesthesiologists (�15 faculty members) partici-pated in the care of all patients.
Demographic data including age, gender, height, andweight were collected. The date of each neurologic diagno-sis and details such as the presence of (1) motor deficits, (2)sensory deficits, (3) paresthesias or dysesthesias, or (4)hyperreflexia at the time of their spinal or epidural anes-thetic were collected for each patient. Neurologic symp-toms at the time of their procedure were further classifiedas (1) acute (exacerbation of symptoms within the last 30days), (2) subacute (exacerbation of symptoms within thelast 1 to 6 months), or (3) chronic/stable (no change insymptoms within the last 6 months).
Indications for neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia in-cluded surgical anesthesia, labor analgesia, or postopera-tive analgesia only. If a surgical indication occurred, itwas classified as (1) orthopedic, (2) urologic, (3)general/abdominal, (4) cesarean delivery, or (5) other.Neuraxial blockade was categorized as (1) epidural, (2)single-injection spinal, (3) continuous spinal, or (4) com-bined spinal– epidural. Details of each neuraxial tech-nique, including awake placement (yes or no), approach(midline, paramedian, both), number of attempts, and localanesthetic(s) used were collected. The use of epinephrine orother local anesthetic additives was also noted. Tech-nical complications occurring at the time of blockplacement—such as difficulty identifying the epiduralspace, difficulty advancing an epidural or subarachnoidcatheter, traumatic block placement (evidence of blood),unplanned dural puncture, difficulty obtaining cerebrospi-nal fluid, paresthesia elicitation, or unintended “total” or
“high” spinal—were identified. Block efficacy was catego-rized as (1) satisfactory (surgery performed without addi-tional intervention), (2) unilateral anesthesia or analgesia,(3) segmental or incomplete anesthesia or analgesia, or (4)no block/block failure.
New or progressive postoperative neurologic deficits(motor or sensory deficits, painful paresthesias, or bowel orbladder dysfunction) were identified in the daily progressnotes of the primary surgical service or the anesthesia acutepain service. Complications were also noted during thepatient’s 2-, 4-, or 6-week surgical follow-up visit. Thepresence of infectious (neuraxial abscess) or hematologic(neuraxial hematoma) complications was also documented.All complications were followed until complete resolutionor until the last documented date of evaluation.
Data are summarized using mean � sd for continuousvariables and percentages for categorical variables. Thepercentage of failed blocks and technical and neurologiccomplications was compared in patients with and withouta history of spine surgery using the �2 test or Fisher’s exacttest as appropriate. Patients with and without neurologiccomplications were compared to identify risk factors usingFisher’s exact test. P � 0.05 was considered statisticallysignificant.
RESULTSNine hundred thirty-seven (n � 937) patients were identi-fied as having spinal stenosis or lumbar disk disease andundergoing subsequent neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia;207 of these had a history of spinal surgery before under-going subsequent spinal or epidural anesthesia (Table 1).Of these, 210 (22%) patients had a coexisting peripheralneuropathy in addition to their spinal canal pathology. Atthe time of neuraxial blockade, painful paresthesias ordysesthesias were the most common neurologic deficit,followed by nonspecific sensory and motor deficits (Table1). The majority of patients (n � 335; 51%) had activeneurologic signs or symptoms (motor or sensory deficits,dysesthesias/paresthesias, or hyperreflexia) at the time ofsurgery and subsequent neuraxial blockade.
The type of neuraxial blockade included spinal anesthe-sia in 545 (58%) patients, epidural anesthesia or analgesia in358 (38%) patients, continuous spinal anesthesia in 24 (3%)patients, and a combined spinal–epidural technique in 10(1%) patients. Eighty of the patients undergoing epiduralanesthesia or analgesia noted above received postoperativeepidural analgesia with local anesthetic infusions.
One hundred ninety-three (24%) patients underwentblock placement precisely at the level of spinal canalpathology, and �75% of patients had block placementwithin 2 vertebral levels (Table 2). In addition, the majorityof patients with a history of spine surgery (n � 165; 83%)underwent subsequent neuraxial anesthesia or analgesiawithin 2 vertebral levels of their prior spinal surgery.
There was no significant difference in block efficacywhen comparing those patients with or without a historyof spinal surgery (Table 3). Nine hundred eleven (97.2%)patients had a satisfactory block, 10 (1.1%) patientsreported a patchy or segmental block, and 16 (1.7%)patients experienced complete block failure. Overall,there were 107 (11.4%) technical complications. There
Neuraxial Block and Spinal Canal Pathology
1512 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA
was no significant difference in technical complicationscomparing those patients with and without a history ofspinal surgery (Table 3).
There were 10 (1.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI]0.5%–2.0%) patients who experienced new deficits (3 pa-tients) or worsening of preexisting symptoms (7 patients)postoperatively [Table 4 (cases 1 to 4), and Table 5 (cases 5to 10)]. Three (1.4%) complications occurred in patientswith a history of spinal surgery, and the remaining 7 (1.0%)in patients without prior surgical intervention. Eight of 10patients with complications underwent an orthopedic sur-gical procedure; in 5 of the 6 cases in which the surgery wasa unilateral lower extremity procedure, the postoperativedeficit involved the operative side (cases 3, 4, and 8 to 10).Likewise, in both patients undergoing bilateral orthopedicprocedures who developed bilateral deficits, the outcomewas worse on the previously affected side (cases 2, 6). Fromexploratory analyses, the frequency of complications wasfound to be significantly higher in patients with a preop-erative diagnosis of compressive radiculopathy versusother neurologic diagnoses (9/530 vs. 1/407; Fisher exacttest P � 0.049) and also in patients with multiple versussingle preoperative neurologic diagnoses (6/180 vs. 4/757;Fisher exact test P � 0.005).
