General versus epidural anesthesia for lumbar microdiscectomy

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 Positioning in Spine Surgery: What Spine Surgeons Should Know?

Spine surgery has advanced tremendously over the last decade. The number of spine surgeries performed each year has also been increasing constantly. Unfortunately, the reporting of position-related complications in spine surgery has also been steadily increasing. These complications not only result in significant morbidity for the patient but also raises the risk of litigation for the surgical and anesthetic teams. Fortunately, most position-related complications are avoidable with basic positioning knowledge. Hence, it is critical to be cautious and take all necessary precautions to avoid position-related complications. We discuss the various position-related complications associated with the prone position, which is the most commonly used position in spine surgery, in this narrative review. We also discuss the various methods for avoiding complications. Furthermore, we briefly discuss less commonly used positions in spine surgery, like the lateral and sitting positions.

Assessing the Precision of Surgery Duration Estimation: A Retrospective Study

Background and Objectives

The operating room (OR) is considered the highest source of cost and earnings. Therefore, measuring OR efficiency, which means how time and resources are allocated precisely for their intended purposes in the operating room is crucial. Both overestimation and underestimation negatively impact OR efficiency Therefore, hospitals defined metrics to Measuring OR Effeciency. Many studies have discussed OR efficiency and how surgery scheduling accuracy plays a vital role in increasing OR efficiency. This study aims to evaluate OR efficiency using surgery duration accuracy.

Methods

This retrospective, quantitative study was conducted at King Abdulaziz Medical City. We extracted data on 97,397 surgeries from 2017 to 2021 from the OR database. The accuracy of surgery duration was identified by calculating the duration of each surgery in minutes by subtracting the time of leaving the OR from the time of entering the OR. Based on the scheduled duration, the calculated durations were categorized as either underestimation or overestimation. Descriptive and bivariate analyses (Chi-square test) were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Results

Sixty percent out of the 97,397 surgeries performed were overestimated compared to the time scheduled by the surgeons. Patient characteristics, surgical division, and anesthesia type showed statistically significant differences (p <0.05) in their OR estimation.

Conclusion

Significant proportion of procedures have overestimated. This finding provides insight into the need for improvement.

Recommendations

It is recommended to enhance the surgical scheduling method using machine learning (ML) models to include patient characteristics, department, anesthesia type, and even the performing surgeon increases the accuracy of duration estimation. Then, evaluate the performance of an ML model in future studies.

Efficacy of epidural steroid injections and evaluation of surgical and anesthetic approaches in far-lateral disc herniations

Aim: To observe the long-term effect of epidural steroid injections (ESI) and describe surgical outcomes in patients with far-lateral lumbar disc herniations. Materials & methods: The medical records of 30 patients who underwent surgery for far-lateral lumbar disc herniations were reviewed. Results: ESI outcomes: pain scores decreased significantly after ESI (p = 0.004). The surgery was delayed for 13.78 ± 8.59 months in patients who received ESI. Surgical outcomes: the improvement in the leg pain was considerably more significant than the back pain (p < 0.001). While motor deficit improved substantially (p < 0.001), there was persistent sensory dysesthesia. Conclusion: ESI does not prevent but may delay the surgery up to 28 months. Although postoperative pain scores were significantly decreased, there was persistent back pain and sensory paresthesia.

Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for spinal surgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Whilst general anaesthesia is commonly used to undertake spine surgery, the use of neuraxial and peripheral regional anaesthesia techniques for intraoperative and postoperative analgesia is an evolving practice. Variations in practice have meant that it is difficult to know which modalities achieve optimal outcomes for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Our objective was to identify available evidence on the use of regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques for adult patients undergoing spinal surgery.

METHODS

This study was conducted using a framework for scoping reviews. This included a search of six databases searching for articles published since January 1980. We included studies that involved adult patients undergoing spinal surgery with regional or neuraxial techniques used as the primary anaesthesia method or as part of an analgesic strategy.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight articles were selected for final review. All original papers were included, including case reports, case series, clinical trials, or conference publications. We found that general anaesthesia remains the most common anaesthesia technique for this patient cohort. However, regional anaesthesia, especially non-neuraxial techniques such as fascial plane blocks, is an emerging practice and may have a role in terms of improving postoperative pain relief, quality of recovery, and patient satisfaction. In comparison with neuraxial techniques, the popularity of fascial plane blocks for spinal surgery has significantly increased since 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional and neuraxial anaesthesia techniques have been used both to provide analgesia and anaesthesia for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Outcome metrics for the success of these techniques vary widely and more frequently use physiological outcome metrics more than patient-centred ones.

