Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery Research Articles

Analgesic efficacy of the erector spinae plane block using bupivacaine vs. bupivacaine/magnesium sulphate in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a randomized, double-blinded comparative study

Abstract
 Background & Objectives: Postoperative pain is one of the most troublesome pains for the surgical patient, and is one of the causes of morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. Opiates and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been routinely used across the world. Recent resurge of regional anesthetic techniques offer some advantages, especially reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting and less sedation. 
 We compared the efficacy of bupivacaine with a combination of bupivacaine/magnesium sulphate for the Erector Spinae Plane (ESP) block in patients for postoperative pain undergoing lumbar spinal fusion under general anesthesia.
 Methodology: A total of 30 ASA-I and II patients, 20-60 y old, who undergoing lumbar spinal fusion were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two groups; Group B (n = 15) to receive bupivacaine 0.25 percent, 20 mL injected on each side to provide ESP block; and Group BMG (n = 15): to receive 20 mL of 0.25 percent bupivacaine plus 500 mg magnesium sulphate, injected on each side for ESP block.
 The parameters measured included; the surgery time, non-invasive mean blood pressure during surgery, postoperative heart rate at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h, The time to first request for analgesics time after surgery referred to as the postoperative period (h). Postoperative total analgesic (pethidine needed per 24h) required and postoperative pain at rest and on moving, measured with VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) at the 1st, 6th, 12th, and 24th h.
 Results: Both at rest and through moving the VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) among both groups. No significant difference could be seen at the first, sixth, twelfth, and twenty-fourth hours. The time to the first request for analgesics was significantly prolonged in the Group BMG than the Group B. The total analgesic need after surgery was significantly lower in Group BMG than the Group B.
 Conclusion: The use of a combination of bupivacaine plus magnesium for bilateral erector spinae plane block after lumbar spinal fusion surgery is better in terms of prolonged postoperative analgesia and reducing the opioid use as compared to bupivacaine alone in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion under general anesthesia.
 Abbreviations: ESP - Erector spinae plane; VAS - Visual Analogue Scale; NSAIDs - Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs;
 Key words: Adult; Analgesia; Analgesics, Opioid / therapeutic use; Bupivacaine; Humans; Lumbar spine; Magnesium sulfate; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative / drug therapy; Pain, Postoperative / prevention & control; Paraspinal Muscles
 Citation: Abdelbadie M. Analgesic efficacy of the erector spinae plane block using bupivacaine vs. bupivacaine/magnesium sulphate in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a randomized, double-blinded comparative study. Anaesth. pain intensive care 2022;26(4):439-444; DOI: 10.35975/apic.v26i4.1945
 Received: April 17, 2022; Reviewed: May 06, 2022; Accepted: June 17, 2022

Impact of Spinal/Epidural Anesthesia Versus General Anesthesia on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis. To compare impact of different anesthesia techniques on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Both general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia/epidural anesthesia can be used for lumbar spine surgery. There is still much controversy that which anesthesia technique is much more suitable for lumbar spine surgery with less complications, general anesthesia or regional anesthesia. A comprehensive search of the literature was conducted using Excerpta Medica database (EMBASE), PubMed, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials and independent reviewers assessed eligibility for included studies. Primary outcomes included incidences of intraoperative hypertension, hypotension, tachycardia, and bradycardia. Secondary outcomes included postoperative analgesic requirement, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), headache, urinary retention, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Ten randomized controlled trials consisting of 733 adult patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were included. Spinal anesthesia/epidural anesthesia group had significant lower incidences of intraoperative hypertension [odds ratio (OR), 0.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.38; P <0.00001; I2 =0.0%] and tachycardia (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.79; P =0.006; I2 =0.0%), analgesic requirement in postanesthesia care unit (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08-0.22; P <0.00001; I2 =0.0%), PONV within 24 hours after surgery (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.16-0.46; P <0.00001; I2 =6.0%), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (mean difference, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.18; P <0.00001; I2 =32.0%). There were no significant differences in incidences of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia, PONV in postanesthesia care unit, analgesic requirement, urinary retention, and headache within 24 hours after surgery. Low to moderate quality of evidence revealed that patient undergoing lumbar spine surgery might benefit from spinal or epidural anesthesia.