A surgical cause was presumed to be the primaryetiology in 4 (40%) of 10 patients (Table 4). Specifically,direct nerve trauma/stretch was the principal mechanismin 3 patients (cases 1, 2, 4), tourniquet ischemia in 2 patients(cases 2, 4), and ischemia from a popliteal cyst in 1 patient
(case 3). However, it is possible that neurotoxicity pro-duced by local anesthetic injection at the site of existing rootcompromise may have contributed in 3 cases (cases 2 to 4),because the postoperative deficits were a worsening ofexisting deficits. In 3 (75%) of the 4 patients, the neurologicdeficits returned to baseline (complete resolution did notoccur); in the remaining patient (25%), the symptomspersisted for 3 years (time of last patient follow-up).
The primary etiology of the remaining 6 (60%) com-plications was judged to be nonsurgical (includinganesthetic-related factors) (Table 5). Contributing factorswere identified in 3 of these patients and included apreviously undiagnosed L2 to L3 ependymoma thatbecame symptomatic after failed epidural anesthesia(likely resulting from needle trauma/bleeding of the neo-plasm or alterations in cerebrospinal fluid flow) (case 5),compartment syndrome (with a delay in the diagnosis and
Table 1. Neurologic History of Patients withSpinal Stenosis or Lumbar Disk Disease
Neurologic feature
Number ofpatients
(N � 937)Percentage
(%)a
Neurologic diagnosisSpinal stenosis 187 20Compressive radiculopathy 530 57Disk herniation (without radiculopathy) 40 4Peripheral neuropathy 210 22Multiple (�1) diagnoses 180 19
Neurologic historyMotor deficits 479 51Sensory deficits 568 61Pain/dysesthesias 882 94Hyperreflexia 74 8
History of prior spinal surgerys/p Laminectomy 193 21s/p Diskectomy 9 1s/p Spinal fusion or other 5 0.5
Disease status at time of block placementAcute exacerbation (�30 days) 32 3Subacute exacerbation (1–6 months) 69 8Chronic/stable (�6 months) 828 89Unknown 8 —
Disease progression within last 12 monthsYes 153 19No 632 81Unknown 152 —
Active symptoms at time of neuraxial blockYes 335 51No 323 49Unknown 279 —
a Percentages based upon those patients with available data.s/p � status post (previous condition).
Table 2. Block Characteristics of Patients withSpinal Stenosis or Lumbar Disk DiseaseUndergoing Subsequent Neuraxial Anesthesiaor Analgesia
Block characteristic
Number ofpatients
(N � 937)Percentage
(%)a
Neuraxial techniqueSpinal 545 58Continuous spinal 24 3Epidural 358 38Combined spinal–epidural 10 1
IndicationLabor analgesia 34 4Postoperative analgesia only 65 7Surgical 838 89
Orthopedic 535 64Urologic 192 23Intraabdominal 50 6Cesarean delivery 10 1Other 51 6
Block placement relative tospinal canal pathology
Precisely at the level 193 24Within 1–2 levels 430 52Within 3–4 levels 172 21More than 4 levels 26 3Unknown 116 —
Block placement relative to priorspinal surgery (if applicable)
Precisely at the level 26 13Within 1–2 levels 139 70Within 3–4 levels 28 14More than 4 levels 7 3Unknown 7 —
Number of attempts requiredOne 712 79Two 153 17Three or more 39 4Unknown 33 —
Local anesthetic useb
Intraoperatively 867 93Postoperatively 80 9
Epinephrine usedYes 422 46No 505 54Unknown 10 —
a Percentages based upon those patients with available data.b Ten patients received both intra- and postoperative local anesthetics.
December 2010 • Volume 111 • Number 6 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 1513
worsening of outcome attributed to epidural infusion) (case6), and neuropathy of critical illness (case 10). The remain-ing 3 patients, each with a preoperative diagnosis of spinalstenosis, underwent an uneventful surgery under spinalanesthesia. In these 3 patients (cases 7 to 9), the spinalanesthetic, in the setting of a preexisting neurologic condition,was determined to be the primary etiology, because nopositioning or surgical factors were identified. Thus, in 5 of 6patients with a neurologic complication attributed to a non-surgical primary etiology, the neuraxial anesthetic was pre-sumed to be the primary mechanism (cases 7 to 9) or acontributing factor in the outcome (cases 5, 6). Decompressivelaminectomy was performed in 2 of 6 patients with deficitsassociated with a nonsurgical etiology (1 for ependymoma; 1for radiculopathy/spinal stenosis). However, complete reso-lution was documented in only 2 (33%) of the 6 patients (1 ofwhom underwent laminectomy; case 5).
DISCUSSIONPatients with preexisting neurologic conditions are typi-cally considered to be at increased risk of neurologiccomplications after spinal or epidural techniques. Previousstudies have investigated the risk associated with multiplesclerosis or polio16 or diabetic sensorimotor neuropathy17
and concluded that the risk of severe postoperative neuro-logic injury in these patients is relatively uncommon butappears to be higher than that reported for the generalpopulation.6,18 Our series is the first to characterize thefrequency and severity of neurologic events after neuraxialblockade in patients with previously diagnosed spinalstenosis or lumbar disk disease (with or without priorspinal decompressive surgery). Our major findings suggestthat this patient population is at increased risk for worsen-ing of preexisting or the development of new neurologicdeficits postoperatively when compared with the generalpopulation,6,18 and that the presence of multiple neurologicdiagnoses (radiculopathy, spinal stenosis, peripheral neu-ropathy) increases the risk.
