Spinal anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery correlates with fewer total medications and less frequent use of vasoactive agents: A single center experience

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.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Spine Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Series

Background

Hospitals are one of the primary resources for disease transmission, so many guidelines were published, and neurosurgeons were advised to postpone elective spine surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives

To avoid pulmonary complications and reduce the risk of spreading the virus and contracting the disease during the COVID-19 era, we operated a group of our patients under spinal anesthesia rather than general anesthesia.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent discectomy surgery for lumbar spinal disc herniation under SA between September 2020 and 2021.

Results

Sixty-four patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation underwent lumbar discectomy with SA. All patients except three were male. The mean age was 44.52 ± 7.95 years (28 to 64 years). The mean procedure time for SA was 10 minutes. The duration of the surgery was 40 to 90 minutes per each level of disc herniation. The mean blood loss was 350 cc (200 to 600 cc). The most common involved level was L4/L5 intervertebral disc (n = 40 patients; 63.5%). The mean recovery time was 20 minutes. Only three patients requested more analgesics for relief of their pain postoperatively. All patients with discectomy were discharged a day after surgery, and in the case of fusion, two days after surgery. All the patients were followed up for six months, showing no recurrence symptoms, good pain relief, satisfaction with the surgery, and no bad memory of the surgery.

Conclusions

Spinal anesthesia is a good alternative or even the main anesthesia route for patients with lumbar disc herniation. More studies are needed to elucidate the best candidate for SA in patients with lumbar pathology.

The "In-Parallel" Technique for Awake, Bilateral Simultaneous Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Multilevel Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and MIS lumbar decompression have been successfully undertaken in the absence of general anesthesia in well-selected patients. By leveraging spinal anesthesia, surgeons may safely conduct surgeries on one- or two-level lumbar pathology. However, surgeries on more extensive pathology have not yet been described, because of concerns about the duration of efficacy of spinal anesthetic in the awake patient.

OBJECTIVE

To report the use of a novel awake technique for "in parallel," simultaneous lumbar spinal surgery on three-segment pathology.

METHODS

We describe concurrent performance of a dual microscopic, navigated MIS TLIF and MIS two-level decompression, using a combination of liposomal bupivacaine erector spinae block in conjunction with a spinal anesthetic.

RESULTS

We show that a left-sided, two-level MIS tubular microscopic decompression combined with a concurrent right-sided, transfacet MIS TLIF via a tubular microscopic approach was well tolerated in an 87-year-old patient with multilevel lumbar stenosis with a mobile spondylolisthesis.

CONCLUSION

We provide the first description of a dual-surgeon approach for minimally invasive spine surgery. This "in-parallel" technique-reliant on 2, independent spine surgeons-may aid in the performance of surgeries previously considered too extensive, given the time constraints of regional anesthesia and can be successfully applied to patients who otherwise may not be candidates for general anesthesia.

Spine Surgery Under Spinal vs General Anesthesia: Prospective Analysis of Quality of Life, Fatigue, and Cognition

BACKGROUND

There has recently been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery. The literature that compared spine surgery under SA vs general anesthesia (GA) focused on safety, perioperative outcomes, and costs.

OBJECTIVE

To test if SA is associated with less postoperative fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and better quality of life in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery compared with GA.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery under SA or GA by a single surgeon. Fatigue was assessed with the fatigue visual analog scale scale (0-10) and Chalder Fatigue Scale, quality of life with Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form (SF-12), and differences in cognition with Mini-Mental State Examination. Patients were baselined before surgery and assessed again 1 mo after surgery.

