Spinal versus general anesthesia: Comparing outcomes in pediatric patients undergoing urologic procedures.

INTRODUCTION

Available literature comparing spinal anesthesia (SA) to general anesthesia (GA) in the pediatric population describes multiple benefits in appropriately selected patients including cost reduction, lower incidence of complications, and shorter operative times. In patients undergoing urologic procedures, data are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to expand on the paucity of existing urologic literature as SA appears to be uniquely suited for a substantial number of its common pediatric procedures.

METHODS

Within a single institution, patients who had a urologic procedure performed under SA between May 2019 and July 2021 and were less than 18 months old were compared with a matched cohort of patients who had GA. The SA and GA groups were compared by two-sample t-tests, chi-square test for independence, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

There were a total of 184 SA and 202 GA patients. There was no significant difference in the demographics except that SA patients were younger and weighed less than GA patients. The patients in the SA group needed less opioids both during the surgery (0% vs 26.1% p N/A) and in the immediate postoperative period when compared with GA patients (0% vs 18.2% p N/A). The patients who had SA had fewer complications necessitating PICU admission, or cancellation of surgery (0% vs 6.8% p = 0.03). Total anesthesia and emergence time were lower for SA patients (41 vs 50.2 p = 0.001 & 3.4 vs 6.1 p = 0.001). Both surgery and total OR time were not different between the groups (37.6 vs 35.5 p = 0.35 and 56.3 vs 54.4 p = 0.49). Overall, raw material cost was also found to be lower per procedure in the SA group vs the GA group ($8.90 vs $38.8: 77% reduction). Adjusted total mean costs for the surgery were not different between groups. The reduction in opioid use postoperatively also suggests reduced cost in the management of postoperative pain in the SA group.

DISCUSSION

Total anesthesia time, opioid use, and serious complications were all significantly lower in the SA group. We did not find significant difference in total surgery cost between two groups. However, patients who had SA had better pain control and needed less rescue analgesics in the immediate postoperative period. No patients in either group were sent home with opioids.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia was found to be an equally effective and appropriate alternative to GA with many proposed benefits for common pediatric urologic procedures. With further research, SA may prove to be a safer alternative in patients at risk for complications related to GA general anesthesia while also offering a cost benefit.