Spinal anaesthesia for spinal surgery

Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgeries Under Regional Anesthesia in a Developing Country: An Initial Case Series

Introduction Current evidence from developed countries on lumbar spine surgeries under regional anesthesia reports it to be superior to general anesthesia (GA) in terms of decreased anesthesia time, operative time, intraoperative complications such as bleeding, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and overall cost. We report the first case series from Pakistan on lumbar spine surgeries under regional anesthesia. Methods We utilized spinal anesthesia (SA) for lumbar spine surgeries of 45 patients in a tertiary-care hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. The surgeries were performed as day-care procedures. The preoperative assessments included MRI findings, visual analogue scale (VAS), pre-operative limb powers, and straight leg raise (SLR). Other assessments included total SA time, total surgical time, time of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), complications, and total hospital cost. SPSS v26 was used to calculate means and standard deviations. Results We found the total SA time to be about 45 to 60 minutes in most patients (95.6%). The total surgical time was 30 to 45 minutes for most patients. The average time of stay in the PACU was three to four hours. The VAS scores were significantly improved postoperatively with 46.7% (n=21) of patients with a score of 3, 46.7% (n=21) with a score of 2, and 6.7% (n=3) with a score of 1. 71.1% (n=32) patients had day-care surgery, 22.2% (n=10) stayed in the hospital for one day, and 6.7% (n=3) patients stayed for more than one day. Most patients (88.9%, n=40) had no complications, whereas only 11.1% (n=5) complained of PDPH. The total hospital cost was also lesser than procedures under GA. Conclusion We conclude that SA is well tolerated and has favorable outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness, anesthesia time, surgical time, and hospital stay; therefore, SA should be considered for a greater number of lumbar spine surgeries, especially in low-middle income countries.

Spinal anesthesia in contemporary and complex lumbar spine surgery: experience with 343 cases

OBJECTIVE

Spinal anesthesia (SA) is an alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for lumbar spine surgery, including complex instrumented fusion, although there are relatively few outcome data available. The authors discuss their experience using SA in a modern complex lumbar spine surgery practice to describe its utility and implementation.

METHODS

Data from patients receiving SA for lumbar spine surgery by one surgeon from March 2017 to December 2020 were collected via a retrospective chart review. Cases were divided into nonfusion and fusion procedure categories and analyzed for demographics and baseline medical status; pre-, intra-, and postoperative events; hospital course, including Acute Pain Service (APS) consults; and follow-up visit outcome data.

RESULTS

A total of 345 consecutive lumbar spine procedures were found, with 343 records complete for analysis, including 181 fusion and 162 nonfusion procedures and spinal levels from T11 through S1. The fusion group was significantly older (mean age 65.9 ± 12.4 vs 59.5 ± 15.4 years, p < 0.001) and had a significantly higher proportion of patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification class III (p = 0.009) than the nonfusion group. There were no intraoperative conversions to GA, with infrequent need for a second dose of SA preoperatively (2.9%, 10/343) and rare preoperative conversion to GA (0.6%, 2/343) across fusion and nonfusion groups. Rates of complications during hospitalization were comparable to those seen in the literature. The APS was consulted for 2.9% (10/343) of procedures. An algorithm for the integration of SA into a lumbar spine surgery practice, from surgical and anesthetic perspectives, is also offered.

CONCLUSIONS

SA is a viable, safe, and effective option for lumbar spine surgery across a wide range of age and health statuses, particularly in older patients and those who want to avoid GA. The authors' protocol, based in part on the largest set of data currently available describing complex instrumented fusion surgeries of the lumbar spine completed under SA, presents guidance and best practices to integrate SA into contemporary lumbar spine practices.

How much medicine do spine surgeons need to know to better select and care for patients?

Background:

Although we routinely utilize medical consultants for preoperative clearance and postoperative patient follow-up, we as spine surgeons need to know more medicine to better select and care for our patients.

Methods:

This study provides additional medical knowledge to facilitate surgeons’ “cross-talk” with medical colleagues who are concerned about how multiple comorbid risk factors affect their preoperative clearance, and impact patients’ postoperative outcomes.

