ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2021
Lumbar spine instrumented fusion surgery under spinal anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia-A retrospective study of 239 cases.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of awake spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024Pooled it
- Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Discectomy: Patient-Centered Analysis of Satisfaction with Anesthesia Service.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Spinal Anesthesia Results in Lower Costs Compared to General Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion-A Matched Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Lumbar fusion efficacy with local bone grafting and platelet-rich plasma: a clinical investigation in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in the elderly.International orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Thoracic spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation for lower back surgery: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Patients' caring experience during procedures under regional anesthesia in Mainland China: A phenomenology study.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Neurosurgical Anesthesia: Optimizing Outcomes with Agent Selection.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Increasing relevance of minimally invasive spinal surgery.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveConventionally 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.
methods239 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionSA 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.