» Articles » PMID: 37164209

Awake Spinal Fusion Is Associated with Reduced Length of Stay, Opioid Use, and Time to Ambulation Compared to General Anesthesia: A Matched Cohort Study

Overview
Journal World Neurosurg
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2023 May 10
PMID 37164209
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: There is increasing interest in performing awake spinal fusion under spinal anesthesia (SA). Evidence supporting SA has been positive, albeit limited. The authors set out to investigate the effects of SA versus general anesthesia (GA) for spinal fusion procedures on length of stay (LOS), opioid use, time to ambulation (TTA), and procedure duration.

Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single surgeon's patients who underwent lumbar fusions under SA versus GA from June of 2020 to June of 2022. SA patients were compared to demographically matched GA counterparts undergoing comparable procedures. Analyzed outcomes include operative time, opioid usage in morphine milligram equivalents, TTA, and LOS.

Results: Ten SA patients were matched to 10 GA counterparts. The cohort had a mean age of 66.77, a mean body mass index of 27.73 kg/m, and a median American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score of 3.00. LOS was lower in SA versus GA patients (12.87 vs. 50.79 hours, P = 0.001). Opioid utilization was reduced in SA versus GA patients (10.76 vs. 31.43 morphine milligram equivalents, P = 0.006). TTA was reduced in SA versus GA patients (7.22 vs. 29.87 hours, P = 0.022). Procedure duration was not significantly reduced in SA patients compared to GA patients (139.3 vs. 188.2 minutes, P = 0.089).

Conclusions: These preliminary retrospective results suggest the use of SA rather than GA for lumbar fusions is associated with reduced hospital LOS, reduced opioid utilization, and reduced TTA. Future randomized prospective studies are warranted to determine if SA usage truly leads to these beneficial outcomes.

Citing Articles

Single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with navigated percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: technique modification with resultant resource usage optimisation.

Tan Y, Wan J, Rajendram T, Ow L, Tun M, Teo H J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(3):479-487.

PMID: 39399074 PMC: 11467288. DOI: 10.21037/jss-24-20.


Minimally-invasive trans-facet lumbar interbody fusion using a dual-dimension expandable cage: preliminary results of a multi-institutional retrospective study.

Huang C, Brena K, Tabarestani T, Bardeesi A, Paturu M, Spears H J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(3):403-415.

PMID: 39399073 PMC: 11467274. DOI: 10.21037/jss-24-29.


Spinal Anesthesia for Awake Spine Surgery: A Paradigm Shift for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery.

Wilson J, Bonin B, Quinones C, Kumbhare D, Guthikonda B, Hoang S J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274539 PMC: 11396637. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175326.


Thoracic spinal anesthesia with intrathecal sedation for lower back surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

Boykov N, Ferdinandov D, Vasileva P, Yankov D, Burev S, Tanova R Front Med (Lausanne). 2024; 11:1387935.

PMID: 38665296 PMC: 11043566. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1387935.


Airway Management for Emergency Spinal Epidural Hematoma Evacuation With Awake Spine Surgery: Case Report and Literature Review.

Ononogbu-Uche F, Gold C, Brena K, Abd-El-Barr M, Spears H, Humen L Int J Spine Surg. 2024; 18(1):69-72.

PMID: 38228370 PMC: 11265498. DOI: 10.14444/8569.

References
1.
Berthoud M, Reilly C . Adverse effects of general anaesthetics. Drug Saf. 1992; 7(6):434-59. DOI: 10.2165/00002018-199207060-00005. View

2.
Prasad N, Englum B, Turner D, Lake R, Siddiqui T, Mayorga-Carlin M . A Nation-Wide Review of Elective Surgery and COVID-Surge Capacity. J Surg Res. 2021; 267:211-216. PMC: 8213966. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2021.05.028. View

3.
Lu V, Kerezoudis P, Gilder H, McCutcheon B, Phan K, Bydon M . Minimally Invasive Surgery Versus Open Surgery Spinal Fusion for Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 42(3):E177-E185. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001731. View

4.
Miller L, Bhattacharyya S, Pracyk J . Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. World Neurosurg. 2019; 133:358-365.e4. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.08.162. View

5.
Kim C, Easley K, Lee J, Hong J, Virk M, Hsieh P . Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(2 Suppl):143S-150S. PMC: 7263326. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219882344. View