Our results also demonstrated that a history of spinalsurgery did not increase the risk of technical or neurologiccomplications or affect block success. Previous spinal sur-gery has often been considered a relative contraindicationto the use of neuraxial blockade. Many of these patientsexperience chronic back pain and are reluctant to undergoepidural or spinal anesthesia, fearing exacerbation of theirpreexisting back complaints. Several postoperative ana-tomic changes make needle or catheter placement moredifficult and complicated after major spinal surgery. Thepresence of adhesions or obliteration of the epidural spacefrom scar tissue may increase the incidence of dural punc-ture or decrease the spread of local anesthetic within theepidural space, producing an incomplete or failed block.Needle placement in an area of the spine that has under-gone bone grafting and posterior fusion may not be pos-sible with midline or lateral approaches; needle insertioncan be accomplished only at unfused segments.
Previous series investigating the efficacy and safety ofneuraxial block after spinal surgery typically involvedparturients with a history of Harrington rod instrumenta-tion and fusion. For example, the largest series by Daley etal.19 included 18 patients with previous Harrington rodinstrumentation who underwent 21 attempts at epiduralanesthesia for obstetric analgesia. Continuous lumbar epi-dural anesthesia was successfully established in 20 of 21attempts, but only 10 procedures were performed easily onthe first attempt. The remaining 11 patients required largeramounts of local anesthetics or complained of a patchyblock or both. There were no side effects except for lowback pain in 2 patients with multiple attempts at catheterplacement. Similar results were reported by Crosby andHalpern12 and Hubbert.14 Thus, historically, it was con-cluded that epidural anesthesia may be successfully per-formed in patients who have had spinal surgery, butsuccessful catheter placement may be possible on the firstattempt in only 50% of patients, even by an experienced
Table 3. Outcomes of Neuraxial Blockade in Patients with Spinal Stenosis or Lumbar Disk Disease withor without Prior Spinal Surgery
Outcome
Patients without prior history ofspine surgery
Patients with prior history of spinesurgery
PvalueaN n % N n %
Block efficacy 730 207 0.72Satisfactory 709 97.1 202 97.6Unilateral 0 0.0 1 0.5Patchy or segmental 9 1.2 0 0.0No block (block failure) 12 1.7 4 1.9
Technical complicationsEpidural 285 73 0.88
Unable to reach epidural space 5 1.8 0 0.0Unable to advance catheter 14 4.9 3 4.1Unplanned dural puncture 8 2.8 2 2.7
Spinal 439 130 1.00Unable to obtain CSF 1 0.2 0 0.0
Epidural or spinal 730 207 0.91Traumatic (blood) 19 2.6 8 3.9Unintentional paresthesia 37 5.1 9 4.3Unintended “high” spinal 1 0.1 0 0.0
Neurologic complications 730 7 1.0 207 3 1.4 0.54
CSF � cerebrospinal fluid.a The percentage of patients experiencing one or more of the listed complications within the given category was compared between groups using the Chi-squaretest or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.
Neuraxial Block and Spinal Canal Pathology
1514 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA
Tabl
e4.
Pat
ient
sw
ith
Pos
tope
rati
veN
euro
logi
cC
ompl
icat
ions
Ass
ocia
ted
wit
ha
Prim
ary
Sur
gica
lEt
iolo
gyA
ge(y
ears
)/ge
nder
Pre
oper
ativ
ene
urol
ogic
diag
nosi
sN
euro
logi
chi
stor
yof
sym
ptom
sC
urre
ntsu
rger
ySym
ptom
sat
tim
eof
surg
ery
Neu
raxi
alte
chni
que
Pos
tope
rati
veco
mpl
icat
ion
Dia
gnos
tic
eval
uati
onof
defic
its
Out
com
eC
omm
ents
Cas
e1
:5
3/F
LtS
1ra
dicu
lopa
thy
(mild
)Lt
LEpa
in,
pare
sthe
sias
,an
dnu
mbn
ess
Rt
tibia
los
teot
omy;
TTT:
29
min
utes
No
Epid
ural
;lid
ocai
ne2%
(13
mL)
with
1:2
00,0
00
epi;
Bup
iv0.5
%(1
5m
L);
1at
tem
ptat
L3–
4w
ithno
pare
sthe
sia
Rt
tibia
lneu
ropa
thy
(pai
nan
dnu
mbn
ess)
imm
edia
tely
post
oper
ativ
e
3ye
ars
post
oper
ativ
e:EM
Gw
ithin
norm
allim
its;
noev
iden
ceof
age
nera
lized
perip
hera
lne
urop
athy
orrig
httib
ialn
euro
path
y
Pers
iste
ntsy
mpt
oms
afte
r3
year
s
Diff
eren
tiald
iagn
oses
:in
trao
pera
tive
surg
ical
trau
ma
vs.
