We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
REVIEW
A Comparison of Regional Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies.
Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology 2017 October
BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) is commonly used for lumbar spine surgery. The advantages of regional anesthesia (RA) for lumbar spine surgery, as compared with GA, remain unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the impact of the type of anesthesia on intraoperative events, incidence of postoperative complications, and recovery time of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.
METHODS: Major databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials comparing regional versus GA for lumbar spine surgery. Study-level characteristics, intraoperative events, and postoperative complications were extracted from the articles. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models.
RESULTS: Fifteen randomized clinical trials comprising 961 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The use of RA for lumbar spine surgery was significantly associated with lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 hours (risk ratio [RR]=0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.23-0.77, P=0.005), as well as lower length of stay (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.73; 95% CI=-1.17 to -0.29, P=0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.24; 95% CI=-2.27 to -0.21, P=0.02). There was no statistically significant association with lower pain score (SMD=-0.47; 95% CI=-2.13 to 1.19, P=0.58), lower incidence of urinary retention (RR=1.16; 95% CI=0.73-1.86, P=0.53) or analgesic requirement (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.64-1.18, P=0.37).
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, RA has several advantageous characteristics, including lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, length of stay, and blood loss. Further well-designed studies with more sample size are needed to clarify the associations with possible neurological complications.
METHODS: Major databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched for randomized clinical trials comparing regional versus GA for lumbar spine surgery. Study-level characteristics, intraoperative events, and postoperative complications were extracted from the articles. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effect models.
RESULTS: Fifteen randomized clinical trials comprising 961 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The use of RA for lumbar spine surgery was significantly associated with lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 hours (risk ratio [RR]=0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.23-0.77, P=0.005), as well as lower length of stay (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.73; 95% CI=-1.17 to -0.29, P=0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-1.24; 95% CI=-2.27 to -0.21, P=0.02). There was no statistically significant association with lower pain score (SMD=-0.47; 95% CI=-2.13 to 1.19, P=0.58), lower incidence of urinary retention (RR=1.16; 95% CI=0.73-1.86, P=0.53) or analgesic requirement (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.64-1.18, P=0.37).
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, RA has several advantageous characteristics, including lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, length of stay, and blood loss. Further well-designed studies with more sample size are needed to clarify the associations with possible neurological complications.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app