Results:

Within 6 months of an acute myocardial infarction (MI), patients undergoing urological surgery encountered a 40% mortality rate: similar rates may likely apply to patients undergoing spinal surgery. Within 6 weeks to 2 months of placing uncoated cardiac, carotid, or other stents, endothelialization is typically complete; as anti-platelet therapy may often be discontinued, spinal surgery can then be more safely performed. Coated stents, however, usually require 6 months to 1 year for endothelialization to occur; thus spinal surgery is often delayed as anti-platelet therapy must typically be continued to avoid thrombotic complications (e.g., stroke/MI). Diabetes and morbid obesity both increase the risk of postoperative infection, and poor wound healing, while the latter increases the risk of phlebitis/pulmonary embolism. Both hypercoagluation and hypocoagulation syndromes may require special preoperative testing/medications and/or transfusions of specific hematological factors. Pulmonary disease, neurological disorders, and major psychiatric pathology may also require further evaluations/therapy, and may even preclude successful surgical intervention.

Conclusions:

Although we as spinal surgeons utilize medical consultants for preoperative clearance and postoperative care, we need to know more medicine to better select and care for our patients.

A prospective randomized trial comparing the technique of spinal and general anesthesia for lumbar disk surgery: a study of 100 cases

BACKGROUND

General anesthesia and regional anesthesia have both been shown to be suitable techniques for patients undergoing lower thoracic and lumbar spine surgery; however, GA is the most frequently used method. The purpose of this study was to conduct an acceptable RCT to compare the intraoperative parameters and postoperative outcome after SA and GA in patients undergoing elective lumbar disk surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laminectomy for herniated lumbar disk during the years 2005 and 2007 were enrolled. They were randomly selected to undergo GA and SA. The variables recorded during the operation were the patients' HR, MAP, amount of blood loss, and surgeons' satisfaction with the operating conditions. The severity of pain, nausea, vomiting, and length of stay in the hospital were recorded in the postoperative course.

RESULTS

The mean blood loss was less in the group undergoing GA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. The surgeon's satisfaction was reported to be higher in the GA group. No major intraoperative complication was reported in either series. During the recovery period, hypertension was reported to happen more frequently in the patients undergoing GA; and postoperative nausea and vomiting were more frequent among patients recovering from SA.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to previous studies, the findings of the present study revealed that SA has no advantages over GA. Moreover, it was showed that GA can reduce the related risks and complications in several aspects.

Postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting in neurosurgical patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting are significant problems for neurosurgical patients and their carers. The treatment of these problems is widely perceived to be inadequate, however, especially in patients undergoing craniotomy, and there are few large, randomized controlled trials. The main issue has been fear of side effects, especially those masking neurological signs. A review of the recent literature therefore is justified.

RECENT FINDINGS

Very little new information has been added to the literature about pain management in craniotomy patients, and postoperative nausea and vomiting management in neurosurgery patients as a whole. The main themes in the literature have been the introduction of multimodal analgesia for craniotomy patients, using simple analgesics as adjuvants to opioids, and innovative neuroaxial analgesia techniques in spinal surgery patients.

SUMMARY

There is still a lot of scope to research and refine pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting management in cranial and spinal neurosurgical patients. Large-scale studies are required to define the current state of practice, determine effective treatments and define the incidence of side-effects.

Regional anesthesia and perioperative outcome: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review of the most recent publications is aimed to look at the current developments regarding the effects of regional anesthesia on perioperative outcome.

RECENT FINDINGS

The debate continues on whether regional anesthesia and analgesia improve outcome or not. Researchers are still divided in their views. While previous meta-analyses are more favorable, more recent trials are rather on the con side. In an attempt to lessen heterogeneity, meta-analyses have now incorporated data from more recent trials to perform subgroup analyses. Such analyses persistently show the same positive results. The established outcome effects of regional anesthesia are mostly due its ability to provide superior analgesia, its ability to reduce the perioperative stress response and subsequent physiologic perturbations, and its ability to reduce pulmonary complications. Its potential to prevent cardiac morbidity in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting is investigated further by looking at valuable specific biological markers like troponin I and natriuretic peptides. Intrathecal opioids do not seem to improve outcome, unlike the intrathecal local anesthetics. The latter improve outcome presumably by blocking the surgical stress response. In contrast, opioids, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been shown not to impact outcome presumably by not being able to interfere with the stress response. The safety and efficacy of epidural or spinal anesthesia for spinal surgery continue to be demonstrated by current studies.

SUMMARY

Despite the controversies, the numerous potential benefits and advantages of regional anesthesia are keys to its continued popularity. With constant search for new scientific clues by improving experimental designs, valuable evidence slowly unfolds. Regional anesthesia certainly takes a leading role in the current trends for a multimodal approach of perioperative pain management.