Use of Spinal Anesthesia in Lower Thoracic Spine Surgery: A Case Series.

Spinal anesthesia is a safe and effective alternative to general anesthesia for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery, and numerous reports have demonstrated its advantages. To the best of our knowledge, no group has specifically reported on the use of spinal anesthesia in thoracic-level spine surgeries because there is a hypothetical risk of injuring the conus medullaris at these levels. With the advantages of spinal anesthesia and the desire for many elderly patients to avoid general anesthesia, our group has uniquely explored the use of this modality on select patients with thoracic pathology requiring surgical intervention. To investigate the feasibility of performing thoracic-level spinal surgeries under spinal anesthesia and report our experience with 3 patients. A retrospective chart review of medical records was undertaken, involving clinical notes, operative notes, and anesthesia records. Three spinal stenosis patients underwent thoracic laminectomy under spinal anesthesia. Two surgeries were performed at the T11-T12 level and 1 at the T12-L1 level. The average age was 82 years, average American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 3.3, and 1 identified as female. Two cases used hyperbaric 0.75% bupivacaine dissolved in dextrose, and 1 used isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine dissolved in water. Spinal anesthesia is feasible for thoracic-level spine procedures, even in elderly patients with comorbidities. We describe our cases and technique for safely achieving a thoracic level of analgesia, as well as discuss recommendations, adverse events, and considerations for the use of spinal anesthesia during lower thoracic-level spine operations.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for axial back pain in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe indications for surgical intervention of axial back pain without leg pain for degenerative lumbar disorders have been limited in the literature, as most study designs allow some degree of leg symptoms in the inclusion criteria. PURPOSETo determine the outcome of surgery (decompression only vs. fusion) for pure axial back pain without leg pain. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGProspectively collected data in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MSSIC). PATIENT SAMPLEPatients with pure axial back pain without leg pain underwent lumbar spine surgery for primary diagnoses of lumbar disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and isthmic or degenerative spondylolisthesis ≤ grade II. OUTCOME MEASURESMinimally clinically important difference (MCID) for back pain, Numeric Rating Scale of back pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), MCID of PROMIS-PF, and patient satisfaction on the North American Spine Surgery Patient Satisfaction Index were collected at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. METHODSLog-Poisson generalized estimating equation models were constructed with patient-reported outcomes as the independent variable, reporting adjusted risk ratios (RRadj). RESULTSOf the 388 patients at 90 days, multi-level versus single level lumbar surgery decreased the likelihood of obtaining a MCID in back pain by 15% (RRadj=0.85, p=.038). For every one-unit increase in preoperative back pain, the likelihood for a favorable outcome increased by 8% (RRadj=1.08, p<.001). Of the 326 patients at 1 year, symptom duration > 1 year decreased the likelihood of a MCID in back pain by 16% (RRadj=0.84, p=.041). The probability of obtaining a MCID in back pain increased by 9% (RRadj=1.09, p<.001) for every 1-unit increase in baseline back pain score and by 14% for fusions versus decompression alone (RRadj=1.14, p=.0362). Of the 283 patients at 2 years, the likelihood of obtaining MCID in back pain decreased by 30% for patients with depression (RRadj=0.70, p<.001) and increased by 8% with every one-unit increase in baseline back pain score (RRadj=1.08, p<.001). CONCLUSIONSOnly the severity of preoperative back pain was associated with improvement in MCID in back pain at all time points, suggesting that surgery should be considered for selected patients with severe axial pain without leg pain. Fusion surgery versus decompression alone was associated with improved patient-reported outcomes at 1 year only, but not at the other time points.

