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.
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.
Authors: Christopher Gonano; Ursula Leitgeb; Christian Sitzwohl; Gerald Ihra; Christian Weinstabl; Stephan C Kettner Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Nevriye Salman; Ahmet Baris Durukan; Hasan Alper Gurbuz; Hasan Yamalı; Leyla Guler; Halil Ibrahim Ucar; Cem Yorgancioglu Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2013-05-08
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