Key result
Spinal anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions significantly decreased total OR time compared to general anesthesia (164 min vs 200 min, p<0.0001).
Why the study?
General anesthesia has negative cognitive effects leading patients to seek alternatives, and data evaluating spinal anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgeries remain limited.
Does spinal anesthesia improve perioperative outcomes and reduce OR time compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions?
Cohort
No
Does spinal anesthesia improve perioperative outcomes and reduce OR time compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions?
Absolute Event Rate: 164% vs 200%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Spinal anesthesia is a safe and time-efficient alternative to general anesthesia for minimally invasive lumbar fusion surgeries, associated with shorter OR times and higher rates of home discharge.
May shorten OR time in MI-TLIF; leaves open whether spinal anesthesia improves outcomes versus general anesthesia in RCTs.
Traditionally surgery for degenerative lumbar pathology is performed under general anesthesia (GA). There have been several studies that have pointed to the negative cognitive effects of general anesthesia, and patients often frequently request alternatives. Considering this, it is advantageous to offer alternative anesthesia strategies. Studies have demonstrated spinal anesthesia (SA) being utilized successfully in decompressive lumbar surgeries; however, there is limited data evaluating use in fusion surgeries. This study presents a single institution’s experience with spinal anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database analyzing 67 patients undergoing SA for lumbar fusion surgeries. Outcomes including data on safety, adverse events, and efficacy of SA were reviewed. In addition, patient demographics, complications, length of stay (LOS), disposition, and OR utilization time were recorded. Comparison to a similar cohort undergoing GA the year prior was completed. There was no difference in length of stay (GA 3.2d vs SA 2.9d, p = 0.104). More patients in the SA group were discharged home compared to the GA group (SA-76% vs GA-56%, p = 0.02). There were no occurrences of pneumonia (PNA) or deep vein thromboses/pulmonary embolus (DVT/PE). There was no difference in incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) (GA-5% vs SA-1%, p = 0.27). Total OR time was decreased in the SA group(SA-164 min vs GA-200 min, p < 0.0001). SA is a safe alternative to GA and is time-efficient when compared to GA. SA can safely be considered as an option for patients undergoing lumbar instrumented fusion surgeries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nail et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Degenerative lumbar pathology requiring fusion. Spinal anesthesia vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Total OR time (p=<0.0001). Spinal anesthesia for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions significantly decreased total OR time compared to general anesthesia (164 min vs 200 min, p<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: