Why the study?
General anesthesia carries various adverse events, making awake surgery for the spine a potential alternative, especially for high-risk populations who are poor candidates for general anesthesia.
Does awake surgery for the spine (ASFS) using spinal anesthesia provide advantages over general anesthesia in patients undergoing spine surgery?
Does awake surgery for the spine (ASFS) using spinal anesthesia provide advantages over general anesthesia in patients undergoing spine surgery?
Awake surgery for the spine using spinal anesthesia is emerging as a promising alternative to general anesthesia, potentially reducing adverse events and benefiting high-risk surgical candidates.
May reduce anesthesia risks in select spine cases; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm advantages.
Awake surgery has been applied for various surgical procedures with positive outcomes; however, in neurosurgery, the technique has traditionally been reserved for cranial surgery. Awake surgery for the spine (ASFS) is an alternative to general anesthesia (GA). As early studies report promising results, ASFS is progressively gaining more interest from spine surgeons. The history defining the range of adverse events facing patients undergoing GA has been well described. Adverse reactions resulting from GA can include postoperative nausea and vomiting, hemodynamic instability and cardiac complications, acute kidney injury or renal insufficiency, atelectasis, pulmonary emboli, postoperative cognitive dysfunction, or malignant hyperthermia and other direct drug reactions. For this reason, many high-risk populations who have typically been poor candidates under classifications for GA could benefit from the many advantages of ASFS. This narrative review will discuss the significant historical components related to ASFS, pertinent mechanisms of action, protocol overview, and the current trajectory of spine surgery with ASFS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wilson et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: