↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients

Overview of attention for article published in Local and Regional Anesthesia , October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 114)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
Title
Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients
Published in
Local and Regional Anesthesia , October 2017
DOI 10.2147/lra.s141233
Pubmed ID
Authors

John T Pierce, Guy Kositratna, Mark A Attiah, Michael J Kallan, Rebecca Koenigsberg, Peter Syre, David Wyler, Paul J Marcotte, W Andrew Kofke, William C Welch

Abstract

Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons. A retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients. SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness. SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 13 21%
Unknown 20 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 26 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 December 2020.
All research outputs
#8,537,346
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Local and Regional Anesthesia
#31
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,948
of 331,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Local and Regional Anesthesia
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them