Perioperative outcomes of general versus spinal anesthesia in the lumbar spine surgery population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 2005 through 2021

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

Perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the perioperative utility of general versus spinal anesthesia in the lumbar spine surgery population.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for manuscripts reporting perioperative outcomes for patients undergoing one to three-level lumbar spine surgery (including decompression, fusion, and decompression with fusion) using either general or spinal anesthesia. Inclusion criteria included studies published from 2005 to 2021, in English, involving primary data from human subjects. Studies were further screened for data on total operative time, blood loss, intraoperative hypotension, pain scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, time required in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), PACU pain anesthetic requirement, and length of stay. Risk of bias for each study was assessed using standardized tools (i.e., RoB 2, ROBINS-I, NOS, as appropriate). Potential predictors of outcome were compared using univariate analysis, and variables potentially associated with outcome were subjected to meta-analysis using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel testing to produce standard mean differences (SMD) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

In total, 12 studies totaling 2796 patients met inclusion criteria. 1414 (50.6%) and 1382 (49.4%) patients underwent lumbar spine surgery with general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia, respectively. Patients undergoing spinal anesthesia were statistically more likely to have coronary artery disease and respiratory dysfunction. Total operative time (SMD: 12.62 min, 95% CI -18.65 to -6.59), estimated blood loss (SMD: 0.57 mL, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.46), postoperative nausea and vomiting (OR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.26), time required in PACU (SMD = -0.20 min, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.08), and length of stay (SMD = -0.14 day, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.10), all statistically significantly favored spinal anesthesia over general anesthesia (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In one to three-level lumbar spine surgery, current literature supports spinal anesthesia as a viable alternative to general anesthesia. As this was a heterogeneous patient population, prospective randomized trials are needed to corroborate findings.

Microendoscopic lumbar discectomy with general versus local anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

While general anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic method during lumbar microendoscopic discectomy (MED), local ± epidural anesthesia (LA) has been gaining popularity as an alternate method. Theoretical advantages of LA include reduced morbidity of anesthesia and improved surgeon-patient communication facilitating less nerve root manipulation and yielding improved surgical outcomes. The objective of this systematic review is to examine the impact of anesthesia type on patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complications with MED.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature examining MED performed under GA or LA was performed. The PubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS databases were searched from inception to August 16, 2021, utilizing strict inclusion and exclusion criteria with all studies reporting greater than 6 months of follow-up and PRO data. PROs including Visual Analog Scale (VAS)-leg/back, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) and/or 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) physical component scores were collected. Complication, recurrent disc herniation, durotomy and reoperation rates as well as surgical factors were collected. All outcomes were compared between pooled studies examining GA or LA. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

A total of 23 studies consisting of 2,868 patients (1,335 GA, 1,533 LA) were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between GA and LA groups in regard to overall complication rate, durotomy rate, recurrent disc herniation rate, reoperation rate, blood loss, or surgical time (p > 0.05). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA (p<0.0004), however leg and back VAS was only improved in GA (p<0.0025) and not in LA (p>0.058), and SF-36 only in LA (p=0.003).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing MED under both anesthetic techniques demonstrated significant improvements in ODI and JOA, with no significant differences in complication or reoperation rates. However, patients undergoing GA demonstrated significant improvement in VAS leg and back pain at last follow-up while LA did not. LA may be offered to carefully selected patients and prior studies have demonstrated reduced costs and risks with LA. Conclusions are limited by a high level of study bias and heterogeneity. Further investigation is needed to assess the true effects of GA and LA on outcomes after MED.

