Ononogbu-Uche Favour C, Saleh Abdullah Wael, Toussaint Felix, Wallace Taylor, Woo Joshua, Morris Matthew T, Shaffrey Christopher I, Bullock William M, Guinn Nicole R, Abd-El-Barr Muhammad M
Department of Neurosurgery, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
Duke School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA.
J Clin Med. 2025 May 30;14(11):3851. doi: 10.3390/jcm14113851.
: Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is increasingly managed with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and evolving anesthesia methods. While general anesthesia (GA) remains standard, spinal anesthesia (SA) may offer faster recovery and fewer side effects. This study compares the clinical and economic outcomes of GA versus SA in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). : A retrospective review of 18 TLIF patients (2018-2022) was performed, with 9 patients in each cohort. Patients were matched by demographics and procedure type. Data collected included operative time, blood loss, complications, postoperative opioid utilization, and 30-day readmissions. Costs were analyzed in categories: anesthesia, implants, inpatient care, operating room (OR) supplies, OR time, and PACU fees, using Wilcoxon Rank T-tests and Pearson Chi-Squared tests. : Clinical outcomes such as blood loss, and operative time were similar between groups. However, SA patients had significantly shorter LOS compared to GA (SA: 12 h vs. GA: 84 h, % difference: -150%, = 0.04). Additionally, SA patients had lower total direct costs ($27,881.85 vs. $35,669.01; = 0.027). Significant cost reductions with SA were noted in OR supplies/medications ($7367.93 vs. $10,879.46; = 0.039) and inpatient costs ($621.65 vs. $3092.66; = 0.027). Within these categories, reductions were observed for intravenous solutions, sedatives/anesthetics, pressure management, labs, imaging, evaluations, hospital care, and medications. Although costs for implants, anesthesia care, OR time, and PACU fees were lower with SA, these differences did not reach statistical significance. : In TLIF for DLSD, SA provides significant economic advantages over GA while yielding comparable clinical outcomes. These results support SA as a cost-effective alternative, warranting further prospective studies to confirm these findings.
退行性腰椎疾病(DLSD)越来越多地采用微创手术(MIS)和不断发展的麻醉方法进行治疗。虽然全身麻醉(GA)仍然是标准方法,但脊髓麻醉(SA)可能恢复更快且副作用更少。本研究比较了GA与SA在经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)中的临床和经济结果。
对18例TLIF患者(2018 - 2022年)进行了回顾性研究,每组9例患者。患者按人口统计学和手术类型进行匹配。收集的数据包括手术时间、失血量、并发症、术后阿片类药物使用情况和30天再入院情况。使用Wilcoxon秩和检验和Pearson卡方检验对麻醉、植入物、住院护理、手术室(OR)耗材、OR时间和PACU费用等类别进行成本分析。
两组之间的失血量和手术时间等临床结果相似。然而,与GA相比,SA患者的住院时间明显更短(SA:12小时 vs. GA:84小时,差异百分比:-150%,P = 0.04)。此外,SA患者的总直接成本更低(27,881.85美元 vs. 35,669.01美元;P = 0.027)。SA在OR耗材/药物(7367.93美元 vs. 10,879.46美元;P = 0.039)和住院成本(621.65美元 vs. 3092.66美元;P = 0.027)方面显著降低成本。在这些类别中,观察到静脉输液、镇静剂/麻醉剂、压力管理、实验室检查、影像学检查、评估、医院护理和药物方面的成本降低。虽然SA的植入物、麻醉护理、OR时间和PACU费用较低,但这些差异未达到统计学意义。
在DLSD的TLIF中,SA与GA相比具有显著的经济优势,同时产生可比的临床结果。这些结果支持SA作为一种具有成本效益的替代方案,需要进一步的前瞻性研究来证实这些发现。
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020-11-27
J Neurosurg Spine. 2018-11-2
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2024-12-1