plan
tar
bone
spur
sfo
rpe
rsis
tent
pain
and
num
bnes
s
Cas
e2
:7
7/M
LtL4
–S1
radi
culo
path
yan
dse
vere
L3–S
1sp
inal
sten
osis
;s/
pLt
part
ialL
4la
min
ecto
my
20
year
spr
ior;
repe
atL3
–4la
min
ecto
my
2ye
ars
prio
r
LtLE
pain
,nu
mbn
ess,
and
mot
orw
eakn
ess
Bila
tera
lTK
As;
LtTT
T:229
min
utes
;R
tTT
T:197
min
utes
Mild
LtLE
pain
and
num
bnes
s;no
wea
knes
s
Faile
dL5
–S1
epid
ural
;lid
ocai
ne2%
(18
mL)
with
1:20
0,00
0ep
i;Bu
piv
0.5%
(40
mL)
;mul
tiple
atte
mpt
sw
ithno
pare
sthe
sias
;co
nver
ted
toG
A
Ltpe
rone
alne
urop
athy
imm
edia
tely
post
oper
ativ
e
EMG
:bi
late
ral
pero
neal
neur
opat
hies
atth
efib
ular
head
(L�
R);
old
LtL5
–S1
radi
culo
path
ies
Com
plet
ere
solu
tion
ofLt
pero
neal
neur
opat
hyaf
ter
6ye
ars;
base
line
preo
pera
tive
defic
itsre
mai
n
Diff
eren
tiald
iagn
oses
:pr
eexi
stin
gde
ficits
,su
rgic
altr
aum
a,an
dpr
olon
ged
tour
niqu
etis
chem
ia
Cas
e3
:7
6/M
Rt
L5ra
dicu
lopa
thy
and
PSM
NR
tLE
pain
,nu
mbn
ess,
pare
sthe
sias
,an
dm
otor
wea
knes
s
Rt
knee
arth
rosc
opy
Rt
LEpa
in,
num
bnes
s,pa
rest
hesi
a,an
dw
eakn
ess
Spi
nal;
Bup
iv0.7
5%
(1.5
mL)
;1
atte
mpt
atL2
–3;
nopa
rest
hesi
a
Incr
ease
dR
tLE
pain
and
prog
ress
ive
pare
sthe
sias
deve
lope
d24
hour
spo
stop
erat
ivel
y
No
diag
nost
icev
alua
tion
Res
olut
ion
topr
eope
rativ
eba
selin
eaf
ter
3m
onth
s
Chr
onic
poly
radi
culo
path
yan
dhe
redi
tary
axon
alne
urop
athy
diag
nose
d8
mon
ths
prio
rto
knee
arth
rosc
opy;
deve
lope
dpo
stop
erat
ive
sept
ickn
ee.
Diff
eren
tiald
iagn
oses
:co
mpl
icat
ion
seco
ndar
yto
sept
ickn
ee,
surg
ical
trau
ma,
loca
lized
neur
alis
chem
iafr
ompo
plite
alcy
stC
ase
4:
83
/MR
tpe
rone
alne
urop
athy
(com
pres
sive
fibul
arcy
st);
lum
bar
poly
radi
culo
path
y;PS
MN
Rt
LEpa
inan
dm
otor
wea
knes
s(foo
tdr
op)
Rt
TKA
and
cyst
icde
com
pres
sion
;TT
T:225
min
utes
Rt
LEpa
inan
dm
otor
wea
knes
s(f
oot
drop
)
Spi
nal;
Bup
iv0.7
5%
(1.5
mL)
;2
atte
mpt
sat
L3–4
with
Rt-
side
dpa
rest
hesi
a
Imm
edia
tew
orse
ning
ofR
tLE
mot
orde
ficit
post
oper
ativ
e
No
diag
nost
icev
alua
tion
Res
olut
ion
topr
eope
rativ
eba
selin
eaf
ter
6w
eeks
Diff
eren
tiald
iagn
oses
:ex
acer
batio
nof
pree
xist
ing
neur
olog
icde
ficit
due
tolo
caliz
edsu
rgic
alpr
oced
ure
and
tour
niqu
etis
chem
ia(T
TT:
22
5m
inut
es)
M�
mal
e;F
�fe
mal
e;Lt
�le
ft;R
t�
right
;LE
�lo
wer
extr
emity
;PS
MN
�pe
riphe
rals
enso
rimot
orne
urop
athy
;TK
A�
tota
lkne
ear
thro
plas
ty;B
upiv
�bu
piva
cain
e;ep
i�ep
inep
hrin
e;TT
T�
tota
ltou
rniq
uettim
e;G
A�
gene
rala
nest
hesi
a;EM
G�
elec
trom
yogr
aphy
;s/
p�
stat
uspo
st(p
revi
ous
cond
ition
).
December 2010 • Volume 111 • Number 6 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 1515
Tabl
e5.