An Entropy-Based Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Analgesic and Hypnotic Effects of Equipotent Doses of Sevoflurane and Isoflurane in Patients Presenting for Spine Surgeries.

Objectives Minimal alveolar concentration (MAC) of anesthetic agents has been considered a suitable measure of the potency of inhalational anesthetics. Furthermore, it is assumed that equi-MAC concentrations of different anesthetic agents have a similar potency in suppressing responses to painful stimuli. Isoflurane and sevoflurane are two commonly used volatile anesthetic agents in spine surgeries. Therefore, these agents' hypnotic and analgesic potencies should be distinguished and comprehended for the optimal administration of anesthesia. Consequently, we undertook this study to compare the analgesic and hypnotic potencies between these agents at equi-MAC concentrations, using the entropy monitor. Materials and Methods Forty patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery were randomly assigned to two groups receiving either isoflurane ( n = 20) or sevoflurane ( n = 20). After induction, maintenance of anesthesia was done with age-corrected 1.0 MAC of either isoflurane or sevoflurane. A standardized noxious stimulus was provided to all the patients after achieving a steady state of 1.0 MAC. The state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and RE–SE were recorded at baseline, prestimulus, and poststimulus time points in both groups. Statistical Analyses Data are presented as frequency and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. The comparison of categorical variables between the two groups was made using the Fisher's exact test, and the Student's t -test was used for continuous variables. A p -value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results At age-corrected 1.0 MAC, there was no significant difference in the SE, RE, and RE–SE in both the groups at any time point. Conclusion Our study shows that during a steady state of age-corrected 1.0 MAC single-agent anesthesia, sevoflurane and isoflurane have comparable analgesic and hypnotic potencies as measured by entropy indices when a standardized nociceptive stimulus is provided.

Use of Artificial Intelligence for the Development of Predictive Model to Help in Decision-Making for Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease.

Context The aim of the study was to develop a prognostic model using artificial intelligence for patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative spine disease for change in pain, functional status, and patient satisfaction based on preoperative variables included in following categories—sociodemographic, clinical, and radiological. Methods and Materials A prospective cohort of 180 patients with lumbar degenerative spine disease was included and divided into three classes of management—conservative, decompressive surgery, and decompression with fixation. Preoperative variables, change in outcome measures (visual analog scale—VAS, Modified Oswestry Disability Index—MODI, and Neurogenic Claudication Outcome Score—NCOS), and type of management were assessed using Machine Learning models. These were used for creating a predictive tool for deciding the type of management that a patient should undergo to achieve the best results. Multivariate logistic regression was also used to identify prognostic factors of significance. Results The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated from the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to evaluate the discrimination capability of various machine learning models. Random Forest Classifier gave the best ROC-AUC score in all three classes (0.863 for VAS, 0.831 for MODI, and 0.869 for NCOS), and the macroaverage AUC score was found to be 0.842 suggesting moderate discriminatory power. A graphical user interface (GUI) tool was built using the machine learning algorithm thus defined to take input details of patients and predict change in outcome measures. Conclusion This study demonstrates that machine learning can be used as a tool to help tailor the decision-making process for a patient to achieve the best outcome. The GUI tool helps to incorporate the study results into active decision-making.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

What's New in Spine Surgery.

Clinical outcome analysis in surgical patients enrolled in a Second Opinion Program in spine surgery.

ABSTRACTObjective To analyze pain, functional capacity, quality of life, anxiety and depression outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery following use of the Second Opinion Program, and to present disagreements regarding diagnoses and therapeutic indications between the first and second opinions.Methods A prospective, observational cohort study with 100 patients enrolled in the Second Opinion Program who underwent lumbar spine surgery. Questionnaires addressing pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety and depression were applied prior to and within 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of surgery. Descriptive and comparative statistical analyses were performed. The following clinical outcomes were analyzed: pain intensity, level of disability, quality of life, anxiety, and depression.Results In this sample, 88% and 12% out of 100 patients were submitted to lumbar decompression and arthrodesis, respectively. Patients reported improvements in function, pain intensity, and quality of life factors following surgery and were able to attain the minimal clinically important difference relative to the preoperative period. Agreement between the first and second opinions was observed in 44% of diagnoses, and in 27% of therapeutic indications.Conclusion Patients had favorable postoperative outcomes regarding pain, disability, and quality of life. These findings and the high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic indication disagreements corroborate the need of a second opinion in cases of spine disease with surgical indications.

