Lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgery under spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia-A retrospective study of 239 cases

Thoracic spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation for lower back surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is a good alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for spine surgery. Despite that, a few case series concern the use of thoracic spinal anesthesia for short-duration surgical interventions. In search of an alternative approach to GA and a better opioid-free modality, we aimed to investigate the safety, feasibility, and patient satisfaction of thoracic SA for spine surgery.

Materials and methods

We analyzed retrospectively a cohort of 24 patients operated on for a degenerative and osteoporotic pathology of the lower thoracic and lumbar spine. Data was collected from medical records, including clinical notes, operative and anesthesia records, and patient questionnaires.

Results

Twenty-one surgeries for herniated discs, two for degenerative spinal stenosis, and one for multi-level osteoporotic vertebral body fractures were performed under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation. In all cases, we applied 0.5% isobaric bupivacaine and the following adjuvants: midazolam, clonidine or dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone. We boosted the anesthesia with local ropivacaine due to inefficient sensory block in two patients. Nobody in the cohort received intravenous opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or additional sedation intraoperatively. Postoperative painkillers were upon the patient's request. No significant complications were detected.

Conclusion

Thoracic spinal anesthesia incorporating adjuvants such as midazolam, clonidine or dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone demonstrates not only efficient conditions for spine surgery, a favorable safety profile, high patient satisfaction, and intrathecal sedation but also effective opioid-free pain management.

Comparative outcomes of awake spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Awake surgery, under spinal anesthesia (SA), is an alternative to surgery under general anesthesia (GA), in neurological and spine surgery. In the literature, there seem to be some evidence supporting benefits associated with the use of this anesthetic modality, as compared to GA. Currently, there is a notable lack of updated and comprehensive review addressing the complications associated with both awake SA and GA in spine surgery. We hence aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the topic.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to identify studies that assessed SA in spine surgery from database inception to April 14, 2023, in PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative time, and overall complications. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies that assessed 7820 patients were included. The majority of the operations that were treated with SA were single-level lumbar cases. Awake patients had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay (Mean difference (MD): - 0.40 days; 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.17) and operative time (MD: - 19.17 min; 95% CI - 29.68 to - 8.65) compared to patients under GA. The overall complication rate was significantly higher in patients under GA than SA (RR, 0.59 [95% CI 0.47-0.74]). Patients under GA had significantly higher rates of postoperative nausea/vomiting RR, 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.90]) and urinary retention (RR, 0.61 [95% CI 0.37-0.99]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing awake spine surgery under SA had significantly shorter operations and hospital stays, and fewer rates of postoperative nausea and urinary retention as compared to GA. In summary, awake spine surgery offers a valid alternative to GA and added benefits in terms of postsurgical complications, while being associated with relatively low morbidity.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Return to Work after CT-Guided Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy: A Prospective Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous lumbar discectomy (PLD) under computed tomography (CT) guidance on pain and functional capacities and to estimate the speed of recovery by assessing the time to return to work.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients treated with PLD were prospectively included between December 2019 and April 2021. Data regarding pain, duration of symptoms, analgesia intakes, time of absence from work, and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were collected. Patients were followed-up during 6 months. Duration of hospitalization and time to return to work were reported. The Fisher test was used to compare nominal variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare ordinal variables, and the Student t test to compare quantitative continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were evaluated (median age, 56 years; interquartile range [IQR], 43-66 years). The median ODI decreased from 44 (IQR, 33-53) to 7 (IQR, 2-17) at 6 months (P < .001). The median visual analog scale score decreased from 8 (IQR, 8-9) to 2 (IQR, 0-3) within 6 months (P < .001). In total, 96.5% of patients were discharged on the day of the procedure, and 3.5% were discharged on the following day. No severe adverse events were reported according to the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) classification system. Of the 57 patients previously employed, 50 were able to return to work during the follow-up, with a median time of 8 days (IQR, 0-20 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic lumbar disc herniation can be successfully treated using PLD, resulting in significant improvement in symptoms and functional capacities and a fast return to work.

Patients' caring experience during procedures under regional anesthesia in Mainland China: A phenomenology study

Background

Although regional anesthesia is common, the procedure results in feelings of uncertainty and anxiety in some patients. Increased care is needed for these patients under general anesthesia. Few studies have focused on the intraoperative caring experience of patients during regional anesthesia. This study focused on the caring experience of patients during procedures involving regional anesthesia.

Methods

The descriptive phenomenology method of Husserl was employed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample in five Grade III-A hospitals in Zhengzhou City, Henan Province. The seven-step analysis method of Colaizzi was applied for the analysis, summation, and theme refinement of the interview data.

Results

A total of 14 patients from five hospitals participated in the interviews. Four domains and 16 themes emerged during analysis: be informed (about the operation site, progression of the operation, informed in advance, receive explanation for abnormal experience); take care of my body (painless, gentle movements, special care); be protected (work seriously, favorable atmosphere, skilled, authority); and treated as an individual (pay attention, accompany, ask for opinions, encourage patient expression, humorous).

Conclusion

Patients during procedure under regional anesthesia had specific caring experiences relative to other patients. Medical staff should recognize the importance of regional anesthesia patients' intraoperative caring experience. Hospital administrators should offer support to allow healthcare staff to provide targeted caring for patients during procedure under regional anesthesia.

