TY - JOUR
T1 - Global anaesthesia practice using inguinal hernia surgery as a tracer condition
T2 - a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study
AU - NIHR Global Health Research Group on Environmentally Sustainable Hospitals in Low- and Middle-income Countries
AU - Linder, Cortland
AU - Picciochi, Maria
AU - Bhaloo, Sakina
AU - Amofa, Ebenezer
AU - Gaston, Canada
AU - Calvache, Jose Andres
AU - Kamarajah, Sivesh
AU - Motshabi, Palesa
AU - Nepogodiev, Dmitri
AU - Ghosh, Dhruv
AU - Kudrna, Laura
AU - Jenny, Maame
AU - Rotimi, Muyiwa
AU - Kabera, Telesphore
AU - Ledda, Virginia
AU - Lawday, Sam
AU - McClain, Craig
AU - Shelton, Cliff
AU - Ghaffar, Abdul
AU - Adedogni,
AU - Ingabire, Allen Jean De La Croix
AU - Latif, Asad
AU - Boateng, Nana
AU - Nganabashaka, Jean Pierre
AU - Cronje, Larissa
AU - Palesa, Mogane
AU - Nzahabwanayo, Sylvestre
AU - Singh, Pritpal
AU - Revatrams,
AU - Aaron, Rotimi
AU - Cobbina, Samuel Jerry
AU - Zola, Sandrine
AU - Sharma, Suryakiran
AU - Gill, Teena
AU - Thomson, Tony
AU - Glasbey, James
AU - Martin, Janet
AU - George, Christina
AU - Bhangu, Aneel
AU - Kadir, Bryar
AU - Gaffar, Abdul
AU - Adisa, Adewale
AU - Dove, Andrew
AU - Li, Elizabeth
AU - Harrison, Ewen
AU - Galley, Fareeda
AU - Thomson, Ian
AU - Allen Ingabire, J. C.
AU - Bediako Bowan, A.
AU - Bediako-Bowan, Antoinette Afua Asiedua
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Anaesthesia published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association of Anaesthetists.
PY - 2025/11
Y1 - 2025/11
N2 - Introduction: Restoration of surgical capacity is essential to post-COVID-19 recovery. This study explored the use and safety of anaesthesia options for inguinal hernia surgery, a common tracer condition, to describe current global practice and highlight opportunities to build the capacity of health systems. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia surgery. We used a consensus process to define generalisable outcomes to measure patient selection, utilisation of hospital capacity and peri-operative safety in patients who received locoregional, spinal or general anaesthesia for their surgery. Results: In total, 16,554 patients from 83 countries were included. Locoregional anaesthesia was performed in 1536 (9.2%) of patients, compared with 9165 (55.4%) who had general and 55,853 (35.4%) who had spinal anaesthesia. Patient selection outcomes were comparable across anaesthesia groups. As a measure of hospital capacity, adjusted day-case rates were higher for locoregional anaesthesia (OR 6.62, 95%CI 5.13–8.54, p < 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.84–1.12, p = 0.68) compared with general anaesthesia. Complications were lower in patients who underwent locoregional anaesthesia (OR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.52–0.87, p = 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.77–1.05, p = 0.167) compared with general anaesthesia after risk adjustment. Discussion: This study has filled knowledge gaps of anaesthesia practice in common surgeries across the world. Locoregional and spinal anaesthesia could be adopted as safe options to increase surgical volume when there is limited access to general anaesthesia.
AB - Introduction: Restoration of surgical capacity is essential to post-COVID-19 recovery. This study explored the use and safety of anaesthesia options for inguinal hernia surgery, a common tracer condition, to describe current global practice and highlight opportunities to build the capacity of health systems. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent elective inguinal hernia surgery. We used a consensus process to define generalisable outcomes to measure patient selection, utilisation of hospital capacity and peri-operative safety in patients who received locoregional, spinal or general anaesthesia for their surgery. Results: In total, 16,554 patients from 83 countries were included. Locoregional anaesthesia was performed in 1536 (9.2%) of patients, compared with 9165 (55.4%) who had general and 55,853 (35.4%) who had spinal anaesthesia. Patient selection outcomes were comparable across anaesthesia groups. As a measure of hospital capacity, adjusted day-case rates were higher for locoregional anaesthesia (OR 6.62, 95%CI 5.13–8.54, p < 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR 0.97, 95%CI 0.84–1.12, p = 0.68) compared with general anaesthesia. Complications were lower in patients who underwent locoregional anaesthesia (OR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.52–0.87, p = 0.001) but not for spinal anaesthesia (OR = 0.90, 95%CI 0.77–1.05, p = 0.167) compared with general anaesthesia after risk adjustment. Discussion: This study has filled knowledge gaps of anaesthesia practice in common surgeries across the world. Locoregional and spinal anaesthesia could be adopted as safe options to increase surgical volume when there is limited access to general anaesthesia.
KW - anaesthesia
KW - developing countries
KW - inguinal hernia
KW - surgery
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105018680319
U2 - 10.1111/anae.16686
DO - 10.1111/anae.16686
M3 - Article
C2 - 40923367
AN - SCOPUS:105018680319
SN - 0003-2409
VL - 80
SP - 1343
EP - 1351
JO - Anaesthesia
JF - Anaesthesia
IS - 11
ER -