Spine surgery under awake spinal anesthesia: an Egyptian experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Despite tremendous advancements in biomedical science and surgical technique, spine surgeries are still associated with considerable rates of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the elderly. Multiple novel techniques have been employed in recent years to adequately treat spinal diseases while mitigating the perioperative morbidity associated with traditional spinal surgery. Some of these techniques include minimally invasive methods and novel anesthetic and analgesic methods. In recent years, awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia has gained attention as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). In this study, the authors retrospectively reviewed a single-institution Egyptian experience with awake spine surgery using spinal anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Overall, 149 patients who were admitted to As-Salam International Hospital in Cairo for lumbar and lower thoracic spine surgeries, between 2019 and 2020, were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected and analyzed. Visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were assessed at different time intervals including preoperatively, immediately after surgery, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was queried through a questionnaire assessing patient preference for traditional anesthesia or spinal anesthesia.

RESULTS

Of the 149 patients who successfully received spine surgery with spinal anesthesia, there were 49 males and 100 females. The cohort age ranged from 22 to 85 years with a mean of 47.5 years. The operative time ranged from 45 to 300 minutes with a mean estimated blood loss (EBL) of 385 ± 156 mL. No major cardiopulmonary or intraoperative complications occurred, and patients were able to eat immediately after surgery. Patients were able to ambulate without an assistive device 6 to 8 hours after surgery. Decompression and fusion patients were discharged on postoperative days 2 and 3, respectively. VAS and ODI scores demonstrated excellent pain relief, which was maintained at the 1-year postoperative follow-up. No 30- or 90-day readmissions were recorded. Of 149 patients, 124 were satisfied with spinal anesthesia and would recommend spinal anesthesia to other patients. The remaining patients were not satisfied with spinal anesthesia but reported being pleased with their postoperative clinical and functional outcomes. One patient was converted to GA due to the duration of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who received spinal anesthesia for awake spine surgery experienced short stays in the hospital, no readmissions, patient satisfaction, and well-controlled pain. The results of this study have validated the growing body of literature that demonstrates that awake spine surgery with spinal anesthesia is safe and associated with superior outcomes compared with traditional GA. Additionally, the ability to address chronic debilitating conditions, such as spinal conditions, with minimal use of valuable resources, such as ventilators, proved useful during the COVID-19 pandemic and could be a model should other stressors on healthcare systems arise, especially in developing areas of the world.

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.

Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block on the Analgesic Requirements in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block was recently described as a regional anesthetic technique to achieve analgesia for lumbar spine surgery by blocking the dorsal rami of spinal nerves. The study aims to test the hypothesis that TLIP block can offer pain control and reduce the perioperative analgesic requirement in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

METHODS

There were 60 patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery who were randomly assigned into two equal groups, TLIP and control groups. Patients in the TLIP group received general anesthesia and TLIP block while patients in the control group received general anesthesia alone. The primary outcome was the analgesic consumption in the first postoperative 24 hours, while intraoperative additional analgesic needs, time to the first request of postoperative analgesia, and pain scores were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

At 24 hours postoperatively, morphine consumption was lower in the TLIP group (5.13±1.55) versus the control group (14.33±2.58) mg. The intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the TLIP group (15±35.11 mcgs) versus the control group (105±62.08 mcgs). Postoperative first request for analgesia was delayed in the TLIP group (7.30±2.69 h) compared to the control group (0.92±1.23 h). Postoperative Pain scores at rest were 2.53 ± 0.97 and 3.43 ± 0.50 at 24 hours in the TLIP group and the control group, respectively. Postoperative Pain scores at passive flexion of spine were 2.73 ±0.87 and 3.93 ±0.78 at 24 hours in the TLIP group and the control group, respectively. Patients in the TLIP group had lower perioperative hemodynamic responses to surgical stimulation in comparison to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Combined TLIP block with general anesthesia in patients undergoing spinal surgery reduced both postoperative and intraoperative analgesic needs, reduced intra-operative hemodynamic response to surgery, and achieved good postoperative pain control.

Awake spine surgery: An eye-opening movement

Background:

Awake surgery is performed in multiple surgical specialties, but historically, awake surgery in the field of neurosurgery was limited to craniotomies. Over the past two decades, spinal surgeons have pushed for techniques that only require regional anesthesia as they may provide reduced financial burdens on patients, faster recovery times, and better outcomes. The list of awake spine surgeries that have been found in the literature include: laminectomies/discectomies, anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs), lumbar fusions, and dorsal column (DC) stimulator placement.

