Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Educational Forum
Erratum
Letter to the Editor
Messages
Narrative Review
Original Article
Review Article
Special Invited Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Educational Forum
Erratum
Letter to the Editor
Messages
Narrative Review
Original Article
Review Article
Special Invited Article
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Case Report
Case Series
Editorial
Educational Forum
Erratum
Letter to the Editor
Messages
Narrative Review
Original Article
Review Article
Special Invited Article
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Case Report
7 (
1
); 68-70
doi:
10.25259/AUJMSR_8_2025

Hemiparesis post open radical nephrectomy – Nightmare for surgeon

Department of General Surgery, Adesh institute of medical science and research, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
Department of Anaesthesia, Adesh institute of medical science and research, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
Author image

*Corresponding author: Diksha Kohli, Department of General Surgery, Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research, Bathinda, Punjab, India. drdikshakohli@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Kohli D, Gupta S, Goyal SS, Nangla M, Kaur B, Singh A. Hemiparesis post open radical nephrectomy – Nightmare for surgeon. Adesh Univ J Med Sci Res. 2025;7:68-70. doi: 10.25259/AUJMSR_8_2025

Abstract

We report a case of left-sided hemiparesis following open radical nephrectomy attributed to extensive unilateral epidural spread of local anesthetic. A 49-year-old male underwent elective left-open radical nephrectomy under general anesthesia with epidural anesthesia. Postoperatively, he developed progressive left-sided weakness, which resolved dramatically after discontinuation of epidural infusion. This case highlights the importance of careful epidural catheter placement and monitoring of local anesthetic spread to prevent rare but potentially devastating complications.

Keywords

Epidural analgesia
Hemiparesis
Local anesthetic toxicity
Radical nephrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Hemiparesis or unilateral muscle weakness is a very rare occurrence post-nephrectomy. It occurs rarely when analgesia is managed by epidural analgesia. Unilateral sensory or motor weakness is a rare occurrence of epidural analgesia which is a result of epidural catheter position, lateral displacement of epidural catheter, or unequal distribution of anesthetic drug.

CASE REPORT

We report a case of left-sided hemiparesis post open radical nephrectomy whose peri procedure analgesics were managed by epidural catheter.

This is a case of a 49-year-old male who was hypertensive with no other co-morbidity and diagnosed to have a large complex cystic lesion – Bosniak type 4 and posted electively for left radical nephrectomy under general endotracheal tube anesthesia. The patient was evaluated in pre-anesthetic checkup and optimized as per the anesthesiologist’s advice. On the day of surgery, the patient was again evaluated by anesthesia consultant and urologist posted for the case. Pre-operative vitals of the patient were stable and the patient was taken to the operating room. The anesthesiologist planned for general endotracheal tube intubation with epidural analgesia for this case. The anesthesiologist secured the epidural catheter at L1-L2 space after testing and securing epidural catheter, and general endotracheal tube anesthesia was given by anesthetists as per the protocol. Surgery was done by an experienced urologist. The patient was taken in the supine position and left open radical nephrectomy with colo-colic anastomosis was done by transperitoneal approach and subcostal incision. Total duration of surgery was approximately 2½ h with acceptable minimal blood loss. Colo-colic anastomosis was done as the tumor was badly adherent to the descending colon. Total surgery was uneventful. The patient was extubated by an anesthetist after giving reversal and the patient was fully awake with stable vitals. The Glasgow Coma Scale was 15/15, pain score was 2–3/10 by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the patient was moving all four limbs and following commands with spontaneous eye opening. The patient was shifted to the surgical intensive care unit for postoperative care and monitoring. The modified aldrete scale score was 10/10. The anesthetist started epidural ropivacaine 0.2% for post-operative analgesia at the rate of 5 mL/h. The patient was uneventful postoperatively until he started complaining of generalized weakness of the left side almost after 5 h postoperatively. Immediately, clinical evaluation was done and vitals were stable. All needful laboratory investigations were sent and a neurophysician was involved as the patient had a progressive increase in weakness by the next hour for presenting a complaint. Laboratory investigations were within normal limits including electrolytes. The neuro physician suggested magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain as the patient developed left hemiparesis and was suspected of Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with motor weakness (power of UL 2/5 and LL 2/5) and the patient was planned for MRI brain. Anesthesiologist was consulted and they suggested stopping the epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine. The patient started regaining motor and sensory power dramatically after stopping the epidural infusion and the patient completely recovered motor power of UL 5/5 and LL 5/5 1½ h after complete stoppage of the epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine and started complaining of pain at surgical site with VAS 7/10. After discussion with the anesthetist, alternative analgesic IV tramadol 100 mg and IV paracetamol 1g were given. The VAS became 2/10.