Risk factors for reoperation after lumbar spine surgery in a 10-year Korean national health insurance service health examinee cohort

Degenerative lumbar spine disease is becoming increasingly prevalent in the aging population. Surgical treatment is the standard treatment modality for intractable cases, but the reoperation rate remains high. We conducted this study to longitudinally evaluate the impact of health risk factors on the risk of lumbar spine reoperation in Koreans aged over 40 years. Subjects aged > 40 years who underwent their first lumbar spinal surgery between January 2005 and December 2008 were selected and followed up until 2015. A total of 6300 people were included. The reoperation rate during the 10-year follow-up period was 13.2% (831/6300 patients). The reoperation rate was the highest in patients in their 60 s (15.4%, P < 0.05). The reoperation rates were also significantly higher in men (vs. women: 14.7% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.05), smokers (vs. non-smokers: 15.2% vs. 12.7%, P < 0.05), alcohol drinkers (vs. non-drinkers: 14.7% vs. 12.4%, P < 0.05), and those with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score (CCI 0, 11.6%; 1–2, 13.2%; and ≥ 3, 15%; P < 0.05). Among patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery, reoperation is performed in 13.2% of patients within 10 years. Male sex, age in the 60 s, alcohol use, smoking, higher Hgb and a high CCI score increased the risk of reoperation after lumbar spine operation.

Assessment of Patients' Willingness to Participate in a Randomized Trial of Spinal versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery

Prospective nonrandomized studies have found less postoperative fatigue and improved quality of life in patients undergoing awake spine surgery under spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings. To prospectively investigate patients' willingness to enroll in randomized trials of lumbar spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia and identify any potential barriers. We recruited patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery for degenerative disease. We described a randomized trial of spine surgery under spinal versus general anesthesia and assessed patients' willingness to participate in such trial. We elicited preferences for treatment along with demographics. The association between these factors and willingness to participate in the trial was examined. Fifty patients completed interviews; 58% were female, mean age of 60.9 ± 12.5 years. A total of 52% patients stated that they were definitely willing to participate in the hypothetical randomized trial, and 8% probably willing. Only 16% of patients were aware of spinal anesthesia as an option for low back surgery, and 60% indicated no strong preference for the anesthesia techniques. Patients without strong preferences stated a greater willingness to participate than those with strong preferences (80% vs. 10% definitely willing, P < 0.0001). Age, sex, education, work status, and race were not significantly associated with willingness to participate. Sixty percent of patients stated that they were either definitely or probably willing to participate in the randomized trial. Subjects lacking strong preferences for the anesthesia technique stated a greater willingness to enroll than those with strong preference.