RESULTS

Fifty patients completed the study, 25 underwent surgery under SA and 25 under GA. The groups were homogeneous for baseline clinical characteristics, with no differences in preoperative fatigue, quality of life, and cognition. At 1 mo after surgery, SA compared with GA had better fatigue scores: fatigue visual analog scale (2.9 ± 1.5 vs 5.9 ± 2.3 [P < .0001]) and Chalder Fatigue Scale (11.2 ± 3.1 vs 16.9 ± 3.9 [P < .0001]). One month postoperatively, we observed a significant difference in the SF-12 physical component, with SA having 38.8 ± 8.9 vs 29.4 ± 10.3 (P = .002). We did not observe significant postoperative differences in the SF-12 mental component or Mini-Mental State Examination.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that SA offers unique patient-centered advantages to GA for elective spine surgery. One month after surgery, patients who received SA had less postoperative fatigue and better quality of life.

Awake spinal surgery: simplifying the learning curve with a patient selection algorithm

OBJECTIVE

There is a learning curve for surgeons performing "awake" spinal surgery. No comprehensive guidelines have been proposed for the selection of ideal candidates for awake spinal fusion or decompression. The authors sought to formulate an algorithm to aid in patient selection for surgeons who are in the startup phase of awake spinal surgery.

METHODS

The authors developed an algorithm for selecting patients appropriate for awake spinal fusion or decompression using spinal anesthesia supplemented with mild sedation and local analgesia. The anesthetic protocol that was used has previously been reported in the literature. This algorithm was formulated based on a multidisciplinary team meeting and used in the first 15 patients who underwent awake lumbar surgery at a single institution.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients who underwent decompression or lumbar fusion using the awake protocol were reviewed. The mean patient age was 61 ± 12 years, with a median BMI of 25.3 (IQR 2.7) and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.1 ± 1.7; 7 patients (47%) were female. Key patient inclusion criteria were no history of anxiety, 1 to 2 levels of lumbar pathology, moderate stenosis and/or grade I spondylolisthesis, and no prior lumbar surgery at the level where the needle is introduced for anesthesia. Key exclusion criteria included severe and critical central canal stenosis or patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria. Using the novel algorithm, 14 patients (93%) successfully underwent awake spinal surgery without conversion to general anesthesia. One patient (7%) was converted to general anesthesia due to insufficient analgesia from spinal anesthesia. Overall, 93% (n = 14) of the patients were assessed as American Society of Anesthesiologists class II, with 1 patient (7%) as class III. The mean operative time was 115 minutes (± 60 minutes) with a mean estimated blood loss of 46 ± 39 mL. The median hospital length of stay was 1.3 days (IQR 0.1 days). No patients developed postoperative complications and only 1 patient (7%) required reoperation. The mean Oswestry Disability Index score decreased following operative intervention by 5.1 ± 10.8.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors propose an easy-to-use patient selection algorithm with the aim of assisting surgeons with patient selection for awake spinal surgery while considering BMI, patient anxiety, levels of surgery, and the extent of stenosis. The algorithm is specifically intended to assist surgeons who are in the learning curve of their first awake spinal surgery cases.

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.

Spinal versus general anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications on operating room time, pain, and ambulation

OBJECTIVE

There has been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery, especially within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Despite the wide adoption of SA by the orthopedic practices, it has not gained wide acceptance in lumbar spine surgery. Studies investigating SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy have found that SA reduces perioperative costs and leads to a reduction in analgesic use, as well as to shorter anesthesia and surgery time. The aim of this retrospective, case-control study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS)-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) after administration of SA with those who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA.

METHODS

Overall, 40 consecutive patients who underwent MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon were analyzed; 20 patients received SA and 20 patients received GA. Procedure time, intraoperative adverse events, postoperative adverse events, postoperative length of stay, 3-hour postanesthesia care unit (PACU) numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid medication, and time to first ambulation were collected for each patient.