Pat
ient
sw
ith
Pos
tope
rati
veN
euro
logi
cC
ompl
icat
ions
wit
ha
Non
surg
ical
Prim
ary
Etio
logy
Age
(yea
rs)/
gend
erP
reop
erat
ive
neur
olog
icdi
agno
sis
Neu
rolo
gic
hist
ory
ofsy
mpt
oms
Cur
rent
surg
ery
Sym
ptom
sat
tim
eof
surg
ery
Neu
raxi
alte
chni
que
Pos
tope
rati
veco
mpl
icat
ion
Dia
gnos
tic
eval
uati
onof
defic
its
Out
com
eC
omm
ents
Cas
e5
:2
5/F
LtL4
–S1
radi
culo
path
y;s/
pL4
–5la
min
ecto
my
5ye
ars
prio
rto
cesa
rean
deliv
ery
with
reso
lutio
nof
sym
ptom
s
LtLE
pain
,nu
mbn
ess,
and
mot
orw
eakn
ess
Ces
area
nde
liver
yN
oEp
idur
al;
Bup
iv0.1
25%
plus
fent
anyl
2�
g/m
L;1
atte
mpt
atL3
–4w
ithno
pare
sthe
sia;
faile
d(u
nila
tera
l)ep
idur
alfo
rce
sare
ande
liver
y
Dev
elop
edR
tLE
pain
,nu
mbn
ess,
and
mot
orw
eakn
ess
1w
eek
post
part
um
MRI
:L2–
3ep
endy
mom
aex
tend
ing
acro
ssth
em
idlin
e(R
�L)
Com
plet
ere
solu
tion
8w
eeks
afte
rep
endy
mom
are
sect
ion
Post
part
umw
ork-
upre
veal
edL2
–3ep
endy
mom
a;un
derw
ent
epen
dym
oma
rese
ctio
n2
mon
ths
post
part
um
Cas
e6
:7
1/M
Chr
onic
Rt
L3–5
radi
culo
path
yR
tLE
pain
Bila
tera
lTK
As;
Rt
TTT:
135
min
utes
;Lt
TTT:
83
min
utes
No
Epid
ural
;lid
ocai
ne2%
Bup
iv0.5
%;
1:2
00,0
00
epi;
1at
tem
ptat
L2–3
;no
pare
sthe
sia;
post
oper
ativ
eep
idur
alin
fusi
on:
Bup
iv0.1
%�
fent
anyl
7.5
�g/
mL
for
48
hour
s
Bila
tera
lLE
wea
knes
san
dnu
mbn
ess
afte
rep
idur
aldi
scon
tinue
d
Lum
bar
MR
Ire
veal
edno
hem
atom
aor
absc
ess;
EMG
:se
vere
bila
tera
ltib
iala
ndpe
rone
alne
urop
athi
esat
the
leve
lof
the
popl
iteal
foss
a
Lt:
com
plet
ere
solu
tion
afte
r1
2m
onth
s;R
t:se
nsor
imot
orde
ficits
pers
ist
7ye
ars
post
oper
ativ
ely
Patie
ntde
velo
ped
bila
tera
lco
mpa
rtmen
tsyn
drom
e(u
nrec
ogni
zed)
durin
gpo
stop
erat
ive
epid
ural
anal
gesi
a;po
stop
erat
ive
(B)t
ibia
l&pe
rone
alne
urop
athi
es;s
urgi
cal
com
plic
atio
nw
ithou
tcom
elik
ely
wor
sene
dbe
caus
eof
epid
ural
(del
ayin
diag
nosi
san
din
terv
entio
n)C
ase
7:
84
/MC
hron
icR
tL3
–4an
dac
ute
LtL3
–4ra
dicu
lopa
thy;
mod
erat
eL2
–L4
spin
alst
enos
is;
PSM
N
Rt
and
LtLE
pain
TUR
PLt
LEpa
inS
pina
l;pr
ocai
ne70
mg;
1at
tem
ptat
L3–4
;no
pare
sthe
sia
Wor
seni
ngLt
LEpa
inan
dne
wLt
LEm
otor
defic
itim
med
iate
lypo
stop
erat
ivel
y
EMG
:ol
dR
tL3
–4ra
dicu
lopa
thy
and
acut
eLt
L3–4
radi
culo
path
yan
dm
oder
ate
tose
vere
perip
hera
lne
urop
athy
Part
ialr
esol
utio
n4
wee
ksaf
ter
lam
inec
tom
y
New
post
oper
ativ
em
otor
defic
itsdu
eto
exac
erba
tion
ofLt
LEra
dicu
lopa
thy
inse
ttin
gof
spin
alst
enos
is;
unde
rwen
tla
min
ecto
my
1w
eek
afte
rTU
RP
Cas
e8
:7
0/F
Mild
L2–4
spin
alst
enos
is;
Park
inso
n’s
dise
ase
Bila
tera
lLE
pain
LtTH
AB
ilate
ralL
Epa
inS
pina
l;B
upiv
0.7
5%
(2m
L);
1:1
,000
epi(
0.2
mL)
;4
atte
mpt
sat
mul
tiple
leve
ls;
(�)
hem
ean
dR
t-si
ded
L2–3
pare
sthe
sia
Wor
seni
ngR
tLE
pain
and
new
onse
tR
tLE
wea
knes
s3
wee
kspo
stop
erat
ivel
y
EMG
:w
ithin
norm
allim
its;
noev
iden
ceof
alu
mbo
sacr
alra
dicu
lopa
thy
Part
ialr
esol
utio
nof
pain
afte
r8
wee
ksD
iffer
entia
ldia
gnos
es:
prog
ress
ive
pain
seco
ndar
yto
exis
ting
cond
ition
vs.
new
onse
tfib
rom
yalg
iaor
rest
less
leg
synd
rom
eC
ase
9:
78
/MB
ilate
ralL
5–S
1ra
dicu
lopa
thy;
mod
erat
eL4
–S1
spin
alst
enos
is;
s/p
L5la
min
ecto
my
5ye
ars
prio
r
Rt
LEpa
in,
num
bnes
s,an
dm
otor
wea
knes
s
Rt
THA
Part
ialR
tLE
pain
and
num
bnes
s;no
wea
knes
s
Spin
al;t
etra
cain
e1%
(1m
L);
1:1,
000
epi(
0.3
mL)
;1at
tem
ptat
L3–4
with
out
pare
sthe
sia
Imm
edia
tew
orse
ning
ofR
tLE
num
bnes
spo
stop
erat
ive
(L5–
S1
dist
ribut
ion)
No
diag
nost
icev
alua
tion
Res
olut
ion
topr
eope
rativ
eba
selin
eaf
ter
1w
eek
Etio
logy
ofne
wpo
stop
erat
ive
defic
itsun
clea
r:no
obvi
ous
surg
ical
trau
ma
tosc
iatic
nerv
e.Po
tent
ial
cont
ribut
ing
fact
ors
incl
ude
exis
ting
spin
alst
enos
isw
ithex
acer
batio
nby
posi
tioni
ng(h
yper
exte
nsio
ndu
ring
surg
ery)
and
spin
alan
esth
etic
(Con
tinue
d)
Neuraxial Block and Spinal Canal Pathology
1516 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA
anesthesiologist. Although adequate epidural anesthesiawas eventually produced in 40% to 95% of patients, thereappeared to be a higher incidence of traumatic needleplacement, unintentional dural puncture, and unsuccessfulepidural needle or catheter placement, especially if spinalfusion extends to between L-5 and S-1. However, the smallnumbers of patients and an indication of “labor analgesia”made extrapolation to patients with other surgical indica-tions undergoing a nonepidural technique difficult.
A single study by Berkowitz and Gold20 evaluated thesuccess rate and complications in 33 patients with priorlaminectomy who underwent tetracaine spinal anesthesia.On the basis of their 100% success rate and lack of neuro-logic complications, including evidence of a prolongedblock, the authors concluded that there was “no logicalbasis for avoiding spinal anesthesia in postlaminectomypatients.” Our 97.6% block success rate, trauma frequencyof 3.9%, and paresthesia elicitation rate of 4.3% in patientswith prior spine surgery support the conclusions ofBerkowitz and Gold regarding block efficacy after laminec-tomy. Furthermore, their frequency of technical complica-tions was similar to those for patients in our series (Table 3)and previous series from our outcomes database.21 Unfor-tunately, the frequency of persistent postoperative neuro-logic deficits in the current retrospective series (1.1%; 95%CI 0.5%–2.0%) is much higher than was expected; prospec-tive epidemiologic investigations have reported frequen-cies between 1:1000 and 1:10,000.6,22 Although theneuraxial block was not the primary etiology of all 10neurologic deficits in our series, it may have been acontributing factor in nearly all the cases because of the“double crush” phenomenon.
The double crush syndrome, first proposed by Upton andMcComas11 in 1973, is a general term referring to thecoexistence of dual compressive lesions along the courseof a nerve, where the presence of a proximal lesionrenders the nerve vulnerable to further injury with amore distal compression. Importantly, the 2 minor (per-haps even subclinical) insults synergistically result in aclinical and potentially permanent nerve injury.23 Al-though initially described in patients with concomitantcervical radiculopathies and median or ulnar neuropathies,the term has been extended to include injury from noncom-pressive mechanisms, such as toxic (chemotherapeuticagents, local anesthetics),24 metabolic (aging, diabetic sen-sorimotor neuropathy),17,25,26 ischemic (tourniquet infla-tion),27 and traumatic (surgical traction, needle/catheterplacement)28 etiologies. The presence of a preexisting neu-rologic condition, whether neuraxial or peripheral in na-ture, would represent an additional mechanism by whichminor or subclinical symptoms may interact to result in anew or worsened neurologic deficit.6,17 Our results suggestan additive effect of multiple preexisting neurologic condi-tions; we reported that neuraxial block performed in pa-tients with a preoperative diagnosis of a compressiveradiculopathy or multiple neurologic diagnoses signifi-cantly increased the risk of neurologic complications post-operatively. Previous surgical treatment did not affect thefrequency.
The performance of a neuraxial technique in patientswith a preexisting neurologic condition may predisposeTa
ble
5.
(Con
tinue
d)A
ge(y
ears
)/ge
nder
Pre
oper
ativ
ene
urol
ogic
diag
nosi
sN
euro
logi
chi
stor
yof
sym
ptom
sC
urre
ntsu
rger
ySym
ptom
sat
tim
eof
surg
ery
Neu
raxi
alte
chni
que
Pos
tope
rati
veco
mpl
icat
ion
Dia
gnos
tic
eval
uati
onof
defic
its
Out
com
eC
omm
ents
Cas
e1
0:
71
/MLu
mbo
sacr
alpo
lyra
dicu
lopa
thy;
diab
etic
PSM
N
LtLE
Pain
;bi
late
ralL
Enu
mbn
ess
LtTK
A;TT
T:109
min
utes
LtLE
pain
;bi
late
ralL
Enu
mbn
ess
Spi
nal;
tetr
acai
ne1%
(1m
L);
proc
aine
10%
(1m
L);
1:1
,000
epi(
0.2
mL)
;1
atte
mpt
atL3
–4w
ithR
t-sid
edpa
rest
hesi
a
New
LtLE
seve
rem
otor
defic
it(f
oot
drop
)up
onex
tuba
tion
3w
eeks
post
oper
ativ
ely
EMG
:Lt
-sid
edlu
mbo
sacr
alpo
lyra
dicu
lopa
thy;
Lt-s
ided
scia
ticne
urop
athy
(site
ofin
jury
inde
term
inat
e);
patie
ntre
fuse
dlu
mba
rM
RI
Part
ialr
esol
utio
naf
ter
4w
eeks
;lo
stto
follo
w-u
p
Com
plic
ated
post
oper
ativ
eIC
Uco
urse
with
prol
onge
din
tuba
tion;
patie
ntre
fuse
dfu
llne
urol
ogic
wor
k-up
;di
ffer
entia
ldia
gnos
es:
mul
tifac
toria
l(pr
olon
ged
imm
obili
zatio
n,ne
urop
athy
ofcr
itica
lill
ness
,su
rgic
altr
aum
a)
M�
mal
e;F
�fe
mal
e;Lt
�le
ft;R
t�rig
ht;L
E�
low
erex
trem
ity;P
SM
N�
perip
hera
lsen
sorim
otor
neur
opat
hy;T
UR
P�
tran
sure
thra
lres
ectio
nof
the
pros
tate
;TK
A�
tota
lkne
ear
thro
plas
ty;T
HA
�to
talh
ipar
thro
plas
ty;
Bup
iv�
bupi
vaca
ine;
epi�
epin
ephr
ine;
TTT
�to
talt
ourn
ique
ttim
e;EM
G�
elec
trom
yogr
aphy
;s/
p�
stat
uspo
st(p
revi
ous
cond
ition
);M
RI
�m
agne
ticre
sona
nce
imag
ing;
ICU
�in
tens
ive
care
unit.