Hypericum perforatum to Improve Postoperative Pain Outcome After Monosegmental Spinal Sequestrectomy (HYPOS): Results of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery often suffer from severe radicular postoperative pain leading to the prescription of high-dose opioids. In Integrative Medicine, Hypericum perforatum is known as a remedy to relieve pain caused by nerve damage. Objectives: This trial investigated whether homeopathic Hypericum leads to a reduction in postoperative pain and a decrease in pain medication compared with placebo. Design: Randomized double blind, monocentric, placebo controlled clinical trial. Settings/Location: Department of Neurosurgery, Community Hospital Herdecke. Subjects: Inpatients undergoing lumbar sequestrectomy surgery. Interventions: Homeopathic treatment versus placebo in addition to usual pain management. Outcomes Measures: Primary endpoint was pain relief measured with a visual analog scale. Secondary endpoints were the reduction of inpatient postoperative analgesic medication and change in sensory and affective pain perception. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Pain perception between baseline and day 3 did not significantly differ between the study arms. With respect to pain medication, total morphine equivalent doses did not differ significantly. However, a statistical trend and a moderate effect (d = 0.432) in the decrease of pain medication consumption in favor of the Hypericum group was observed. Conclusion: This is the first trial of homeopathy that evaluated the efficacy of Hypericum C200 after lumbar monosegmental spinal sequestrectomy. Although no significant differences between the groups could be shown, we found that patients who took potentiated Hypericum in addition to usual pain management showed lower consumption of analgesics. Further investigations, especially with regard to pain medication, should follow to better classify the described analgesic reduction. Clinical Trial Registration Number: German Clinical Trials Register No: DRKS00007913.

Bilateral lumbar ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block versus local anesthetic infiltration for perioperative analgesia in lumbar spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Lumbar spinal surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain. We examined the analgesic efficacy of bilateral lumbar ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB) with ropivacaine compared with local infiltration. Patients undergoing elective lumbar arthrodesis were randomly divided into two groups. Control group received 0.375% ropivacaine 40 mL through the wound, and ESPB group received preoperative bilateral ESPB with 0.375% ropivacaine 40 mL. Primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity at rest using a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included difference in pain intensity between preintervention and defined timepoints, total amount of opioid analgesic requested by the patients at the same timepoints, the incidence of any adverse event, and the length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. After surgery we detected a NRS value of 1.9±1.5 in ESPB group and 5.9±1.6 in control group (P<0.001). About the opioid consumption we found a total sufentanil tablets consumption of 17±6 and 10±3 at 48 hours for control group and ESPB group, respectively (P<0.001). Concerning LOS, 30 (100%) patients in the control group and 22 (73.3%) in ESPB group were discharged after 72 hours (P=0.005). Bilateral ultrasound-guided ESPB offers improved postoperative analgesia compared with local infiltration in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery.

Evaluation of ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block efficacy on post operative pain in lumbar spine surgery: a randomized clinical trial.

Patients suffer notable levels of pain after lumbar spine surgery. The primary objective of this randomized clinical trial is to investigate the efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on 24-h post-operative pain score of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Cumulative opioid consumption and intraoperative bleeding were assessed as well. Adult patient candidates for elective lumbar spine surgery were randomly assigned to case (ESPB) and control (no ESPB) groups. The block was performed under ultrasound guidance in prone position after induction of general anesthesia. Both groups received the same anesthesia medication and technique. Post-operative pain score, number of patients requiring rescue analgesia (meperidine), total amount of post-operative rescue analgesic demand in the first 24 h, and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. To compare pain score variable in time span, the ANOVA repeated measure test was used. All the statistical tests were two tailed and p<0.05 considered as statistically significant. In all time intervals, pain score in case group was significantly lower than control group. In case group, eight patients demanded rescue analgesic (40%) which was significantly lower than that in control group (15 patients [75%]) (p=0.025). Total amount of meperidine consumption was 57.50±45.95 in control group and 22.50±32.34 in case group (p=0.01) which was higher in control group and statistically significant. ESPB reduces post-operative pain score and opioid consumption, while it does not affect intraoperative bleeding in lumbar spine surgery.

