Literature DB >> 26875652

Cost Analysis of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Diskectomy and Laminectomy Spine Surgery.

Prateek Agarwal1, John Pierce2, William C Welch2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spine surgery can be performed using various anesthetic modalities, most notably general or spinal anesthesia. Because data comparing the cost of these anesthetic modalities in spine surgery are scarce, this study asks whether spinal anesthesia is less costly than general anesthesia.
METHODS: A total of 542 patients who underwent elective lumbar diskectomy or laminectomy spine surgery between 2007 and 2011 were retrospectively identified, with 364 having received spinal anesthesia and 178 having received general anesthesia. Mean direct operating cost, indirect cost (general support staff, insurance, taxes, floor space, facility, and administrative costs), and total cost were compared among patients who received general and spinal anesthesia. Linear multiple regression analysis was used to identify the effect of anesthesia type on cost and determine the factors underlying this effect, while controlling for patient and procedure characteristics.
RESULTS: When controlling for patient and procedure characteristics, use of spinal anesthesia was associated with a 41.1% lower direct operating cost (-$3629 ± $343, P < 0.001), 36.6% lower indirect cost (-$1603 ± $168, P < 0.001), and 39.6% lower total cost (-$5232 ± $482, P < 0.001) compared with general anesthesia. Shorter hospital stay, shorter duration of anesthesia, shorter duration of operation, and lower estimated blood loss contributed to lower costs for spinal anesthesia, but other factors beyond these were also responsible for lower direct operating and total costs.
CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the benefits of spinal and general anesthesia, spinal anesthesia is less costly when used in patients undergoing lumbar diskectomy and laminectomy spine surgery.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cost analysis; Diskectomy; General anesthesia; Laminectomy; Lumbar spine surgery; Operating cost; PACU; Postanesthesia care unit; Spinal anesthesia

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26875652     DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.02.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World Neurosurg        ISSN: 1878-8750            Impact factor:   2.104


  6 in total

Review 1.  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.

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

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

Authors:  Richard Sekerak; Evan Mostafa; Matthew T Morris; Adam Nessim; Anjali Vira; Alok Sharan
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2020-11-27

Review 3.  Awake spine surgery: An eye-opening movement.

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

4.  Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients.

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

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

Authors:  Matthew T Morris; Jonathan Morris; Camari Wallace; Woojin Cho; Alok Sharan; Manal Abouelrigal; Vilma Joseph
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-08-21

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

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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.