David Urick1, Brandon Sciavolino2, Timothy Y Wang3, Dhanesh K Gupta4, Alok Sharan5, Muhammed M Abd-El-Barr3. 1. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. 2. Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, NJ, USA. 3. Duke University Department of Neurosurgery, Durham, NC, USA. 4. Duke University Division of Anesthesia, Durham, NC, USA. 5. NJ Spine and Wellness, Matawan, NJ, USA.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Jelena Savović; Matthew J Page; Roy G Elbers; Natalie S Blencowe; Isabelle Boutron; Christopher J Cates; Hung-Yuan Cheng; Mark S Corbett; Sandra M Eldridge; Jonathan R Emberson; Miguel A Hernán; Sally Hopewell; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Daniela R Junqueira; Peter Jüni; Jamie J Kirkham; Toby Lasserson; Tianjing Li; Alexandra McAleenan; Barnaby C Reeves; Sasha Shepperd; Ian Shrier; Lesley A Stewart; Kate Tilling; Ian R White; Penny F Whiting; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-08-28
Authors: Bobby D Kim; Wellington K Hsu; Gildasio S De Oliveira; Sujata Saha; John Y S Kim Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468