Intraoperative Triggered Electromyography for Pedicle Screw Placement Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Preliminary Report

BACKGROUND

Triggered electromyography (tEMG) is an intraoperative neuromonitoring technique used to assess pedicle screw placement during instrumented fusion procedures. Although spinal anesthesia is a safe alternative to general anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar fusion, its use may potentially block conduction of triggered action potentials or may require higher threshold currents to elicit myotomal responses when using tEMG. Given the broad utilization of tEMG for confirmation of pedicle screw placement, adoption of spinal anesthesia may be hindered by limited studies of its use alongside tEMG.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether spinal anesthesia affects the efficacy of tEMG, we compare the baseline spinal nerve thresholds during lumbar fusion procedures under general vs spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

Twenty-three consecutive patients (12 general and 11 spinal) undergoing single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were included in the study. Baseline nerve threshold was determined through direct stimulation of the spinal nerve using tEMG.

RESULTS

Baseline spinal nerve threshold did not differ between the general and spinal anesthesia cohorts (3.25 ± 1.14 vs 3.64 ± 2.16 mA, respectively; P = .949). General and spinal anesthesia cohorts did not differ by age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score status, or surgical indication.

CONCLUSION

We report that tEMG for pedicle screw placement can be safely and effectively used in procedures under spinal anesthesia. The baseline nerve threshold required to illicit a myotomal response did not differ between patients under general or spinal anesthesia. This preliminary finding suggests that spinal anesthetic blockade does not contraindicate the use of tEMG for neuromonitoring during pedicle screw placement.

Neurosurgical Anesthesia: Optimizing Outcomes with Agent Selection

Anesthesia in neurosurgery embodies a vital element in the development of neurosurgical intervention. This undisputed interest has offered surgeons and anesthesiologists an array of anesthetic selections to utilize, though with this allowance comes the equally essential requirement of implementing a maximally appropriate agent. To date, there remains a lack of consensus and official guidance on optimizing anesthetic choice based on operating priorities including hemodynamic parameters (e.g., CPP, ICP, MAP) in addition to the route of procedure and pathology. In this review, the authors detail the development of neuroanesthesia, summarize the advantages and drawbacks of various anesthetic classes and agents, while lastly cohesively organizing the current literature of randomized trials on neuroanesthesia across various procedures.

Intraoperative Electromyography in Awake Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Study on Nerve Activation Under the Effects of Local Anesthesia

SUMMARY

With the versatility of lumbar spine surgery continually expanding, intraoperative electromyography (EMG) has become a common adjunct used to reduce risk of nerve injury and postoperative neurologic deficit. EMG monitoring has been deemed particularly useful in the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. A more recent evolution of the minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion entails complete percutaneous access to the disc through Kambin's triangle, followed by a percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion. Given the lack of direct visualization of nervous structures with percutaneous entrance into the disc, there is risk of injury to surrounding nervous structures with this approach. In effort to reduce risk of nerve injury, application of triggered EMG to gauge proximity of nervous tissue has been evaluated. Recently, patients presenting with contraindications or concerns for general anesthesia have been offered the alternative to undergo their procedure with spinal anesthesia, allowing them to remain awake. Spinal anesthesia entails intrathecal administration of local anesthetic, which mechanistically acts to reduce overall excitability of surrounding neural structures. However, nerve activation under conditions of local anesthetic is relatively unknown, and the ability of triggered EMG monitoring to reliably detect nerve proximity becomes questionable. This case report demonstrates nerve activation at thresholds comparable with those seen under general anesthesia. Although this has sparked interest in the possibility that local anesthetic may not remarkably affect nerve excitability as measured by triggered EMG activation, further investigation is recommended to reliably apply triggered EMG monitoring in awake spine surgery.

Spinal anesthesia in awake surgical procedures of the lumbar spine: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 3709 patients

OBJECTIVE

Awake surgery has previously been found to improve patient outcomes postoperatively in a variety of procedures. Recently, multiple groups have investigated the utility of this modality for use in spine surgery. However, few current meta-analyses exist comparing patient outcomes in awake spinal anesthesia with those in general anesthesia. Therefore, the authors sought to present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of spinal anesthesia relative to general anesthesia in lumbar procedures.

METHODS

Following a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases, 14 clinical studies were included in our final qualitative and quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 5 investigated spinal anesthesia in lumbar discectomy, 4 discussed lumbar laminectomy, and 2 examined interbody fusion procedures. One study investigated combined lumbar decompression and fusion or decompression alone. Two studies investigated patients who underwent discectomy and laminectomy, and 1 study investigated a series of patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, or decompression. Odds ratios, mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the total anesthesia time showed that time was significantly less in patients who received spinal anesthesia for both lumbar discectomies (MD -26.53, 95% CI -38.16 to -14.89; p = 0.00001) and lumbar laminectomies (MD -11.21, 95% CI -19.66 to -2.75; p = 0.009). Additionally, the operative time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent spinal anesthesia (MD -14.94, 95% CI -20.43 to -9.45; p < 0.00001). Similarly, when analyzing overall postoperative complication rates, patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to experience postoperative complications (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.16-0.53; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, patients who received spinal anesthesia had significantly lower postoperative pain scores (MD -2.80, 95% CI -4.55 to -1.06; p = 0.002). An identical trend was seen when patients were stratified by lumbar procedures. Patients who received spinal anesthesia were significantly less likely to require postoperative analgesia (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.25; p < 0.0001) and had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.03; p = 0.02) and intraoperative blood loss (MD -52.36, 95% CI -81.55 to -23.17; p = 0.0004). Finally, the analysis showed that spinal anesthesia cost significantly less than general anesthesia (MD -226.14, 95% CI -324.73 to -127.55; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

This review has demonstrated the varying benefits of spinal anesthesia in awake spine surgery relative to general anesthesia in patients who underwent various lumbar procedures. The analysis has shown that spinal anesthesia may offer some benefits when compared with general anesthesia, including reduction in the duration of anesthesia, operative time, total cost, and postoperative complications. Large prospective trials will elucidate the true role of this modality in spine surgery.