Methods:

An extensive review of the published literature was conducted through PubMed database with articles containing the search term “awake spine surgery.” No date restrictions were used.

Results:

The search yielded 293 related articles. Cross-checking of articles was conducted to exclude of duplicate articles. The articles were screened for their full text and English language availability. We finalized those articles pertaining to the topic. Findings have shown that lumbar laminectomies performed with local anesthesia have shown shorter operating time, less postoperative nausea, lower incidence of urinary retention and spinal headache, and shorter hospital stays when compared to those performed under general anesthesia. Lumbar fusions with local anesthesia showed similar outcomes as patients reported better postoperative function and fewer side effects of general anesthesia. DC stimulator placement performed with local anesthesia is advantageous as it allows real time patient feedback for surgeons as they directly test affected nerves. However, spontaneous movement during the placement of DC stimulators is associated with higher failure rates when compared to general anesthesia (29.7% vs. 14.9%). Studies have shown that the use of local anesthesia during ACDFs has no significant differences when compared to general anesthesia, and patient’s report better tolerated pain with general anesthesia.

Conclusion:

The use of awake spine surgery is beneficial for those who cannot undergo general anesthesia. However, it is limited to patients who can tolerate prone positioning with no central airway (i.e., normal BMI with a healthy airway), have no pre-existing mental health conditions (e.g., anxiety), and require a minimally invasive procedure with a short operating time. Future studies should focus on long-term efficacies of these procedures that provide further insight on the indications and limitations of awake spine surgery.

Direct Visualization of the Dural Puncture Site During Lumbar Spine Surgery Performed Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Case Report

Spinal anesthesia (SA) has been utilized for lumbar surgical procedures; however, postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and subdural hemorrhage (SDH) are potential consequences. We present the case of a 76-year-old with progressive neurogenic claudication secondary to lumbar spinal stenosis who received SA for a 2-level lumbar posterior decompression. After decompression, the site of dural puncture from a 24-gauge Sprotte spinal needle was identified. Our intraoperative image demonstrates the submillimeter dural defect that can potentially engender complications as significant as PDPH and/or SDH. We recommend searching for, and preemptively sealing, the dural puncture site when SA is used for lumbar spine surgery.

General Versus Neuraxial Anesthesia for Appendectomy: A Multicenter International Study

BACKGROUND

In resource-limited countries, open appendectomy is still performed under general anesthesia (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). We sought to compare the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy under NA versus GA.

METHODS

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing (iPOP) multicenter study. All patients ≥ 16 years-old who underwent an open appendectomy between October 2016 and March 2017 in one of the 14 participating hospitals were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: NA-defined as spinal or epidural-and GA. All-cause morbidity, hospital length of stay (LOS), and pain severity were assessed using univariate analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression adjusting for the following preoperative characteristics: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, history of opioid use, emergency status, and country.

RESULTS

A total of 655 patients were included, 353 of which were in the NA group and 302 in the GA group. The countries operating under NA were Colombia (39%), Thailand (31%), China (23%), and Brazil (7%). Overall, NA patients were younger (mean age (SD): 34.5 (14.4) vs. 40.7 (17.9), p-value < 0.001) and had a lower BMI (mean (SD): 23.5 (3.8) vs. 24.3 (5.2), p-value = 0.040) than GA patients. On multivariable analysis, NA was independently associated with less postoperative complications (OR, 95% CI: 0.30 [0.10-0.94]) and shorter hospital LOS (LOS > 3 days, OR, 95% CI: 0.47 [0.32-0.68]) compared to GA. There was no difference in postoperative pain severity between the two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Open appendectomy performed under NA is associated with improved outcomes compared to that performed under GA. Further randomized controlled studies should examine the safety and value of NA in lower abdominal surgery.

Efficacy, safety, and reliability of surgery on the lumbar spine under general versus spinal anesthesia- an analysis of 64 cases

QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN PURPOSE

Compare intra and postoperative parameters, surgeons' satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness between general anesthesia (GA) and spinal anesthesia (SA) on patients undergoing surgery in the lumbar spine surgery.

OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE

Surgery on the lumbar spine is the commonest surgical procedure among all spinal surgical practices. Both the GA and SA are shown to be suitable techniques for performing the surgery safely. GA is used most frequently. But, SA became increasingly more popular because it allows the patient to self-position thereby reducing various complications associated with GA in a prone position.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients from June 2016 to July 2019 who underwent either discectomy, laminectomy, or lamino-foraminotomy for herniated lumbar disc or canal stenosis in 1 or 2 levels were included. During the study period, 32 patients were non-randomly selected for each of the GA and SA groups. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, total anesthetic time, surgeons' satisfaction, analgesic requirements, cost of the procedure, and hospital stay were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

In the context of demographic characteristics, baseline HR, or MAP, no significant differences were noted between SA and GA groups. Mean anesthetic time, mean PACU time, mean doses of analgesic requirement, cost of anesthesia, and the surgeon's satisfaction was significantly lower in the SA Group (P < 0.05). The blood loss, duration of operation, and hospital stay were not significant too. No major Intra and postoperative complications were reported nor were significant differences found in either series.

CONCLUSION

Safety and efficacy of SA in comparison to GA were similar for the patients undergoing surgery on the lumbar spine. Notable advantages of SA include shorter anesthesia duration, fewer drug requirements, relative cost-effectiveness, and fewer complications rate. Successful surgery can be performed using either anesthesia type.

Comparative outcome analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgery

INTRODUCTION

Spinal anesthesia (SA) has been shown in several studies to be a viable alternative to general anesthesia (GA) in laminectomies, discectomies, and microdiscectomies. However, the use of SA in spinal fusion surgery has been very scarcely documented in the current literature. Here we present a comparison of SA to GA in lumbar fusion surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes and cost.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery by a single surgeon, at a single institution, from 2015 to 2018. Data collected included demographics, operative and recovery times, nausea/vomiting, postoperative pain, and opioid requirement. Costs were included in the analysis if they were: 1) non-fixed; 2) incurred in the operating room (OR); and 3) directly related to patient care. All cost data represents net costs and was obtained from the hospital revenue cycle team. Patients were grouped for statistical analysis based on anesthetic modality.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients received SA and 46 received GA. Both groups were similar in terms of age, gender, BMI, number of levels operated upon, preoperative diagnosis, and medical comorbidities. The SA group spent less time in the OR (163.86 ± 9.02 vs. 195.63 ± 11.27 min, p < 0.05), PACU (82.00 ± 7.17 vs. 102.98 ± 8.46 min, p < 0.05), and under anesthesia (175.03 ± 9.31 vs. 204.98 ± 10.15 min, p < 0.05) than the GA group. Post-surgery OR time was significantly less with SA than with GA (6.00 ± 1.09 vs. 17.26 ± 3.05 min, p < 0.05); however, pre-surgery OR time was similar between groups (50.17 ± 3.08 vs. 56.17 ± 5.34 min, p = 0.061). The SA group also experienced less maximum postoperative pain (3.31 ± 1.41 out of 10 vs. 5.96 ± 0.84/10, p < 0.05) and required less opioid analgesics (2.38 ± 1.37 vs. 5.39 ± 0.84 doses, p < 0.05). Both groups experienced similar nausea or vomiting rates and adverse events postoperatively. Net operative cost was found to be $812.31 (5.6%) less with SA than with GA, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.225).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, SA is almost never used in lumbar fusion, and a cost-effectiveness comparison with GA has not been recorded. In this retrospective study, we demonstrate that the use of SA in lumbar fusion surgery leads to significantly shorter operative and recovery times, less postoperative pain and opioid usage, and slight cost savings over GA. Thus, we conclude that this anesthetic modality represents a safe and cost-effective alternative to GA in lumbar fusion.

