Awake spinal surgery: simplifying the learning curve with a patient selection algorithm

被引:25
作者
Letchuman, Vijay [1 ]
Agarwal, Nitin [1 ]
Mummaneni, Valli P. [2 ]
Wang, Michael Y. [3 ]
Shabani, Saman [1 ]
Patel, Arati [1 ]
Rivera, Joshua [1 ]
Haddad, Alexander F. [1 ]
Le, Vivian [1 ]
Chang, Joyce M. [2 ]
Chou, Dean [1 ]
Gandhi, Seema [2 ]
Mummaneni, Praveen V. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Neurol Surg, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Francisco, Dept Anesthesiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[3] Univ Miami, Dept Neurosurg, Miami, FL USA
关键词
awake; spine; fusion; decompression; anesthesia; LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION; GENERAL-ANESTHESIA; LOCAL-ANESTHESIA; TRIAL;
D O I
10.3171/2021.9.FOCUS21433
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE There is a learning curve for surgeons performing "awake" spinal surgery. No comprehensive guidelines have been proposed for the selection of ideal candidates for awake spinal fusion or decompression. The authors sought to formulate an algorithm to aid in patient selection for surgeons who are in the startup phase of awake spinal surgery. METHODS The authors developed an algorithm for selecting patients appropriate for awake spinal fusion or decompression using spinal anesthesia supplemented with mild sedation and local analgesia. The anesthetic protocol that was used has previously been reported in the literature. This algorithm was formulated based on a multidisciplinary team meeting and used in the first 15 patients who underwent awake lumbar surgery at a single institution. RESULTS A total of 15 patients who underwent decompression or lumbar fusion using the awake protocol were reviewed. The mean patient age was 61 +/- 12 years, with a median BMI of 25.3 (IQR 2.7) and a mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.1 +/- 1.7; 7 patients (47%) were female. Key patient inclusion criteria were no history of anxiety, 1 to 2 levels of lumbar pathology, moderate stenosis and/or grade I spondylolisthesis, and no prior lumbar surgery at the level where the needle is introduced for anesthesia. Key exclusion criteria included severe and critical central canal stenosis or patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria. Using the novel algorithm, 14 patients (93%) successfully underwent awake spinal surgery without conversion to general anesthesia. One patient (7%) was converted to general anesthesia due to insufficient analgesia from spinal anesthesia. Overall, 93% (n = 14) of the patients were assessed as American Society of Anesthesiologists class II, with 1 patient (7%) as class III. The mean operative time was 115 minutes (+/- 60 minutes) with a mean estimated blood loss of 46 +/- 39 mL. The median hospital length of stay was 1.3 days (IQR 0.1 days). No patients developed postoperative complications and only 1 patient (7%) required reoperation. The mean Oswestry Disability Index score decreased following operative intervention by 5.1 +/- 10.8. CONCLUSIONS The authors propose an easy-to-use patient selection algorithm with the aim of assisting surgeons with patient selection for awake spinal surgery while considering BMI, patient anxiety, levels of surgery, and the extent of stenosis. The algorithm is specifically intended to assist surgeons who are in the learning curve of their first awake spinal surgery cases.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] Cost Analysis of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Diskectomy and Laminectomy Spine Surgery
    Agarwal, Prateek
    Pierce, John
    Welch, William C.
    [J]. WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 89 : 266 - 271
  • [2] Shaping anesthetic techniques to reduce post-operative delirium (SHARP) study: a protocol for a prospective pragmatic randomized controlled trial to evaluate spinal anesthesia with targeted sedation compared with general anesthesia in older adults undergoing lumbar spine fusion surgery
    Brown, Charles H.
    Jones, Emily L.
    Lin, Charles
    Esmaili, Melody
    Gorashi, Yara
    Skelton, Richard A.
    Kaganov, Daniel
    Colantuoni, Elizabeth A.
    Yanek, Lisa R.
    Neufeld, Karin J.
    Kamath, Vidyulata
    Sieber, Frederick E.
    Dean, Clayton L.
    Edwards, Charles C., II
    Hogue, Charles W.
    [J]. BMC ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2019, 19 (01)
  • [3] A novel technique for awake, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technical note
    Chan, Andrew Kai-Hong
    Choy, Winward
    Miller, Catherine A.
    Robinson, Leslie C.
    Mummaneni, Praveen, V
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2019, 46 (04)
  • [4] Lengthy complex lumbar fusion surgery in high-risk elderly patient under spinal anesthesia: A case report
    Curto, Ryan A.
    Edwards, Charles C., II
    Lin, Charles
    Brown, Charles H.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY CASE REPORTS, 2019, 65 : 131 - 134
  • [5] Awake minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a pedicle-based retraction system
    De Biase, Gaetano
    Bechtle, Perry
    Leone, Bruce
    Quinones-Hinojosa, Alfredo
    Abode-Iyamah, Kingsley
    [J]. CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2021, 200
  • [6] Spinal anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery correlates with fewer total medications and less frequent use of vasoactive agents: A single center experience
    Deng, Hao
    Coumans, Jean-Valery
    Anderson, Richard
    Houle, Timothy T.
    Peterfreund, Robert A.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2019, 14 (06):
  • [7] Garces J, 2014, OCHSNER J, V14, P57
  • [8] Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation
    Kehlet, H
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 1997, 78 (05) : 606 - 617
  • [9] Endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion without general anesthesia: operative and clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up
    Kolcun, John Paul G.
    Brusko, G. Damian
    Basil, Gregory W.
    Epstein, Richard
    Wang, Michael Y.
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2019, 46 (04)
  • [10] Impact of spinal anaesthesia vs. general anaesthesia on perioperative outcome in lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials
    Meng, T.
    Zhong, Z.
    Meng, L.
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA, 2017, 72 (03) : 391 - 401