OBJECTIVELumbar spinal surgeries have been performed with either spinal or general anaesthesia. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the superiority of either spinal or general anaesthesia on lumbar spine surgery. METHODSAfter approval of institutional ethical committee, we retrospectively analysed 270 patients (ASA I and II) undergoing surgery of lumbar spine from 2009 to 2015 by one surgeon. Of these 150 patients underwent general anaesthesia with controlled ventilation, 120 patients were offered spinal anaesthesia with conscious sedation. Patient records were reviewed to obtain demographic features, type of anaesthesia, baseline heart rate, mean arterial pressure, intraoperative maximum heart rate, mean arterial pressure, duration of surgery, amount of intravenous fluids, intraoperative blood loss, incidence of perioperative complications such as bleeding, nausea, vomiting, hypotension, bradycardia, and postoperative analgesic consumption. RESULTSPatient characteristics including baseline/intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate values did not differ between groups. However, the spinal anaesthesia group experienced significantly shorter durations in the operating room and had a lower incidence of nausea, vomiting. Analgesic consumptions in general anaesthesia group was significantly higher than in spinal anaesthesia group. CONCLUSIONThe present study revealed that spinal anaesthesia is a safe and effective alternative to general anaesthesia for patients undergoing single level or two level lumbar laminectomy, discectomy, or even instrumentation below L2 level and has the advantage of decreased nausea, antiemetic, analgesic requirements, and fewer complications. It also ensures better postoperative recovery when compared to general anaesthesia.
We conducted a study to compare the efficacy and safety of Patient Controlled Epidural Analgesia (PCEA) with that of Continuous Infusion of Epidural Analgesia (CIEA) for maintenance of labour analgesia and evaluated the quality of analgesia and obstetric and safety outcomes. METHODSThe study was a hospital-based prospective, randomised control trial on 80 parturients who had a normal antenatal period. Each parturient received 500-1000 mL lactated ringer solution Intravenously (IV) prior to initiating epidural blockade. Epidural catheter placement was performed in a standard manner and all patients received an initial dose of 8-10 mL bupivacaine 0.25%. Parturients self-administered 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2.5 µg/mL using PCA pumps programmed as follows: 4 mL bolus with a 20 mins Lockout Interval (LI). Group B received CIEA of 8 mL 0.125% bupivacaine with fentanyl 2.5/mL. Hourly assessments included: VAS scores for pain and satisfaction, sensory and motor block, analgesic supplements, bupivacaine and fentanyl consumption. RESULTSData from 80 patients showed no differences among groups in pain relief. Maternal satisfaction was greater in PCEA group. Anaesthetic interventions by way of supplemental doses of Bupivacaine and Fentanyl in the PCEA group were minimal (4 and 2 vs 25 and 12 P <0.001) compared to CEI group. PCEA group received less local anaesthetic (5.2 vs 9.4 p <0.001) and few patients in PCEA group had motor weakness compared to CEI group (6 vs 17 p <0.05). Both methods were safe for mother and newborn. CONCLUSIONPatients who received PCEA required less anaesthetic interventions, required lower doses of local anaesthetic, fentanyl and have less motor weakness than those who received CEI.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.