DISCUSSION

Epidural analgesia is the most common analgesia used for management of post-operative pain in the major thoracoabdominal surgeries. The analgesia is delivered either by use of single needle or epidural catheter. Epidural catheter delivers the anesthetic drug as a constant infusion into the epidural space.

Hong et al.[1] conducted a study that concluded that there are various factors responsible for the spread of local anesthetic agent into the epidural space. It was found that the contrast medium spreads in cranial direction with more extensive distribution than in the caudal direction.[1] It was also noted that total mass of local anesthetic appears most important factor in determining the extent of sensory, sympathetic, and motor neural blockade whereas the site of epidural needle/catheter placement governs the pattern of distribution of blockade relative to the injection site.[2]

Visser et al.[2] conducted the study in which it was found that the major factor that limits the usefulness of epidural drug administration is uneven drug effect. The cause of unilateral blockade can be attributed to uneven distribution of injected solution due to placement of tip of epidural catheter at sites other than posterior midline or due to the presence of air bubbles and epidural fibrous barrier.[3]

In the study conducted by Tassone et al., concluded in their case report that the extensive unilateral sensory and motor blockade is probably due to the presence of midline posterior and/or anterior septum with adequate post-operative analgesia presumably from eventual spread of the local anesthetic to the Dural cuffs (root sleeves) and subsequent entry into the cerebral spinal fluid by way of arachnoid granulations.[4] Premature catheter dislodgment is another factor responsible for the post-operative unilateral blockade and/or lower-limb weakness which results in premature discontinuation of post-operative epidural infusion.[5]

A study conducted by Ahmed and Baig found that lower-limb motor weakness was more common with the placement of lumbar epidural catheter than that of lower thoracic levels. It was also concluded that discontinuation of the epidural infusion, using the lower concentrations of anesthetic drug resulted in the reversal of lower-limb motor blockade.[6]

In our case, the anesthesiologist secured epidural catheter in L1–L2 space. It was fixed almost 5 cm inside the epidural space and 10 cm at skin level. Our patient developed unilateral weakness on the left side because of the probability of placing the epidural catheter tip more on the left side, there may be epidural fibrous tissue, air bubbles when giving the epidural drugs, uneven distribution of epidural fat, or nonuniform epidural space. Epidurogram can be used to confirm the correct position of epidural catheter tip and drug.

CONCLUSION

This case illustrates a rare extensive unilateral epidural spread of local anesthetic in the epidural space resulting in hemiparesis. Epidurogram can be used to confirm the correct position of epidural catheter tip and local anesthetic spread.

Acknowledgment:

I take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Saurabh Gupta, Department of General Surgery (Urology division), for his invaluable guidance, expert advice, and unwavering support throughout the course of this case study. His mentorship has been instrumental in deepening my clinical understanding and in shaping the successful outcome of this work. I am equally grateful to Dr. Sham sunder Goyal and Dr. Bhanu Preet Kaur from the Department of anesthesia for their kind cooperation and expert assistance during the peri-operative management of the case. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Dr. Amrit deep Singh and Dr. Mannat for their timely help, valuable suggestions, and constant encouragement which greatly supported me during the preparation of this case study.

Ethical approval:

Institutional Review Board approval is not required.

Declaration of patient consent:

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. , , . Analysis of thoracic epidurography and correlating factors affecting the extent of contrast medium spread. Korean J Pain. 2016;29:255-61.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . Factors affecting the distribution of neural blockade by local anesthetics in epidural anesthesia and a comparison of lumbar versus thoracic epidural anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:708-21.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. . Epidural catheter tip position and distribution of injectate evaluated by computed tomography. Anesthesiology. 1999;90:964-70.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , . Unilateral hemiparesis with thoracic epidural in an adolescent. Case Rep Anesthesiol. 2012;2012:732584.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , et al. Audit of motor weakness and premature catheter dislodgement after epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgery. Anaesthesia. 2009;4:27-31.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Incidence of lower limb motor weakness in patients receiving postoperative epidural analgesia and factors associated with it: An observational study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2016;10:149-53.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections