Methods: This was a retrospective analysis conducted in a tertiary centre. Records of all patients who underwent surgery and received CSA between December 2008 and July 2017 were reviewed. Their demographic profiles, type and duration of surgery were analysed. The outcomes measured were the success of CSA, technical evaluation and difficulties encountered, intraoperative haemodynamics, usage of vasopressors and any reported complications. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square test.
Results: Three hundred and eighteen patients (94%) successfully underwent surgery using CSA. Twenty cases (6%) had failed CSA, of which five of them had CSA insertion failure, while the rest failed to complete the operation under CSA, thus requiring conversion to general anaesthesia. Patients who have had an initial intrathecal local anaesthetic (LA) volume ≥1.5 ml had higher odds (odds ratio (OR) 2.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-4.57) of developing hypotension compared to those who had <1.5 ml (P < 0.001). There were no reported post-dural puncture headache, neurological sequelae or infection.
Conclusion: CSA is a useful anaesthetic technique with low failure rate. The key to achieving haemodynamic stability is by giving a small initial bolus, then titrating the block up to required height using aliquots of 0.5 ml of intrathecal LA through the catheter.
METHODS: The protocol was registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD42021244823). Guidelines published over the last decade providing insights into cancer pain management and incorporating safe opioid practice were evaluated. The review's primary outcome was to evaluate the quality of cancer pain guidelines. Appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess a guideline's quality. The ADAPTE collaboration-guideline adaptation resource tool kit (ADAPTE) provided insights into its adaptation based on specific questions within the guideline.
RESULTS: Fourteen cancer pain guidelines met the eligibility criteria and were included for quality evaluation. Eight guidelines were evaluated with combined AGREE II and ADAPTE process, attaining >66.7% in the rigour of development domain score, summated scaled domain score, and specific ADAPTE tools to evaluate the quality of each guideline. The intra-class correlation coefficient was utilised for resolving inter-rater agreement. 'Safe opioid practice' within a guideline was assessed for quality content implementation.
CONCLUSION: Combined AGREE II and ADAPTE identified four cancer pain guidelines, namely Ministry of Health Malaysia, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCEC-National Clinical Guideline, and World Health Organization, which were of the highest quality and incorporated safe opioid practice effectively.