Anesthesia and postoperative pain control-multimodal anesthesia protocol

Multimodal analgesia (MMA) involves the use of additive or synergistic combinations of analgesics to achieve clinically required analgesia while minimizing significant side effects associated with higher dose of a single equianalgesic medication such as an opioid analgesic. MMA generally involves optimizing non-opioid pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions and reserving opioid use to treat breakthrough pain. Patients receiving medications via MMA protocols are likely to have lower opioid consumption compared to those managed using primarily IV opioid patient-controlled analgesia. MMA pain management strategies have become important components of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in an effort to optimize care by standardizing analgesic medications in the perioperative setting while minimizing adverse effects and improving quality and patient outcomes. Successful implementation of a MMA requires the input and cooperation of all of the stakeholders including the caregivers as well as the patients. Health system benefits can also be realized from the implementation of an effective MMA, as fewer opioid related side effects can improve patient recovery and lead to faster discharge and improved utilization of resources.

An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery in Various Hospital Settings

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy and microdiscectomy surgery performed in an academic versus private practice hospital setting.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed charts of 188 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2016 at either an academic or a private practice hospital setting. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and direct variable costs were calculated.

RESULTS

At the academic institution, the direct cost of a lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy surgery under general anesthesia was determined to be 9.93% greater than with spinal anesthesia (P = .040). The greatest difference was seen with operating room costs, in which general anesthesia was associated with 18.74% greater costs than spinal anesthesia (P = .016). There was no significant difference in cost at the private practice hospital setting.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that use of spinal anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy leads to less operating room, postanesthesia care unit, and anesthesia times, lower levels of postoperative pain, and no increased rate of other complications compared with general anesthesia at an academic institution as compared to a private practice setting. Spinal anesthesia is 9.93% less expensive than general anesthesia, indicating substantial cost-saving potential. With no sacrifice of patient outcomes and the added benefit of less pain and recovery time, Spinal anesthesia represents a more cost-effective alternative to general anesthesia in lumbar spine surgery in the academic hospital setting.

Impact of Epidural Versus General Anesthesia on Major Lumbar Surgery in Elderly Patients

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of epidural anesthesia (EA) versus general anesthesia (GA) in elderly patients undergoing lower lumbar spine fusion surgeries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar spine surgery can be performed under GA or regional anesthesia. GA is more commonly used in lumbar spine surgery, which renders the patient motionless throughout the procedure and provides a secure airway. Although EA is associated with superior hemodynamic status, reduced duration of operation, less health care cost, and lower rate of surgical complications when compared with GA. Controversy still exists with regard to the optimum choice of anesthesia for major lumbar spine surgery, especially in elderly patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From September 2016 to August 2017, consecutive patients aged 70 years or older who underwent lower lumbar fusion surgery with EA or GA were enrolled in the study. Recorded data for all patients included: age, sex, medical conditions; surgical time, operation procedure, blood loss; intraoperative hypertension and tachycardia; occurrence of nausea, vomiting, delirium, or cardiopulmonary complications. Postoperative pain and satisfaction were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were included. Of these, 42 patients underwent GA and 47 patients underwent EA. The number of patients experiencing hypertension and tachycardia during anesthesia was significantly increased in the GA group when compared with EA. Patients with EA had significantly less delirium, nausea, and vomiting. The average Visual Analog Scale scores were significantly higher in the GA group at 0-8 hours after surgery. Patients underwent EA were more satisfied than patients with GA.

CONCLUSIONS

There was an association between those who received EA and superior perioperative outcomes. However, some concerns including airway security, operation duration, and obesity, must be carefully evaluated. In addition, it should be noted that this study was retrospective and selection bias may probably exist which may interfere with the results.

Anesthesia for minimally invasive neurosurgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an ultimate aim of improving patients overall outcome and satisfaction, minimally invasive surgical approach is becoming more of a norm. The related anesthetic evidence has not expanded at the same rate as surgical and technological advancement. This article reviews the recent evidence on anesthesia and perioperative concerns for patients undergoing minimally invasive neurosurgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Minimally invasive cranial and spinal surgeries have been made possible only by vast technological development. Points of surgical interest can be precisely located with the help of stereotaxy and neuronavigation and special endoscopes which decrease the tissue trauma. The principles of neuroanethesia remain the same, but few concerns are specific for each technique. Dexmedetomidine has a favorable profile for procedures carried out under sedation technique. As the new surgical techniques are coming up, lesser known anesthetic concerns may also come into light.

