Mohamed M Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah-Eldin Hassan Abdelaaty, Omar Youssef, Alaa A Abdulkawy, Mohamed Eltoukhy
{"title":"脊髓麻醉与常规麻醉下的清醒腰椎手术。","authors":"Mohamed M Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah-Eldin Hassan Abdelaaty, Omar Youssef, Alaa A Abdulkawy, Mohamed Eltoukhy","doi":"10.25259/SNI_747_2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar spine surgery for discectomy or laminectomy is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA). Here, we explored whether, in a series of 84 patients, better peri-operative outcomes and lower complication rates could be achieved for those undergoing diskectomy/laminectomy under spinal anesthesia (SA) versus GA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2022 to 2023, 84 patients were randomly assigned to undergo lumbar discectomy/laminectomy for stenosis under SA: 42 patients versus GAGA: 42 patients. For these two populations, we analyzed and compared multiple variables, including duration of anesthesia, estimated blood loss (EBL), and outcomes (i.e., including pre/post-operative Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry disability index, and short-form 36 questionnaires).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Major advantages of SA versus GA included a reduced mean EBL, shorter mean operative time, reduced mean hospital length of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects. Notably, baseline heart rate or mean arterial blood pressure showed no significant differences between SA and GA groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this small preliminary sample of patients undergoing lumbar disc/stenosis surgery, it appeared that SA reduced the mean EBL, offered shorter mean operative times, mean hospital lengths of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects versus GA.</p>","PeriodicalId":94217,"journal":{"name":"Surgical neurology international","volume":"15 ","pages":"388"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Awake lumbar spine surgery performed under spinal versus conventional anesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamed M Mohi Eldin, Ahmed Salah-Eldin Hassan Abdelaaty, Omar Youssef, Alaa A Abdulkawy, Mohamed Eltoukhy\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/SNI_747_2024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumbar spine surgery for discectomy or laminectomy is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA). Here, we explored whether, in a series of 84 patients, better peri-operative outcomes and lower complication rates could be achieved for those undergoing diskectomy/laminectomy under spinal anesthesia (SA) versus GA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From 2022 to 2023, 84 patients were randomly assigned to undergo lumbar discectomy/laminectomy for stenosis under SA: 42 patients versus GAGA: 42 patients. For these two populations, we analyzed and compared multiple variables, including duration of anesthesia, estimated blood loss (EBL), and outcomes (i.e., including pre/post-operative Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry disability index, and short-form 36 questionnaires).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Major advantages of SA versus GA included a reduced mean EBL, shorter mean operative time, reduced mean hospital length of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects. Notably, baseline heart rate or mean arterial blood pressure showed no significant differences between SA and GA groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on this small preliminary sample of patients undergoing lumbar disc/stenosis surgery, it appeared that SA reduced the mean EBL, offered shorter mean operative times, mean hospital lengths of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects versus GA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94217,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"volume\":\"15 \",\"pages\":\"388\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11544509/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical neurology international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_747_2024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical neurology international","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_747_2024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:腰椎间盘切除术或椎板切除术大多在全身麻醉(GA)下进行。在此,我们对一系列 84 名患者进行了研究,探讨在脊髓麻醉(SA)下进行腰椎间盘切除术/椎板切除术与在全身麻醉下进行腰椎间盘切除术/椎板切除术相比,是否能获得更好的围手术期效果和更低的并发症发生率:从2022年到2023年,84名患者被随机分配到接受腰椎间盘切除术/椎板切除术治疗腰椎管狭窄症,其中42名患者在SA下接受治疗,42名患者在GAGA下接受治疗。我们对这两组患者的多个变量进行了分析和比较,包括麻醉持续时间、估计失血量(EBL)和结果(即包括术前/术后视觉模拟量表、Oswestry 残疾指数和短式 36 问卷):结果:与GA相比,SA的主要优势包括平均EBL降低、平均手术时间缩短、平均住院时间缩短以及术后副作用减少。值得注意的是,基线心率或平均动脉血压在 SA 组和 GA 组之间没有明显差异:根据对接受腰椎间盘/椎间孔狭窄手术的患者进行的小样本初步研究,与GA相比,SA似乎降低了平均EBL,缩短了平均手术时间和平均住院时间,并减少了术后副作用。
Awake lumbar spine surgery performed under spinal versus conventional anesthesia.
Background: Lumbar spine surgery for discectomy or laminectomy is mostly performed under general anesthesia (GA). Here, we explored whether, in a series of 84 patients, better peri-operative outcomes and lower complication rates could be achieved for those undergoing diskectomy/laminectomy under spinal anesthesia (SA) versus GA.
Methods: From 2022 to 2023, 84 patients were randomly assigned to undergo lumbar discectomy/laminectomy for stenosis under SA: 42 patients versus GAGA: 42 patients. For these two populations, we analyzed and compared multiple variables, including duration of anesthesia, estimated blood loss (EBL), and outcomes (i.e., including pre/post-operative Visual Analogue Scale, Oswestry disability index, and short-form 36 questionnaires).
Results: Major advantages of SA versus GA included a reduced mean EBL, shorter mean operative time, reduced mean hospital length of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects. Notably, baseline heart rate or mean arterial blood pressure showed no significant differences between SA and GA groups.
Conclusion: Based on this small preliminary sample of patients undergoing lumbar disc/stenosis surgery, it appeared that SA reduced the mean EBL, offered shorter mean operative times, mean hospital lengths of stay, and fewer post-operative side effects versus GA.