Effects of delayed postoperative void and preoperative urologic symptoms on delay in time of discharge for elective lumbar decompression surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXTAlmost half of all patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have preoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). These symptoms could affect postoperative voiding and subsequently length of stay. PURPOSETo investigate the association between preoperative LUTS and time to first void and between time to first void and time to discharge among patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data among patients at a single academic medical center. PATIENT SAMPLEAll patients ≥18 years of age undergoing elective lumbar decompression surgery between July 2017 and March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURESThe physiologic measure of a delayed time to first void was defined as an initial postoperative void of > 4 hours after anesthesia stop time. The outcome of prolonged time to discharge was defined as a stay of >24 hours after anesthesia stop time. METHODSAt their preoperative visit, patients completed the validated International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) (range, 0–35 points), which is applicable for LUTS assessment in both sexes. Clinically relevant LUTS are defined as an IPSS score of ≥8. Patients were followed from their preoperative visit to surgery admission discharge. Association of LUTS with time to first void and time to first void with admission discharge were estimated using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) from a multivariable Poisson regression with a robust variance estimate adjusted for potential confounding variables including age, sex, IPSS, and intraoperative Foley catheter use. RESULTSThe analytic cohort included 170 patients with an average age of 57 years and 103 (61%) were men. Preoperative LUTS prevalence was 45%, and 111 (65%) of patients voided within 4 hours after surgery. For patients with preoperative LUTS, the unadjusted RR for a first void of >4 hours was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.82–1.32) (p=.77). Adjustment for age, sex, intraoperative Foley catheter use, revision surgery, previous spine surgery, single versus multiple levels, and lumbar location did not materially alter the risk: the multivariable RR was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.82–1.31) (p=.74). The unadjusted RR for a discharge of > 24 hours for patients with a time to first void of > 4 hours was 2.17 (95% CI: 1.51–3.10) (p<.001). After adjusting for age, sex, intraoperative Foley catheter use, IPSS, revision surgery, previous spine surgery, single versus multiple levels, and lumbar location, the multivariable RR was 1.72 (95% CI: 1.22–2.41) (p=.002). CONCLUSIONSRegardless of preoperative LUTS status, an initial first void of >4 hours after surgery is associated with a longer time to discharge among patients undergoing elective lumbar decompression surgery. Future studies are needed to determine if encouraging early postoperative voiding results in timely discharge and shorter length of stay.

Spine Surgery Under Spinal vs General Anesthesia: Prospective Analysis of Quality of Life, Fatigue, and Cognition.

There has recently been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery. The literature that compared spine surgery under SA vs general anesthesia (GA) focused on safety, perioperative outcomes, and costs. To test if SA is associated with less postoperative fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and better quality of life in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery compared with GA. We conducted a prospective nonrandomized study in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery under SA or GA by a single surgeon. Fatigue was assessed with the fatigue visual analog scale scale (0-10) and Chalder Fatigue Scale, quality of life with Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form (SF-12), and differences in cognition with Mini-Mental State Examination. Patients were baselined before surgery and assessed again 1 mo after surgery. Fifty patients completed the study, 25 underwent surgery under SA and 25 under GA. The groups were homogeneous for baseline clinical characteristics, with no differences in preoperative fatigue, quality of life, and cognition. At 1 mo after surgery, SA compared with GA had better fatigue scores: fatigue visual analog scale (2.9 ± 1.5 vs 5.9 ± 2.3 [P < .0001]) and Chalder Fatigue Scale (11.2 ± 3.1 vs 16.9 ± 3.9 [P < .0001]). One month postoperatively, we observed a significant difference in the SF-12 physical component, with SA having 38.8 ± 8.9 vs 29.4 ± 10.3 (P = .002). We did not observe significant postoperative differences in the SF-12 mental component or Mini-Mental State Examination. Our study demonstrates that SA offers unique patient-centered advantages to GA for elective spine surgery. One month after surgery, patients who received SA had less postoperative fatigue and better quality of life.

Efficacy of erector spinae plane block on postoperative pain in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery.

