Kadriye Kahveci1, Cihan Doger2, Dilsen Ornek3, Derya Gokcinar4, Semih Aydemir5, Rafet Ozay6. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ulus State Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: kahvecikadriye@gmail.com. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara Ataturk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: cihandoger@gmail.com. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: dilsenpinar@yahoo.com. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ankara Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: dgokcinar@yahoo.com. 5. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk Pulmonology Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: drsemihaydemir@hotmail.com. 6. Department of Neurosurgery, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: rftozay@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: General anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic technique for spinal surgery. This study aimed to compare spinal anesthesia (SA) and GA in patients undergoing spinal surgery, in terms of perioperative outcome and cost effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 80 patients with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I-II. The patients were randomized to receive SA (n = 40) or GA (n = 40). Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, and duration in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) were recorded. Postoperative analgesic requirement, nausea and vomiting (PONV), perioperative hemodynamic variables, and anesthetic costs were determined. RESULTS:HR and MABP were significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group at the end of surgery and at PACU admission. Duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, postoperative analgesic requirement, and anesthetic costs were significantly higher in the GA group. Mean blood loss was lower in the SA group than in the GA group, but the difference was not significant. Duration of surgery, duration in the PACU, perioperative hemodynamic variables, and complications were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:SA could be considered a reliable alternative to GA in patients undergoing lumber spine surgery, as it is clinically as effective as GA, but more cost effective.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIM: General anesthesia (GA) is the most commonly used anesthetic technique for spinal surgery. This study aimed to compare spinal anesthesia (SA) and GA in patients undergoing spinal surgery, in terms of perioperative outcome and cost effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 80 patients with ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status I-II. The patients were randomized to receive SA (n = 40) or GA (n = 40). Heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), blood loss, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, and duration in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) were recorded. Postoperative analgesic requirement, nausea and vomiting (PONV), perioperative hemodynamic variables, and anesthetic costs were determined. RESULTS: HR and MABP were significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group at the end of surgery and at PACU admission. Duration of anesthesia, surgeon satisfaction, postoperative analgesic requirement, and anesthetic costs were significantly higher in the GA group. Mean blood loss was lower in the SA group than in the GA group, but the difference was not significant. Duration of surgery, duration in the PACU, perioperative hemodynamic variables, and complications were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SA could be considered a reliable alternative to GA in patients undergoing lumber spine surgery, as it is clinically as effective as GA, but more cost effective.
Authors: David Urick; Brandon Sciavolino; Timothy Y Wang; Dhanesh K Gupta; Alok Sharan; Muhammed M Abd-El-Barr Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Romaric Waguia; Elisabeth Kakmou Touko; David A W Sykes; Margot Kelly-Hedrick; Fady Y Hijji; Alok D Sharan; Norah Foster; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr Journal: IBRO Neurosci Rep Date: 2022-06-08
Authors: Brian Fiani; Taylor Reardon; Jacob Selvage; Alden Dahan; Mohamed H El-Farra; Philine Endres; Taha Taka; Yasmine Suliman; Alexander Rose Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2021-05-10
Authors: John T Pierce; Guy Kositratna; Mark A Attiah; Michael J Kallan; Rebecca Koenigsberg; Peter Syre; David Wyler; Paul J Marcotte; W Andrew Kofke; William C Welch Journal: Local Reg Anesth Date: 2017-10-10
Authors: Matthew T Morris; Jonathan Morris; Camari Wallace; Woojin Cho; Alok Sharan; Manal Abouelrigal; Vilma Joseph Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2018-08-21
Authors: Hao Deng; Jean-Valery Coumans; Richard Anderson; Timothy T Houle; Robert A Peterfreund Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 3.240