scholarly journals 176 Efficiency of Spinal Anesthesia in Comparison to General Anesthesia in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of 544 Patients

Neurosurgery ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (CN_suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 245-246
Author(s):  
John Thomas Pierce ◽  
Prateek Agarwal ◽  
Paul J Marcotte ◽  
William Charles Welch
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Anesthesia Time

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.

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial of tranexamic acid in minor lumbar spine surgery: no effect on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Signe Elmose ◽  
Mikkel Ø. Andersen ◽  
Else Bay Andresen ◽  
Leah Yacat Carreon
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Decompressive Surgery ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Double Blind

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) compared to placebo in low-risk adult patients undergoing elective minor lumbar spine surgery—specifically with respect to operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications. Studies have shown that TXA reduces blood loss during major spine surgery. There have been no previous studies on the effect of TXA in minor lumbar spine surgery in which these variables have been evaluated.METHODSThe authors enrolled patients with ASA grades 1 to 2 scheduled to undergo lumbar decompressive surgery at Middelfart Hospital into a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients with thromboembolic disease, coagulopathy, hypersensitivity to TXA, or a history of convulsion were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned, in blocks of 10, to one of 2 groups, TXA or placebo. Anticoagulation therapy was discontinued 2–7 days preoperatively. Prior to the incision, patients received either a bolus of TXA (10 mg/kg) or an equivalent volume of saline solution (placebo). Independent t-tests were used to compare differences between the 2 groups, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.RESULTSOf the 250 patients enrolled, 17 patients were excluded, leaving 233 cases for analysis (117 in the TXA group and 116 in the placebo group). The demographics of the 2 groups were similar, except for a higher proportion of women in the TXA group (TXA 50% vs placebo 32%, p = 0.017). There was no significant between-groups difference in operative time (49.53 ± 18.26 vs 54.74 ± 24.49 minutes for TXA and placebo, respectively; p = 0.108) or intraoperative blood loss (55.87 ± 48.48 vs 69.14 ± 83.47 ml for TXA and placebo, respectively; p = 0.702). Postoperative blood loss measured from drain output was 62% significantly lower in the TXA group (13.03 ± 21.82 ml) than in the placebo group (34.61 ± 44.38 ml) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in number of dural lesions or postoperative spinal epidural hematomas, and there were no thromboembolic events.CONCLUSIONSTranexamic acid did not have a statistically significant effect on operative time, intraoperative blood loss, or complications. This study gives no evidence to support the routine use of TXA during minor lumbar decompressive surgery.Clinical trial registration no.: NCT03714360 (clinicaltrials.gov)

scholarly journals Structural equation model analysis of the length-of-hospital stay after lumbar spine surgery

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 612-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saddam F. Kanaan ◽  
Lemuel R. Waitman ◽  
Hung-Wen Yeh ◽  
Paul M. Arnold ◽  
Douglas C. Burton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Structural Equation Model ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Structural Equation ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Model Analysis ◽  
Equation Model ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery

scholarly journals Incidental Dural Tear in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Prospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Lumbosacral Spine ◽  
Dural Tear ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Dural Tears

Introduction: Incidental dual tear is a complication of spinal surgery characterized by an accidental nick of the spinal dural sheath during operative procedures. The worldwide incidence of dural tear according to previous literature varies widely (1- 17%) and in general depends on the type and complexity of the procedure. The present was carried to evaluate the incidence of dural tear in lumbar spine surgery, and to study clinical outcomes in terms of VAS score ODI score and length of hospital stay. Methods: This was a prospective, observational and case control study conducted on 40 patients who underwent elective Lumbosacral spine surgery. The incidence of dural tear was evaluated and the patients were divided into with dural tear and without dural tear. The clinical outcome such as visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Results: The incidence of Dural tear in our study population was found to be 7.5%. The ODI score was significantly higher in dural tear as compared to without dual tear at various postoperative periods. Further, there was no significant difference in the VAS scores with and without dural tear patients. The length of hospital stay was significantly higher in patients with dural tear as compared to without dural tear (11.63±6.19 vs 3.06±1.02 days; p=0.004). Conclusion: Incidental Dural tears if detected and managed accordingly, adverse clinical and postoperative outcomes can be reduced effectively and also increases the quality of life in patients.

scholarly journals Cost-benefit analysis of tranexamic acid and blood transfusion in elective lumbar spine surgery for degenerative pathologies

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Ehresman ◽  
Zach Pennington ◽  
Andrew Schilling ◽  
Ravi Medikonda ◽  
Sakibul Huq ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Tranexamic Acid ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Lower Amount ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Intraoperative Blood Loss ◽  
Patient Groups

OBJECTIVEBlood transfusions are given to approximately one-fifth of patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery, and previous studies have shown that transfusions are accompanied by increased complications and additional costs. One method for decreasing transfusions is administration of tranexamic acid (TXA). The authors sought to evaluate whether the cost of TXA is offset by the decrease in blood utilization in lumbar spine surgery patients.METHODSThe authors retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent elective lumbar or thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions at a tertiary care center between 2016 and 2018. Patients who received intraoperative TXA (TXA patients) were matched with patients who did not receive TXA (non-TXA patients) by age, sex, BMI, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status class, and surgical invasiveness score. Primary endpoints were intraoperative blood loss, number of packed red blood cell (PRBC) units transfused, and total hemostasis costs, defined as the sum of TXA costs and blood transfusion costs throughout the hospital stay. A subanalysis was then performed by substratifying both cohorts into short-length (1–4 levels) and long-length (5–8 levels) spinal constructs.RESULTSOf the 1353 patients who met inclusion criteria, 68 TXA patients were matched to 68 non-TXA patients. Patients in the TXA group had significantly decreased mean intraoperative blood loss (1039 vs 1437 mL, p = 0.01). There were no differences between the patient groups in the total costs of blood transfusion and TXA (p = 0.5). When the 2 patient groups were substratified by length of construct, the long-length construct group showed a significant net cost savings of $328.69 per patient in the TXA group (p = 0.027). This result was attributable to the finding that patients undergoing long-length construct surgeries who were given TXA received a lower amount of PRBC units throughout their hospital stay (2.4 vs 4.0, p = 0.007).CONCLUSIONSTXA use was associated with decreased intraoperative blood loss and significant reductions in total hemostasis costs for patients undergoing surgery on more than 4 levels. Furthermore, the use of TXA in patients who received short constructs led to no additional net costs. With the increasing emphasis put on value-based care interventions, use of TXA may represent one mechanism for decreasing total care costs, particularly in the cases of larger spine constructs.

scholarly journals An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery in Various Hospital Settings

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 368-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Morris ◽  
Jonathan Morris ◽  
Camari Wallace ◽  
Woojin Cho ◽  
Alok Sharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Private Practice ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Academic Institution ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery

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.

scholarly journals Robotically Assisted Hysterectomy versus Vaginal Hysterectomy for Benign Disease: A Prospective Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Carbonnel ◽  
H. Abbou ◽  
H. T. N’Guyen ◽  
S. Roy ◽  
G. Hamdi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Vaginal Hysterectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Benign Disease ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
A Prospective Study

Objectives. A prospective study was carried out to compare vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and robotically assisted hysterectomy (RH) for benign gynecological disease.Materials and Methods. All patients who underwent hysterectomy from March 2010 to March 2012 for a benign disease were included. Patients’ demographics per and post surgery results were collected from medical files. A questionnaire was also conducted 2 months after surgery.Results. Sixty patients were included in the RH group and thirty four in the VH one. Operative time was significantly longer in the RH group ( versus  min; ). Blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly reduced: versus  ml; , and versus days; , respectively. Less pain was reported at D1 and D2 by RH patients, and levels of analgesia were lower compared to those observed in the VH group. No differences were found regarding the rate of conversion to laparotomy, intra- or postoperative complications.Conclusion. Robotically assisted hysterectomy appears to reduce blood loss, postoperative pain, and length of hospital stay, but it is associated with longer operative time and higher cost. Specific indications for RH remain to be defined.

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Breton ◽  
Calvin G. Ludwig ◽  
Michael J. Yang ◽  
T. Jayde Nail ◽  
Ron I. Riesenburger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Spinal Anesthesia ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Lumbar Spine Surgery ◽  
Class Iii ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Fusion Procedure ◽  
Physical Status Classification ◽  
Wide Range

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document