{"title":"A protocol for lumbar spine surgery under spinal anesthesia in resource limited countries: illustrative case series.","authors":"Sulaiman Jemal Muzien","doi":"10.1097/MS9.0000000000002824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Lumbar spine surgery can be performed under either general or spinal anesthesia. Numerous studies highlight the benefits of spinal anesthesia (SA), including cost-effectiveness, reduced anesthesia-related complications, and suitability for patients who do not favor general anesthesia (GA). Those informal case series emphasizes the advantages of SA and introduces a working protocol tailored for resource-limited countries (RLCs).</p><p><strong>Presentation of case: </strong>Two patients, aged 35 and 58, underwent spinal surgery using SA combined with local infiltration for the skin and facet joints. We implemented a new protocol believed to be beneficial in RLCs. In both cases, intraoperative vital signs remained stable, and there was effective pain control postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Clinical discussion: </strong>Spine surgery under SA has gained acceptance due to evidence indicating reduced perioperative risks and lower opioid consumption, alongside decreased healthcare costs. Although there are suggested protocols for SA in spine surgery, many are not applicable in RLCs. Our case series demonstrate similar advantages, suggesting that the protocol used in this study may be helpful. Despite its benefits, SA for spine surgery still faces resistance and has not been widely adopted in many neurosurgery centers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study aim to outline essential steps for initiating SA for spine surgery in RLCs. The guidelines utilized in this study have proven effective. SA can lead to reduced healthcare costs, lower opioid usage, and increased patient turnover. The two cases series demonstrate improved anesthesia outcomes. Future randomized clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary to establish high-quality evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SA.</p>","PeriodicalId":8025,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Medicine and Surgery","volume":"87 1","pages":"49-55"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11918685/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Medicine and Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000002824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar spine surgery can be performed under either general or spinal anesthesia. Numerous studies highlight the benefits of spinal anesthesia (SA), including cost-effectiveness, reduced anesthesia-related complications, and suitability for patients who do not favor general anesthesia (GA). Those informal case series emphasizes the advantages of SA and introduces a working protocol tailored for resource-limited countries (RLCs).
Presentation of case: Two patients, aged 35 and 58, underwent spinal surgery using SA combined with local infiltration for the skin and facet joints. We implemented a new protocol believed to be beneficial in RLCs. In both cases, intraoperative vital signs remained stable, and there was effective pain control postoperatively.
Clinical discussion: Spine surgery under SA has gained acceptance due to evidence indicating reduced perioperative risks and lower opioid consumption, alongside decreased healthcare costs. Although there are suggested protocols for SA in spine surgery, many are not applicable in RLCs. Our case series demonstrate similar advantages, suggesting that the protocol used in this study may be helpful. Despite its benefits, SA for spine surgery still faces resistance and has not been widely adopted in many neurosurgery centers.
Conclusion: The study aim to outline essential steps for initiating SA for spine surgery in RLCs. The guidelines utilized in this study have proven effective. SA can lead to reduced healthcare costs, lower opioid usage, and increased patient turnover. The two cases series demonstrate improved anesthesia outcomes. Future randomized clinical trials with sufficiently large sample sizes are necessary to establish high-quality evidence regarding the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of SA.