The impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on the variability of surgical times: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Andrea Taborsky, Franklin Dexter, Alexander Novak, Jennifer L Espy, Rakesh V Sondekoppam
{"title":"The impact of spinal versus general anesthesia on the variability of surgical times: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Andrea Taborsky, Franklin Dexter, Alexander Novak, Jennifer L Espy, Rakesh V Sondekoppam","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02848-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With spinal anesthesia, when cases are taking longer than usual, there may be behavioural tendencies for surgical teams to work more quickly. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine standard deviations of surgical times for single-dose spinal anesthetics versus general anesthesia. We compared ratios of mean surgical times as a secondary endpoint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included randomized trials of humans where general or spinal anesthesia was used for one category of surgical procedure (e.g., hip arthroplasty) and the article reported the means and standard deviations of operative durations. We used statistical methods suitable for surgical times following log-normal distributions. We used generalized confidence intervals to calculate point estimates of ratios and standard errors for each study, followed by pooling among studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among the 77 included studies, 96% were of high quality for our endpoint (i.e., had a low risk of bias), as no (0%) study focused on comparing variability of surgical times and none had surgical time as the primary endpoint. Spinal anesthesia was associated with 6.6% smaller standard deviations than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 15.8% smaller to 1.9% larger, P = 0.13). By meta-regression, there was no significant association of the ratios of standard deviations with study quality (P = 0.39), year of publication (P = 0.76), or categories of procedures (all five P ≥ 0.28). Spinal anesthesia was associated with 1.1% smaller means than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 3.7% smaller to 1.5% larger, P = 0.42). There were no significant associations between the ratios of means and study quality (P = 0.47), year of publication (P = 0.95), or categories of procedures (all five, P ≥ 0.63).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show with high confidence that the effect of choosing spinal anesthesia on variability in surgical time, if present, is sufficiently small to have no substantive direct economic effect. The same conclusion applies to mean surgical time. Therefore, although anesthetic choice has a clinical (biological) impact and affects anesthesia times, the direct effects on surgical times and workflow are minimal at most. Anesthetic choice does not influence operating theatre productivity via changes to surgical times. The impact of spinal anesthetic effects is limited to nonoperative times (e.g., reducing anesthesia-controlled times by using a block room before the patient enters the operating room).</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>PROSPERO ( CRD42023461952 ); first submitted 8 September 2023.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02848-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With spinal anesthesia, when cases are taking longer than usual, there may be behavioural tendencies for surgical teams to work more quickly. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine standard deviations of surgical times for single-dose spinal anesthetics versus general anesthesia. We compared ratios of mean surgical times as a secondary endpoint.

Methods: We included randomized trials of humans where general or spinal anesthesia was used for one category of surgical procedure (e.g., hip arthroplasty) and the article reported the means and standard deviations of operative durations. We used statistical methods suitable for surgical times following log-normal distributions. We used generalized confidence intervals to calculate point estimates of ratios and standard errors for each study, followed by pooling among studies using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment.

Results: Among the 77 included studies, 96% were of high quality for our endpoint (i.e., had a low risk of bias), as no (0%) study focused on comparing variability of surgical times and none had surgical time as the primary endpoint. Spinal anesthesia was associated with 6.6% smaller standard deviations than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 15.8% smaller to 1.9% larger, P = 0.13). By meta-regression, there was no significant association of the ratios of standard deviations with study quality (P = 0.39), year of publication (P = 0.76), or categories of procedures (all five P ≥ 0.28). Spinal anesthesia was associated with 1.1% smaller means than general anesthesia (95% confidence interval, 3.7% smaller to 1.5% larger, P = 0.42). There were no significant associations between the ratios of means and study quality (P = 0.47), year of publication (P = 0.95), or categories of procedures (all five, P ≥ 0.63).

Conclusions: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show with high confidence that the effect of choosing spinal anesthesia on variability in surgical time, if present, is sufficiently small to have no substantive direct economic effect. The same conclusion applies to mean surgical time. Therefore, although anesthetic choice has a clinical (biological) impact and affects anesthesia times, the direct effects on surgical times and workflow are minimal at most. Anesthetic choice does not influence operating theatre productivity via changes to surgical times. The impact of spinal anesthetic effects is limited to nonoperative times (e.g., reducing anesthesia-controlled times by using a block room before the patient enters the operating room).

Study registration: PROSPERO ( CRD42023461952 ); first submitted 8 September 2023.

脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉对手术时间变化的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:使用脊髓麻醉时,当病例所需的时间比平时长时,手术团队可能会有加快工作速度的行为倾向。我们进行了一项荟萃分析系统综述,研究了单剂量脊髓麻醉与全身麻醉手术时间的标准偏差。作为次要终点,我们比较了平均手术时间的比率:我们纳入了在一类手术(如髋关节置换术)中使用全身麻醉或脊髓麻醉的随机人体试验,文章报告了手术时间的平均值和标准偏差。我们采用的统计方法适用于对数正态分布的手术时间。我们使用广义置信区间来计算每项研究的比率点估计值和标准误差,然后使用DerSimonian和Laird随机效应荟萃分析法对研究进行汇总,并进行Knapp-Hartung调整:在纳入的 77 项研究中,96% 的研究对我们的终点而言质量较高(即偏倚风险较低),因为没有一项研究(0%)侧重于比较手术时间的可变性,也没有一项研究将手术时间作为主要终点。椎管内麻醉的标准偏差比全身麻醉小 6.6%(95% 置信区间:小 15.8% 到大 1.9%,P = 0.13)。通过元回归,标准偏差比与研究质量(P = 0.39)、发表年份(P = 0.76)或手术类别(所有五个P均≥0.28)无明显关联。椎管内麻醉的平均值比全身麻醉小 1.1%(95% 置信区间:小 3.7% 到大 1.5%,P = 0.42)。平均值比率与研究质量(P = 0.47)、发表年份(P = 0.95)或手术类别(所有五项,P ≥ 0.63)之间无明显关联:本系统综述和荟萃分析的结果表明,选择脊髓麻醉对手术时间变化的影响即使存在,也很小,不会产生实质性的直接经济影响,这一点具有很高的可信度。这一结论同样适用于平均手术时间。因此,尽管麻醉选择会对临床(生物学)产生影响并影响麻醉时间,但对手术时间和工作流程的直接影响至多微乎其微。麻醉选择不会通过手术时间的变化影响手术室的生产率。脊髓麻醉效果的影响仅限于非手术时间(例如,通过在患者进入手术室前使用阻滞室来减少麻醉控制时间):研究注册:PROSPERO ( CRD42023461952 );2023 年 9 月 8 日首次提交。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信