Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postope...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pierce, John T, Kositratna, Guy, Attiah, Mark A, Kallan, Michael J, Koenigsberg, Rebecca, Syre, Peter, Wyler, David, Marcotte, Paul J, Kofke, W Andrew, Welch, William C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29066932
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S141233
_version_ 1783271742639177728
author Pierce, John T
Kositratna, Guy
Attiah, Mark A
Kallan, Michael J
Koenigsberg, Rebecca
Syre, Peter
Wyler, David
Marcotte, Paul J
Kofke, W Andrew
Welch, William C
author_facet Pierce, John T
Kositratna, Guy
Attiah, Mark A
Kallan, Michael J
Koenigsberg, Rebecca
Syre, Peter
Wyler, David
Marcotte, Paul J
Kofke, W Andrew
Welch, William C
author_sort Pierce, John T
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients. RESULTS: SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness. CONCLUSION: SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5644537
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56445372017-10-24 Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients Pierce, John T Kositratna, Guy Attiah, Mark A Kallan, Michael J Koenigsberg, Rebecca Syre, Peter Wyler, David Marcotte, Paul J Kofke, W Andrew Welch, William C Local Reg Anesth Original Research BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients. RESULTS: SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness. CONCLUSION: SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting. Dove Medical Press 2017-10-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5644537/ /pubmed/29066932 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S141233 Text en © 2017 Pierce et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Pierce, John T
Kositratna, Guy
Attiah, Mark A
Kallan, Michael J
Koenigsberg, Rebecca
Syre, Peter
Wyler, David
Marcotte, Paul J
Kofke, W Andrew
Welch, William C
Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title_full Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title_fullStr Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title_full_unstemmed Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title_short Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
title_sort efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644537/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29066932
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/LRA.S141233
work_keys_str_mv AT piercejohnt efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT kositratnaguy efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT attiahmarka efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT kallanmichaelj efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT koenigsbergrebecca efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT syrepeter efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT wylerdavid efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT marcottepaulj efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT kofkewandrew efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients
AT welchwilliamc efficiencyofspinalanesthesiaversusgeneralanesthesiaforlumbarspinalsurgeryaretrospectiveanalysisof544patients