RESULTS

The two groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics. A decrease in total operating room (OR) time was found for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF after administration of SA, with a mean OR time of 156.5 ± 18.9 minutes versus 213.6 ± 47.4 minutes for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA (p < 0.0001), a reduction of 27%. A decrease in total procedure time was also observed for SA versus GA (122 ± 16.7 minutes vs 175.2 ± 10 minutes; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. There was a difference in the mean maximum NRS pain score during the first 3 hours in the PACU as patients who received SA reported a lower pain score compared with those who received GA (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 7.3 ± 2.7; p = 0.018). No significant difference was observed in morphine equivalents received by the two groups. A difference was also observed in the mean overall NRS pain score, with 2.4 ± 2.1 for the SA group versus 4.9 ± 2.3 for the GA group (p = 0.001). Patients who received SA had a shorter time to first ambulation compared with those who received GA (385.8 ± 353.8 minutes vs 855.9 ± 337.4 minutes; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study have pointed to some important observations in this patient population. SA offers unique advantages in comparison with GA for performing MIS-TLIF, including reduced OR time and postoperative pain, and faster postoperative mobilization.

Spinal anesthesia in contemporary and complex lumbar spine surgery: experience with 343 cases

OBJECTIVE

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is an alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for lumbar spine surgery, including complex instrumented fusion, although there are relatively few outcome data available. The authors discuss their experience using SA in a modern complex lumbar spine surgery practice to describe its utility and implementation.

METHODS

Data from patients receiving SA for lumbar spine surgery by one surgeon from March 2017 to December 2020 were collected via a retrospective chart review. Cases were divided into nonfusion and fusion procedure categories and analyzed for demographics and baseline medical status; pre-, intra-, and postoperative events; hospital course, including Acute Pain Service (APS) consults; and follow-up visit outcome data.

RESULTS

A total of 345 consecutive lumbar spine procedures were found, with 343 records complete for analysis, including 181 fusion and 162 nonfusion procedures and spinal levels from T11 through S1. The fusion group was significantly older (mean age 65.9 ± 12.4 vs 59.5 ± 15.4 years, p < 0.001) and had a significantly higher proportion of patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification class III (p = 0.009) than the nonfusion group. There were no intraoperative conversions to GA, with infrequent need for a second dose of SA preoperatively (2.9%, 10/343) and rare preoperative conversion to GA (0.6%, 2/343) across fusion and nonfusion groups. Rates of complications during hospitalization were comparable to those seen in the literature. The APS was consulted for 2.9% (10/343) of procedures. An algorithm for the integration of SA into a lumbar spine surgery practice, from surgical and anesthetic perspectives, is also offered.

CONCLUSIONS

SA is a viable, safe, and effective option for lumbar spine surgery across a wide range of age and health statuses, particularly in older patients and those who want to avoid GA. The authors' protocol, based in part on the largest set of data currently available describing complex instrumented fusion surgeries of the lumbar spine completed under SA, presents guidance and best practices to integrate SA into contemporary lumbar spine practices.

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.

Awake minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a pedicle-based retraction system

OBJECTIVE

Recently there has been increasing interest in the use of regional anesthesia for minimally-invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and laminectomy, with the goal of reducing the side effects and risks associated with general anesthesia and also to improve patient satisfaction. The goal of this technical note is to describe important perioperative aspects to safely perform an awake spine surgery and to describe a novel technique to preform minimally-invasive TLIF using a pedicle-based retraction system.

METHODS

We report our patient selection criteria, perioperative anesthesia protocol and surgical technique for awake TLIF with the Maximum Access Surgery (MAS) TLIF Retraction System. We describe an illustrative case of a 66-year-old female that presented with leg pain, lumbar MRI revealed a grade one spondylolisthesis at L4-5 with severe canal stenosis. She underwent a L4-5 Awake MIS TLIF using the MAS TLIF Retraction System.

RESULTS

The first 10 awake TLIF we performed with the MAS TLIF Retraction System had a mean procedure time of 117.3 min with a standard deviation (SD) of 13, and a mean total OR time of 151 min, SD 14.5. No surgery was converted under general anesthesia. No intraoperative complications were reported. Average length of stay was 1.3 ± 0.46 days.

CONCLUSION

Awake MAS TLIF is a safe and effective technique, with the advantage of reducing the risk and side effect of general anesthesia and the approach-associated damage to soft tissues and morbidity. The pedicle-based distraction allows easier access to the intervertebral disc space for both disc preparation and cage placement.