Major lumbar spine surgery causes severe pain in the postoperative period. There are few studies regarding the effect oferector spinae plane block (ESPB)effect on lumbar surgery and its effect is still controversial. Therefore, the study aimed to investigate the effect of ultrasound-guided low thoracic ESPB on opioid consumption and postoperative pain score. Seventy-eight patients undergoing elective open lumbar spine surgery were randomized into two groups. In ESPB group (n = 35) received ultrasound-guided ESPB and in the control group (n = 35), there was no block. Postoperative opioid consumption as morphine equivalent dose, numerical rating scale, mobilization time, discharge time and side effects, bolus deliveries, rescue analgesia doses were evaluated. Total opioid consumption as morphine equivalent was higher in the control group than the ESPB group (p = 0.000). Compare with the control group, the numeric rating scale scores were lower in the ESPB group at the 6th, 12th, and 24th hours (p < 0.05). The patient-controlled analgesia button pressing number in the postoperative 24-h period was lower in the ESPB group (p = 0.000). In the postoperative 24-h period, the need for paracetamol in the ESPB group was lower and the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Rescue analgesia (diclofenac) doses were higher in the control group (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of side effects and mobilization times. ESPB is adequate for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery and can reduce opioid consumption compared with standard analgesia.

Impact of Dominant Symptom on 12-Month Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery

Impact of Dominant Symptom on 12-Month Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery

Effect of Ultrasound-Guided Thoracolumbar Interfascial Plane Block on the Analgesic Requirements in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Spine Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BackgroundThoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block was recently described as a regional anesthetic technique to achieve analgesia for lumbar spine surgery by blocking the dorsal rami of spinal nerves. The study aims to test the hypothesis that TLIP block can offer pain control and reduce the perioperative analgesic requirement in patients undergoing spinal surgery.MethodsThere were 60 patients scheduled for lumbar spine surgery who were randomly assigned into two equal groups, TLIP and control groups. Patients in the TLIP group received general anesthesia and TLIP block while patients in the control group received general anesthesia alone. The primary outcome was the analgesic consumption in the first postoperative 24 hours, while intraoperative additional analgesic needs, time to the first request of postoperative analgesia, and pain scores were the secondary outcomes.ResultsAt 24 hours postoperatively, morphine consumption was lower in the TLIP group (5.13±1.55) versus the control group (14.33±2.58) mg. The intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the TLIP group (15±35.11 mcgs) versus the control group (105±62.08 mcgs). Postoperative first request for analgesia was delayed in the TLIP group (7.30±2.69 h) compared to the control group (0.92±1.23 h). Postoperative Pain scores at rest were 2.53 ± 0.97 and 3.43 ± 0.50 at 24 hours in the TLIP group and the control group, respectively. Postoperative Pain scores at passive flexion of spine were 2.73 ±0.87 and 3.93 ±0.78 at 24 hours in the TLIP group and the control group, respectively. Patients in the TLIP group had lower perioperative hemodynamic responses to surgical stimulation in comparison to the control group.ConclusionCombined TLIP block with general anesthesia in patients undergoing spinal surgery reduced both postoperative and intraoperative analgesic needs, reduced intra-operative hemodynamic response to surgery, and achieved good postoperative pain control.

