Key result
Epidural anaesthesia significantly reduced surgical and anaesthesia duration and postoperative analgesic requirements compared to general anaesthesia for minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures.
Why the study?
Does epidural anaesthesia improve perioperative outcomes compared to general anaesthesia with caudal analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbosacral spine surgeries?
RCT (n=80)
randomized
Does epidural anaesthesia improve perioperative outcomes compared to general anaesthesia with caudal analgesia in patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbosacral spine surgeries?
Epidural anaesthesia is a safe and effective alternative to general anaesthesia for minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures, reducing anaesthesia time, intraoperative hypotension, and postoperative analgesic requirements.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports epidural anaesthesia to shorten procedures and reduce analgesia needs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery; extends RCT evidence versus general anaesthesia.
Background: Minimally invasive lumbar spine surgeries have become popular due to less tissue trauma involved and reduced hospital stay. General anaesthesia is more frequently used for these surgeries, though regional anaesthesia is proved to be safe in few studies. Purpose: To test the efficacy of Epidural anaesthesia (EA) for these lumbosacral spine surgeries in comparison with General anaesthesia supplemented with caudal analgesia (GA). Method: We randomized 80 patients posted for elective primary minimally invasive lumbosacral decompression spinal procedures into two groups of 40 each. The GA group patients received caudal analgesia with Ropivocaine 0.2% 30 ml with Buprenorphine 75 mcg before incision. The EA group patients received 10 cc of Ropivocaine 0.75% bolus with Buprenorphine 75 mcg through epidural catheter placed two spaces above the surgical incision site. Both groups received IV Paracetamol 1 gm 6th hrly and rescue analgesics given were IV Diclofenac and Tramadol. Outcome measures: We compared the groups for perioperative haemodynamic variables, anaesthesia and surgical time, postoperative analgesic requirement, PONV and length of hospital stay. Results: Intraoperative hypotension was seen more in GA group. The surgical and anaesthesia duration were significantly less in EA group. However, the patients for two level discectomies (3 vs. 1) and bilateral laminoforaminotomies (8 vs. 4) were more in GA group. Postoperative analgesic requirement was significantly more in GA group. There was no significant difference in the PONV and all patients were discharged on the first postoperative day. Conclusion: Epidural anaesthesia can safely replace GA for minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures. It not only avoids the risks of GA, but also the intraoperative blood loss, the duration of anaesthesia and the postoperative IV analgesic requirements are much less with the use of Epidural anaesthesia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geetha Lakshminarasimhaiah (2018) conducted an RCT in Minimally invasive lumbosacral spine surgeries (n=80). Epidural anaesthesia vs. General anaesthesia with caudal analgesia was evaluated on Perioperative haemodynamic variables, anaesthesia and surgical time, postoperative analgesic requirement, PONV and length of hospital stay. Epidural anaesthesia significantly reduced surgical and anaesthesia duration and postoperative analgesic requirements compared to general anaesthesia for minimally invasive lumbar spine procedures.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: