Sarkar Saikat, Banerji Aditi, Chattopadhyaya Arindam, Banerjee Sitikantha
Dept of Spine Surgery, Columbia Asia Hospital, Saltlake, Kolkata, India.
KIMS Hospital, Burdwan, India.
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021 May 2;18:205-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.026. eCollection 2021 Jul.
Conventionally spinal surgeries are done under general anaesthesia (GA). Plenty of literature is available on lumbar spine non-instrumented surgeries under spinal anaesthesia (SA) but handful of literature is there on lumbar spinal instrumented fusion surgeries under SA. We retrospectively analysed the data of 131 patients operated under SA and 108 patients under GA. Aim of the study was to evaluate the safety, advantages and disadvantages of doing lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgeries under SA.In time of COVID-19 pandemic, aerosol generating procedure like intubation, can be avoided if lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgeries are performed under SA.
239 patients aged between 20 and 79 years operated from January 2014 to December 2019 were included in this study. Indications for surgery were lumbar canal stenosis, degenerative or lytic spondylolisthesis. They underwent L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusion surgeries either TLIF or pedicle screw fixation postero lateral fusion (PLF) and decompression. Out of 239 patients,131 were operated under SA and 108 patients under GA. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, operating room time, post-op pain relief and need of analgesics, cost of surgery and anaesthesia related complications were analysed.
The study found significantly less blood loss (p<.05), less OR time, better post-op analgesia and lesser incidence of nausea and vomiting in SA (8.4%) than GA (29.6%). We observed average 10% cost reduction in SA. This study did not find any prone position related complication in regional anaesthesia but one transient brachial plexus palsy and one post-op shoulder pain in GA group.
SA is a safe alternative to GA for lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgery with significant less blood loss, OR time, better post-op analgesia, average 10% overall cost reduction and no reported prone-position related complications.
传统上脊柱手术是在全身麻醉(GA)下进行的。关于脊髓麻醉(SA)下的腰椎非器械手术有大量文献,但关于SA下的腰椎器械融合手术的文献却很少。我们回顾性分析了131例在SA下手术的患者和108例在GA下手术的患者的数据。本研究的目的是评估在SA下进行腰椎器械融合手术的安全性、优点和缺点。在2019年冠状病毒病大流行期间,如果在SA下进行腰椎器械融合手术,诸如插管等产生气溶胶的操作可以避免。
本研究纳入了2014年1月至2019年12月期间接受手术的239例年龄在20至79岁之间的患者。手术指征为腰椎管狭窄、退行性或峡部裂性腰椎滑脱。他们接受了L4-L5或L5-S1融合手术,采用经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)或椎弓根螺钉固定后外侧融合术(PLF)并进行减压。在239例患者中,131例在SA下手术,108例在GA下手术。分析了心率、平均动脉压(MAP)、失血量、手术时间、术后疼痛缓解情况及镇痛药需求、手术费用和与麻醉相关的并发症。
研究发现,与GA组(29.6%)相比,SA组的失血量显著减少(p<0.05)、手术时间更短、术后镇痛效果更好且恶心呕吐发生率更低(8.4%)。我们观察到SA组的费用平均降低了10%。本研究未发现区域麻醉中有任何与俯卧位相关的并发症,但GA组有1例短暂性臂丛神经麻痹和1例术后肩部疼痛。
对于腰椎器械融合手术,SA是GA的一种安全替代方法,具有失血量显著减少、手术时间更短、术后镇痛效果更好、总体费用平均降低10%且未报告与俯卧位相关并发症的优点。