RESUMO
This study aimed to categorize contrast media images associated with epidural, subdural, and combined epidural-subdural anesthesia in patients who had undergone fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia using contrast media combined with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) targeted at deep sedation, incorporating capnography over 5 years. Additionally, a correlation was established between the anesthetic effects and radiographic findings according to the categorized imaging appearances. This study included 628 patients who underwent endoscopic, open, or fusion surgery under epidural anesthesia at Nanoori Hospital in Gangnam between March 2018 and September 2023. Fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia using contrast media combined with MAC and capnography was used. The dataset included detailed radiographic imaging, nursing, and anesthesia records. Distinct patterns of anesthesia administration were observed, with 49%, 19.6%, and 31% of patients receiving epidural, subdural, and combined epidural-subdural anesthesia, respectively. The incidence and duration of motor block were significantly different among the three groups. Additionally, subdural anesthesia displayed a higher incidence of motor block and a prolonged motor deficit duration than epidural anesthesia. Fluoroscopic guidance using a contrast medium for epidural and subdural anesthesia ensures precise space identification and prevents serious anesthetic complications. Our findings suggest the potential to achieve stable anesthesia, particularly using subdural and combined epidural-subdural anesthesia.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: With advances and refinements in endoscopic lumbar spine surgery showing effective and satisfactory results, the need for simple yet effective anesthetic techniques for minimally invasive endoscopic spine surgery has increased. The aim of this study was to compare feasibility and postoperative outcomes of fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia with general anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery (≤3 levels). METHODS: Patients who underwent 1-3 levels of endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery under either fluoroscopy-guided epidural or general anesthesia between January 2019 and October 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Postoperative pain intensity and use of rescue analgesics for up to 48 hours were compared between the epidural and general anesthesia groups. Intraoperative anesthetic data and postoperative recovery profiles were also analyzed. RESULTS: Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the epidural anesthesia group compared with the general anesthesia group at 10 minutes after recovery room admission (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9, P < 0.001), 24 hours postoperatively (3.3 ± 1.0 vs. 5.4 ± 1.8, P < 0.001), and 48 hours postoperatively (3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 4.4 ± 1.4, P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics in the recovery room was significantly lower in the epidural anesthesia group (1.9% vs. 20.5%, P = 0.027). The median 15-item Quality of Recovery score on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in the epidural anesthesia group (118.0 [113.5-123.0] vs. 82.0 [73.5-111.5], P < 0.001). Occurrence of nausea, vomiting, and voiding difficulty up to 48 hours postoperatively did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with general anesthesia, epidural anesthesia provided better analgesia and recovery characteristics during the early postoperative period in endoscopic lumbar decompression surgery.
Assuntos
Anestesia Epidural , Sedação Consciente , Analgésicos , Anestesia Geral , Descompressão , Fluoroscopia , Humanos , Dor Pós-Operatória , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: With the increase in life expectancy seen throughout the world, the prevalence of degenerative spinal pathology and surgery to treat it has increased. Spinal surgery under general anesthesia leads to various problems and complications, especially in patients with numerous medical comorbidities or elderly patients. For this reason, there is a need for safer anesthetic methods applicable to unhealthy, elderly patients undergoing spinal surgery. PURPOSE: To report our experience with utilizing fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia in conjunction with conscious sedation in spinal surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 111 patients at our institution that received fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia for lumbar surgery from February to September 2018. Patients' records were evaluated to evaluate patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Classification System (ASA) class, and pain numerical rating scores (NRS) preoperatively and throughout their recovery postoperatively. Intraoperative data including volume of epidural anesthetic used, extent of epidural spread, and inadvertent subdural injection was collected. Postoperative recovery time was also collected. RESULTS: The mean age of our patients was 60 years old with a range between 31 and 83 years old. All patients experienced decreases in postoperative pain with no significant differences based on age or ASA class. There was no association between ASA class and time to recovery postoperatively. Older patients (age 70 years or greater) had a significantly longer recovery time when compared to younger patients. Recovery also was longer for patients who received higher volumes of epidural anesthesia. For every 1 mL increase of epidural anesthetic given, there was an increase in the extent of spread of 1.8 spinal levels. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the safety and feasibility of utilizing conscious sedation in conjunction with fluoroscopy-guided epidural anesthesia in the lumbar spinal surgery.