Comparative Study on Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy under Local Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Jason K Lim, Marium Raza, Do H Lim, Samuel Kim, Jeffrey M Breton, David Zhao, Patrick Kim, Mani N Nair, Christoph P Hofstetter, Byeong Cheol Rim
{"title":"Comparative Study on Clinical Outcomes of Posterior Endoscopic Cervical Foraminotomy under Local Anesthesia with Conscious Sedation and General Anesthesia.","authors":"Jason K Lim, Marium Raza, Do H Lim, Samuel Kim, Jeffrey M Breton, David Zhao, Patrick Kim, Mani N Nair, Christoph P Hofstetter, Byeong Cheol Rim","doi":"10.3340/jkns.2024.0229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for treating cervical radiculopathy. Traditionally, PECF is performed under general anesthesia in the prone position, but concerns over anesthesia-related complications have led to the exploration of local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position as an alternative. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy of PECF performed under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position versus general anesthesia in the prone position.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 patients who underwent PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. The outcomes were compared with data from 357 patients across eight studies who underwent PECF under general anesthesia in the prone position. Outcomes measures included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), minimally clinically important difference (MCID), and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients in the local anesthesia group demonstrated significant reductions in neck pain (VAS-N: 4.93±1.32 to 1.49±0.52, p<0.001) and arm pain (VAS-A: 8.69±0.75 to 1.85±1.46, p<0.001), achieving a mean pain reduction of 78.8%. These improvements were comparable to the general anesthesia group (VAS-N: 4.80 to 1.28; VAS-A: 6.71 to 1.23). Functional outcomes improved significantly in both groups, with ODI scores improving from 54.76% to 9.82% locally and from 39.92% to 9.62% in the general group. Although length of stay was slightly longer for the local anesthesia group (5.85±3.20 vs. 4.81±2.17 days, p=0.18), post-procedure monitoring time was significantly shorter (3.2 vs. 7.4 hours, p<0.001). The local anesthesia group reported zero complications (0%, 95% CI: 0-22.8%) compared to an 8.68% complication rate (95% CI: 5.8%-11.6%) in the general anesthesia cohort (p=0.612).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position provides comparably effective pain relief and functional improvement comparable to general anesthesia, though the difference in complication rates was not statistically significant and requires larger studies for confirmation. This technique may be particularly advantageous for patients at higher risk for anesthesia-related complications. Further research is warranted to validate these findings in larger, prospective studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":16283,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2024.0229","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Posterior endoscopic cervical foraminotomy (PECF) is a minimally invasive surgical technique for treating cervical radiculopathy. Traditionally, PECF is performed under general anesthesia in the prone position, but concerns over anesthesia-related complications have led to the exploration of local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position as an alternative. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes, safety, and efficacy of PECF performed under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position versus general anesthesia in the prone position.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 13 patients who underwent PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position. The outcomes were compared with data from 357 patients across eight studies who underwent PECF under general anesthesia in the prone position. Outcomes measures included visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry disability Index (ODI), length of stay (LOS), minimally clinically important difference (MCID), and complications.

Results: Patients in the local anesthesia group demonstrated significant reductions in neck pain (VAS-N: 4.93±1.32 to 1.49±0.52, p<0.001) and arm pain (VAS-A: 8.69±0.75 to 1.85±1.46, p<0.001), achieving a mean pain reduction of 78.8%. These improvements were comparable to the general anesthesia group (VAS-N: 4.80 to 1.28; VAS-A: 6.71 to 1.23). Functional outcomes improved significantly in both groups, with ODI scores improving from 54.76% to 9.82% locally and from 39.92% to 9.62% in the general group. Although length of stay was slightly longer for the local anesthesia group (5.85±3.20 vs. 4.81±2.17 days, p=0.18), post-procedure monitoring time was significantly shorter (3.2 vs. 7.4 hours, p<0.001). The local anesthesia group reported zero complications (0%, 95% CI: 0-22.8%) compared to an 8.68% complication rate (95% CI: 5.8%-11.6%) in the general anesthesia cohort (p=0.612).

Conclusion: PECF under local anesthesia in the lateral decubitus position provides comparably effective pain relief and functional improvement comparable to general anesthesia, though the difference in complication rates was not statistically significant and requires larger studies for confirmation. This technique may be particularly advantageous for patients at higher risk for anesthesia-related complications. Further research is warranted to validate these findings in larger, prospective studies.

局麻清醒镇静与全麻下后路内窥镜颈椎椎间孔切开术临床效果的比较研究。
目的:后路内窥镜颈椎椎间孔切开术(PECF)是一种治疗颈椎神经根病的微创手术技术。传统上,PECF是在俯卧位全麻下进行的,但由于担心麻醉相关的并发症,人们开始探索在侧卧位进行局部麻醉作为一种替代方法。本研究旨在比较侧卧位局部麻醉与俯卧位全身麻醉下PECF的临床结果、安全性和有效性。方法:对13例侧卧位局部麻醉下行PECF的患者进行回顾性分析。这些结果与8项研究中357名在全身麻醉下俯卧位进行PECF的患者的数据进行了比较。结果测量包括视觉模拟量表(VAS)疼痛评分、Oswestry残疾指数(ODI)、住院时间(LOS)、最小临床重要差异(MCID)和并发症。结果:局麻组患者颈部疼痛明显减轻(VAS-N: 4.93±1.32至1.49±0.52)。结论:侧卧位局麻下PECF与全麻相比具有相当有效的疼痛缓解和功能改善,但并发症发生率差异无统计学意义,需要更大规模的研究来证实。这项技术可能对麻醉相关并发症风险较高的患者特别有利。进一步的研究需要在更大的前瞻性研究中验证这些发现。
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
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (J Korean Neurosurg Soc) is the official journal of the Korean Neurosurgical Society, and published bimonthly (1st day of January, March, May, July, September, and November). It launched in October 31, 1972 with Volume 1 and Number 1. J Korean Neurosurg Soc aims to allow neurosurgeons from around the world to enrich their knowledge of patient management, education, and clinical or experimental research, and hence their professionalism. This journal publishes Laboratory Investigations, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Case Reports, Technical Notes, and Letters to the Editor. Our field of interest involves clinical neurosurgery (cerebrovascular disease, neuro-oncology, skull base neurosurgery, spine, pediatric neurosurgery, functional neurosurgery, epilepsy, neuro-trauma, and peripheral nerve disease) and laboratory work in neuroscience.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信