ReviewBrain & spine2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of spinal versus general anesthesia in decompressive surgeries of the lumbar spine.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Five-Year Outcomes of Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression for Lateral Recess Stenosis in Patients With Chronic Systemic Disease.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Reconsidering Anesthesia in Lumbar Surgery: An Umbrella Review of Awake Versus General Anesthesia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Uniportal endoscopic decompression without fusion for grade II-III degenerative spondylolisthesis in the elderly: a case series.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Decompressive lumbar spine surgery is a common procedure for disc herniation and spinal stenosis. Besides intervention under general anesthesia (GA), awake surgery (AS) in local or spinal anesthesia offers potential benefits regarding GA-related side effects and simplified periprocedural management. Research question: Within this systematic analysis, we sought to compare postsurgical outcomes of spinal decompression surgeries in GA and AS. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we extracted all relevant studies from three databases and collected all data concerning surgery duration, blood loss, postoperative duration of hospitalization, postoperative pain (VAS), and disability indices (ODI). Results: In total, we identified 11 studies covering 1350 patients. AS was associated with shorter surgery duration [Mean difference (MD) -8.52 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -14.56, -2.49) min] as well as lower relative risk for postoperative complications [risk ratio (RR) 0.86 (0.75, 0.99)] and nausea and vomiting [RR 0.58 (0.51, 0.66)]. There were no significant differences in estimated blood loss [MD -27.59 (-61.85, -9.97) ml], hospital stay duration [MD -1.6 (-3.95, 0.75) d], pain [MD -0.22 (-1.35, 0.92) VAS] and disability scales [MD -0.8 (-3.54, 1.94) ODI]. Selected studies were considerably heterogeneic ( Discussion and conclusion: Awake surgery is a safe and promising alternative to GA in decompressive spine surgery, however, high heterogeneity of the present literature warrant confirmation in future prospective, randomized trials.
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.