ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
A protocol for lumbar spine surgery under spinal anesthesia in resource limited countries: illustrative case series.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar spine surgery can be performed under either general or spinal anesthesia. Numerous studies highlight the benefits of spinal anesthesia (SA), including cost-effectiveness, reduced anesthesia-related complications, and suitability for patients who do not favor general anesthesia (GA). Those informal case series emphasizes the advantages of SA and introduces a working protocol tailored for resource-limited countries (RLCs). Presentation of case: Two patients, aged 35 and 58, underwent spinal surgery using SA combined with local infiltration for the skin and facet joints. We implemented a new protocol believed to be beneficial in RLCs. In both cases, intraoperative vital signs remained stable, and there was effective pain control postoperatively. Clinical discussion: Spine surgery under SA has gained acceptance due to evidence indicating reduced perioperative risks and lower opioid consumption, alongside decreased healthcare costs. Although there are suggested protocols for SA in spine surgery, many are not applicable in RLCs. Our case series demonstrate similar advantages, suggesting that the protocol used in this study may be helpful. Despite its benefits, SA for spine surgery still faces resistance and has not been widely adopted in many neurosurgery centers. Conclusion: The study aim to outline essential steps for initiating SA for spine surgery in RLCs. The guidelines utilized in this study have proven effective. SA can lead to reduced healthcare costs, lower opioid usage, and increased patient turnover. The two cases series demonstrate improved anesthesia outcomes. Future randomized clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary to establish high-quality evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SA.
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.