December 2010 • Volume 111 • Number 6 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 1517
the patient to further functional worsening. The mecha-nism(s) of nerve injury after neuraxial block in patientswith spinal stenosis or lumbar disk disease is presumedto be the additive effects of local anesthetic toxicity andneural ischemia (from the volume effects of theinjectate/infusate)1,6,8,29 with epidural techniques andlocal anesthetic neurotoxicity with spinal blockade. Theneurotoxic effects may be enhanced by maldistributioncreated by degenerative changes within the spinal col-umn.30 Spinal cord ischemia from microcirculatory de-rangement has also been proposed.3,31 Perioperativepositioning may also contribute to injury; postoperativecauda equina syndrome and paresis have been reported inpreviously asymptomatic patients with spinal stenosis afteruneventful spinal6,8 or general anesthesia.32 Often thesecases involve an orthopedic procedure.8,32
Patients undergoing orthopedic surgical proceduresmay be especially prone to the double crush syndrome.Two or more insults along the course of a nerve mayreadily occur, because the surgical procedure is oftenassociated with a defined postoperative neuropathy (due tosurgical neurapraxia), and tourniquet inflation is routinelyused to assure a bloodless field. For example, total kneereplacement is associated with an overall 2.2% frequency ofperoneal nerve palsy (from surgical traction to the peronealnerve at the fibular head), which increases to 7.7% withprolonged tourniquet inflation (producing ischemia to boththe tibial and peroneal components of the sciatic nerve atthigh level).9,27 A preexisting L5/S1 radiculopathy mayrender the sciatic components even more sensitive toischemia and traction, as well as to local anesthetic neuro-toxicity. Although an orthopedic procedure was not a riskfactor in our series, in 7 of the 8 orthopedic cases withcomplications, surgery was to the previously affected ex-tremity. Although the relative roles of patient, surgicalfactors, and anesthetic factors remain undetermined, ourresults suggest that the overall risk may be high in thispatient population.
We conclude that patients with preexisting spinal canalpathology have a higher incidence of neurologic complica-tions after neuraxial blockade than that previously reportedfor patients without such underlying pathology. However,in the absence of a control group of surgical patients withsimilar anatomic pathology undergoing general anesthesia,we cannot determine whether the higher incidence ofneurologic injury is secondary to the surgical procedure,the anesthetic technique, the natural history of spinalpathology, or a combination of factors and the relativecontributions of each.
REFERENCES1. Usubiaga JE, Wikinski JA, Usubiaga LE. Epidural pressure and
its relation to spread of anesthetic solutions in epidural space.Anesth Analg 1967;46:440–6
2. Hooten WM, Hogan MS, Sanemann TC, Maus TJ. Acute spinalpain during an attempted lumbar epidural blood patch incongenital lumbar spinal stenosis and epidural lipomatosis.Pain Physician 2008;11:87–90
3. de Seze MP, Sztark F, Janvier G, Joseph PA. Severe andlong-lasting complications of the nerve root and spinal cordafter central neuraxial blockade. Anesth Analg 2007;104:975–9
4. Tetzlaff JE, Dilger JA, Wu C, Smith MP, Bell G. Influence oflumbar spine pathology on the incidence of paresthesia duringspinal anesthesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 1998;23:560–3
5. Stambough JL, Stambough JB, Evans S. Acute cauda equinasyndrome after total knee arthroplasty as a result of epiduralanesthesia and spinal stenosis. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:375–9
6. Moen V, Dahlgren N, Irestedt L. Severe neurological compli-cations after central neuraxial blockades in Sweden 1990–1999.Anesthesiology 2004;101:950–9
7. Yuen EC, Layzer RB, Weitz SR, Olney RK. Neurologic compli-cations of lumbar epidural anesthesia and analgesia. Neurol-ogy 1995;45:1795–801
8. Kubina P, Gupta A, Oscarsson A, Axelsson K, Bengtsson M. Twocases of cauda equina syndrome following spinal–epidural anes-thesia. Reg Anesth 1997;22:447–50
9. Horlocker TT, Hebl JR, Gali B, Jankowski CJ, Burkle CM, BerryDJ, Zepeda FA, Stevens SR, Schroeder DR. Anesthetic, patient,and surgical risk factors for neurologic complications afterprolonged total tourniquet time during total knee arthroplasty.Anesth Analg 2006;102:950–5
10. Warner MA, Warner DO, Harper CM, Schroeder DR, MaxsonPM. Lower extremity neuropathies associated with lithotomypositions. Anesthesiology 2000;93:938–42
11. Upton AR, McComas AJ. The double crush in nerve entrap-ment syndromes. Lancet 1973;2:359–62
12. Crosby ET, Halpern SH. Obstetric epidural anaesthesia inpatients with Harrington instrumentation. Can J Anaesth1989;36:693–6
13. Feldstein G, Ramanathan S. Obstetrical lumbar epidural anes-thesia in patients with previous posterior spinal fusion forkyphoscoliosis. Anesth Analg 1985;64:83–5
14. Hubbert CH. Epidural anesthesia in patients with spinalfusion. Anesth Analg 1985;64:843