Presenteeism and absenteeism before and after single-level lumbar spine surgery

Background ContextHealth can impact work performance through absenteeism, time spent away from work, and presenteeism, inhibited at-work performance. Low back pain is common and costly, both in terms of direct medical expenditures and indirect reduced work performance. PurposeSurgery for lumbar spinal pathology is an important part of treatment for patients who do not respond to nonsurgical management. While the indirect costs of return to work and absenteeism among employed patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery have been studied, little work has been done to quantify presenteeism before and after lumbar spine surgery. Study Design/SettingProspective cohort study at a single high-volume urban musculoskeletal specialty hospital. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing single-level lumbar spinal fusion and/or decompression surgery. Outcome MeasuresPresenteeism and absenteeism were measured using the World Health Organization's Health and Work Performance Questionnaire before surgery, as well as 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. MethodsAverage presenteeism and absenteeism were evaluated at pre-surgical baseline and each follow-up timepoint. Monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism were calculated before surgery and 12 months after surgery. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools with support from Clinical and Translational Science Center grant, UL1TR002384. One author discloses royalties, private investments, consulting fees, speaking/teaching arrangements, travel, board of directorship, and scientific advisory board membership totaling >$300,000. ResultsWe enrolled 134 employed surgical patients, among whom 115 (86%) responded at 6 weeks, 105 (78%) responded at 6 months, and 115 (86%) responded at 12 months. Preoperatively, mean age was 56.4 years (median 57.5), and 41.0% were women; 68 (50.7%) had only decompressions, while 66 (49.3%) had fusions. Among respondents at each time point, 98%, 92%, and 92% were still employed, among whom 76%, 96%, and 96% had resumed working, respectively (median 29 days). Average at-work performance among working patients (who responded at each pair of timepoints) moved from 75.4 to 78.7 between baseline and 6 weeks, 71.8 to 85.9 between baseline and 6 months, and 73.0 to 88.1 between baseline and 12 months. Gains were concentrated among the 52.0% of patients whose at-work performance was declining (and low) leading up to surgery. Average absenteeism was relatively unmoved between baseline and each follow-up. Before surgery, the monthly average time lost to presenteeism and absenteeism was 19.8% and 18.9%, respectively; 12 months after surgery, these numbers were 9.7% and 16.0%; changes represent a mitigated loss of 13.0 percentage points of average monthly value. ConclusionsPresenteeism and absenteeism contributed roughly evenly to preoperative average monthly lost time. Although average changes in absenteeism and 6-week at-work performance were small, average changes in at-work performance at 6 and 12 months were significant. Cost-benefit analyses of lumbar spine surgery should therefore consider improved presenteeism, which appears to offset some of the direct and indirect costs of surgical treatment.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Lumbar Spinal Surgery With Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Review.

BackgroundIn the USA, spinal fusion surgery incurs the highest hospital cost. Despite the recent advances in the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in these surgeries, the efficacy of these protocols in improving the perioperative outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective review as a quality improvement (QI) project to analyze the efficacy of the ERAS protocol with intraoperative modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane (mTLIP) block to determine whether these interventions reduce the length of stay (LOS) and opioid requirements during the postoperative period.MethodsRetrospective reviews of adult patients (>18 yrs) who underwent elective lumbar spinal fusion or laminectomy at our institute were reviewed. Patients were administered oral gabapentin and acetaminophen preoperatively. Prior to incision, an mTLIP block was performed using liposomal bupivacaine. Intraoperatively, ketamine, ketorolac, and tranexamic acid were administered. Postoperative, pain control was treated with scheduled acetaminophen, ketorolac, and low-dose ketamine infusion. Hydromorphone and oxycodone were administered for breakthrough pain. Patients who underwent a similar procedure without ERAS protocol were chosen as controls to assess the efficacy of ERAS protocol. Data pertaining to patient demographics, operative and perioperative use of analgesics, LOS, 90-day readmissions, and morbidity were collected. Patients who underwent laminectomy and spinal fusion surgery were analyzed separatelyResultsA total of 65 patients were identified; laminectomy (n- 24), spinal fusion surgery (n-41). In the laminectomy patients, treatment group (n-12) and the control group (n-12). Treatment group receiving the ERAS protocol with the regional anesthesia via the mTLIP (n= 12) opioid requirement was reduced by 51.42% [P = 0.03], and LOS was reduced by 2.04 days [P = 0.01] [0.75 days vs. 2.79 days]). In the spinal fusion patients, treatment group (n-15) and control group (n-26). Treatment group receiving the ERAS protocol with the use of regional anesthesia via the mTLIP group (n= 15), opioid requirement was reduced by 38.33% [P = 0.04]. No difference in LOS was observed at 5.4 days vs. 4.88 days (P = 0.28).ConclusionERAS protocol in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery incorporated the use of regional anesthesia via the mTLIP block, we observed there is a statistically significant reduction in the LOS for lumbar laminectomy and a significant reduction in opioid administration for lumbar laminectomies and spinal fusion surgery.