SUMMARY

Over the last year, little new information has been added to existing literature regarding anesthesia for minimally invasive neurosurgeries. Neuroanesthesia goals remain the same and less invasive surgical techniques do not translate into safe anesthesia. Specific concerns for each procedure should be taken into consideration.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery in high risk patients: Perioperative hemodynamic stability, complications and costs

OBJECTIVE

More stable perioperative hemodynamic conditions, lower costs and a lower perioperative complication rate were reported in young healthy patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery in spinal anesthesia (SA) compared to general anesthesia (GA). However, the benefits of SA in high risk patients (ASA≥II suffering from cardiovascular and/or pulmonary pathologies) undergoing this surgery are unclear. Our objective was to analyze whether SA leads to an improved perioperative hemodynamic stability and to a more cost-effective management compared to GA in high risk patients undergoing this surgery.

METHODS

In a retrospective analysis 146 ASA II-III patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery in SA were compared with 292 ASA I-III patients who were operated in GA between 2000 and 2014. Hemodynamic effects, hospitalization times, complications, and costs according to the Swiss billing system were assessed. The data extraction was conducted according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative for cohort studies.

RESULTS

The patients in the SA group were older (75years (±9.6) vs 69 (±11.5), p<0.001), had a lower BMI (25.8kg/m2 (±4.8) vs 27.2 (±4.7), p=0.003) and showed a higher ASA score (3 vs 2, p<0.001). However, SA was associated with significantly better perioperative hemodynamic stability with less need for intraoperative vasopressors (15% vs 57%, p<0.001), volume supplementation (1113ml ±458 vs 1589±644, p<0.001) and transfusions (0% vs 4%, p<0.001). Additionally, the number of hypotension episodes was lower in the SA group (15% vs 47%, p<0.001). Furthermore, the SA group showed a significantly shorter duration of surgery (70min (±1.2) vs 91 (±41), p<0.001), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4% vs 28%, p<0.001) and pain in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) (visual analogue scale (VAS) 2.3 (±1.1) vs 0.8 (±0.8), p<0.001), whereas pain after 24h did not differ (VAS 0.9 (±1) vs 0.8 (±1.1), p=ns). The postoperative complication (7% vs 5%, p=0.286) and revision rates (4% vs 5%, p=0.626) were similar in both groups. Total costs (United States Dollars (USD) 6377 (±2332) vs 7018 (±4056), p=0.003) and PACU time were significantly lower in the SA group (35min (±12) vs 109 (±173), p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar spine surgery in cardiovascular high risk patients with SA is safe, allows good perioperative hemodynamic stability and might lead to lower health care costs. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy of the Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block for Lumbar Laminoplasty: A Retrospective Study

Study Design

This paper was a single center-based retrospective study with prospective data collection.

Purpose

Compared with other surgeries, limited options are available for perioperative pain management in spinal surgery. Therefore, we aimed to identify new pain management in this study.

Overview of Literature

The thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block has been reported to provide effective regional analgesia in the lumbar region. This study investigated the efficacy of the TLIP block for pain management in lumbar laminoplasty.

Methods

We investigated patients who underwent lumbar laminoplasty for the treatment of lumbar spinal canal stenosis from April to October 2015. Patients with secondary surgery or surgery involving more than four intervertebral spaces were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the pain scale score within 48 hours after the surgery. The secondary outcomes were the number of additional analgesic drugs used and the number of patients complaining of complications, such as nausea and vomiting, within 24 hours after the surgery.

Results

We retrospectively assessed the data of 44 patients who underwent lumbar laminoplasty. Of these, 25 patients received only general anesthesia (G group), whereas 19 patients received the TLIP block along with general anesthesia (T group). Compared with the G group, the T group reported lower pain scores for pain at 1, 2, 4, and 24 hours postoperatively. Moreover, the number of patients who received the additional analgesic pentazocine was lower in the T group than in the G group. The two groups showed no significant differences in the incidence of complications.

Conclusions

The TLIP block provides effective analgesia for 24 hours postoperatively in patients undergoing lumbar laminoplasty.