Intraoperative Neurophysiological Monitoring for Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Spine Surgery under General Anesthesia

2004 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
O Suess ◽  
M Brock ◽  
S Suess ◽  
K Theodoros
2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 415-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andres Zorrilla-Vaca ◽  
Ryan J. Healy ◽  
Marek A. Mirski

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 245-246
Author(s):  
John Thomas Pierce ◽  
Prateek Agarwal ◽  
Paul J Marcotte ◽  
William Charles Welch

Abstract INTRODUCTION Lumbar spine surgery can be successfully performed using various anesthetic techniques. Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia (SA) to general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar surgery. We sought to elucidate the more expedient anesthetic technique. METHODS Following IRB approval, a retrospective review of patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression surgery using GA or SA was performed. Demographic data known to influence perioperative morbidity was collected as well as safety and efficiency parameters. After controlling for patient and procedure characteristics, simple linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in operative blood loss, operative time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, time in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and length of hospital stay. RESULTS >544 consecutive lumbar laminectomy and discectomy surgeries were identified with 183 undergoing GA and 361 undergoing SA. The following times were all shorter for patients receiving SA than GA: operative time (97.4 vs. 151.8 min., P < 0.001), total anesthesia time (145.6 vs. 217.5 min., P < 0.001), time from entering the OR until incision (38.3 vs. 46.8 min., respectively, P < 0.001), time from bandage placement until exiting the OR (10.2 vs. 17.2 min., P < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (1.5 vs. 3.1 days, P < 0.001). The mean PACU length of stay was longer in the SA group than the GA group (178.0 vs. 116.5 min., P < 0.001). Estimated blood loss was less in the SA group than the GA group (62.1 vs. 176.3 mL, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Spinal anesthesia may be the more expedient method of anesthesia in lumbar spinal surgery for all perioperative time points except for time in the PACU.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. S200
Author(s):  
Matthew Morris ◽  
Jonathan Morris ◽  
Woojin Cho ◽  
Manal Abouelrigal ◽  
Camari Wallace ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kadriye Kahveci ◽  
Cihan Doger ◽  
Dilsen Ornek ◽  
Derya Gokcinar ◽  
Semih Aydemir ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Morris ◽  
Jonathan Morris ◽  
Camari Wallace ◽  
Woojin Cho ◽  
Alok Sharan ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Objective: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of spinal anesthesia and general anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy and microdiscectomy surgery performed in an academic versus private practice hospital setting. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed charts of 188 consecutive patients who underwent lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy by a single surgeon from 2012 to 2016 at either an academic or a private practice hospital setting. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were recorded and direct variable costs were calculated. Results: At the academic institution, the direct cost of a lumbar laminectomy or microdiscectomy surgery under general anesthesia was determined to be 9.93% greater than with spinal anesthesia ( P = .040). The greatest difference was seen with operating room costs, in which general anesthesia was associated with 18.74% greater costs than spinal anesthesia ( P = .016). There was no significant difference in cost at the private practice hospital setting. Conclusions: We conclude that use of spinal anesthesia for lumbar laminectomy leads to less operating room, postanesthesia care unit, and anesthesia times, lower levels of postoperative pain, and no increased rate of other complications compared with general anesthesia at an academic institution as compared to a private practice setting. Spinal anesthesia is 9.93% less expensive than general anesthesia, indicating substantial cost-saving potential. With no sacrifice of patient outcomes and the added benefit of less pain and recovery time, Spinal anesthesia represents a more cost-effective alternative to general anesthesia in lumbar spine surgery in the academic hospital setting.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 191
Author(s):  
Narender Kaloria ◽  
Pooja Bihani ◽  
Pradeep Bhatia ◽  
Bharat Paliwal ◽  
Ankur Sharma

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document