15. Kardash K, King BW, Datta S. Spinal anaesthesia for caesareansection after Harrington instrumentation. Can J Anaesth1993;40:667–9
16. Hebl JR, Horlocker TT, Schroeder DR. Neuraxial anesthesiaand analgesia in patients with preexisting central nervoussystem disorders. Anesth Analg 2006;103:223–8
17. Hebl JR, Kopp SL, Schroeder DR, Horlocker TT. Neurologiccomplications after neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia in pa-tients with preexisting peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy ordiabetic polyneuropathy. Anesth Analg 2006;103:1294–9
18. Auroy Y, Benhamou D, Bargues L, Ecoffey C, Falissard B,Mercier FJ, Bouaziz H, Samii K. Major complications of re-gional anesthesia in France: The SOS Regional AnesthesiaHotline Service. Anesthesiology 2002;97:1274–80
19. Daley MD, Rolbin SH, Hew EM, Morningstar BA, Stewart JA.Epidural anesthesia for obstetrics after spinal surgery. RegAnesth 1990;15:280–4
20. Berkowitz S, Gold MI. Spinal anesthesia for surgery in patientswith previous lumbar laminectomy. Anesth Analg1980;59:881–2
21. Horlocker TT, McGregor DG, Matsushige DK, Schroeder DR,Besse JA. A retrospective review of 4767 consecutive spinalanesthetics: central nervous system complications. AnesthAnalg 1997;84:578–84
22. Auroy Y, Narchi P, Messiah A, Litt L, Rouvier B, Samii K.Serious complications related to regional anesthesia: results ofa prospective survey in France. Anesthesiology 1997;87:479–86
23. Prielipp RC, Warner MA. Perioperative nerve injury: a silentscream? Anesthesiology 2009;111:464–6
24. Hebl JR, Horlocker TT, Pritchard DJ. Diffuse brachial plexopa-thy after interscalene block in a patient receiving cisplatinchemotherapy: the pharmacologic double crush syndrome.Anesth Analg 2001;92:249–51
25. Moghtaderi A, Izadi S. Double crush syndrome: an analysis ofage, gender and body mass index. Clin Neurol Neurosurg2008;110:25–9
26. Yee TC, Kalichman MW. Effects of aging on nerve conductionblock induced by bupivacaine and procaine in rats. J PeripherNerv Syst 1997;2:175–9
Neuraxial Block and Spinal Canal Pathology
1518 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA
27. Horlocker TT, Cabanela ME, Wedel DJ. Does postoperativeepidural analgesia increase the risk of peroneal nerve palsyafter total knee arthroplasty? Anesth Analg 1994;79:495–500
28. Hebl JR, Horlocker TT, Sorenson EJ, Schroeder DR. Regionalanesthesia does not increase the risk of postoperative neurop-athy in patients undergoing ulnar nerve transposition. AnesthAnalg 2001;93:1606–11
29. Jacob AK, Borowiec JC, Long TR, Brown MJ, Rydberg CH,Wass CT. Transient profound neurologic deficit associatedwith thoracic epidural analgesia in an elderly patient. Anes-thesiology 2004;101:1470–1
30. Hampl KF, Schneider MC, Drasner K. Toxicity of spinal localanaesthetics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 1999;12:559–64
31. Markman JD, Gaud KG. Lumbar spinal stenosis in olderadults: current understanding and future directions. Clin Geri-atr Med 2008;24:369–88
32. Lewandrowski KU, McLain RF, Lieberman I, Orr D. Cord andcauda equina injury complicating elective orthopedic surgery.Spine 2006;31:1056–9
Denham S. Ward, MD, PhD, Named Next President of Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research For Immediate Release
Rochester, MN, October 28, 2010 – At their annual fall meeting October 16, 2010, the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) named Denham S. Ward, MD, PhD, as successor for long-time President, Alan D. Sessler, MD. Dr. Ward will begin his term as President in 2011.
“Dr. Ward is an accomplished physician scientist with a long history of leadership in anesthesiology,” said Dr. Sessler. “Over the months ahead, I will assume a support role in advocating for FAER’s mission, confident that my successor will act wisely to create new pathways to propel the specialty’s next generation to a new and higher level of patient care, innovation and discovery.”
Dr. Ward has been a member of the FAER Board of Directors since 2002 and is now serving as Board Chair. He is currently Professor of Anesthesiology and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, where he is also Chair of the Anesthesiology Department and Associate Dean for Faculty Development – Medical Education.
FAER is a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to advance medicine through education and research in anesthesiology. FAER provides research grants and career development opportunities for medical students, residents and anesthesiologists. Since it was founded by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 1986, the foundation has awarded more than $20 million in research grants, and typically awards more than $1 million in research grants annually.
Contact:
Nicole Brudos Ferrara, Associate Director - Communications Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research 507-538-7886 www.faer.org
December 2010 • Volume 111 • Number 6 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 1519
top related