Spinal Anesthesia Results in Lower Costs Compared to General Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion—A Matched Cohort Study

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is increasingly managed with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and evolving anesthesia methods. While general anesthesia (GA) remains standard, spinal anesthesia (SA) may offer faster recovery and fewer side effects. This study compares the clinical and economic outcomes of GA versus SA in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective review of 18 TLIF patients (2018-2022) was performed, with 9 patients in each cohort. Patients were matched by demographics and procedure type. Data collected included operative time, blood loss, complications, postoperative opioid utilization, and 30-day readmissions. Costs were analyzed in categories: anesthesia, implants, inpatient care, operating room (OR) supplies, OR time, and PACU fees, using Wilcoxon Rank T-tests and Pearson Chi-Squared tests. <b>Results</b>: Clinical outcomes such as blood loss, and operative time were similar between groups. However, SA patients had significantly shorter LOS compared to GA (SA: 12 h vs. GA: 84 h, % difference: -150%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). Additionally, SA patients had lower total direct costs ($27,881.85 vs. $35,669.01; <i>p</i> = 0.027). Significant cost reductions with SA were noted in OR supplies/medications ($7367.93 vs. $10,879.46; <i>p</i> = 0.039) and inpatient costs ($621.65 vs. $3092.66; <i>p</i> = 0.027). Within these categories, reductions were observed for intravenous solutions, sedatives/anesthetics, pressure management, labs, imaging, evaluations, hospital care, and medications. Although costs for implants, anesthesia care, OR time, and PACU fees were lower with SA, these differences did not reach statistical significance. <b>Conclusions</b>: In TLIF for DLSD, SA provides significant economic advantages over GA while yielding comparable clinical outcomes. These results support SA as a cost-effective alternative, warranting further prospective studies to confirm these findings.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-05-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14113851
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Pain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Spinal Anesthesia Results in Lower Costs Compared to General Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion—A Matched Cohort Study

Matthew Morris, W. Michael Bullock, Nicole R. Guinn, Christopher I. Shaffrey et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Anesthesia and Pain Management
article

Spinal Anesthesia Results in Lower Costs Compared to General Anesthesia for Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion—A Matched Cohort Study

Matthew Morris, W. Michael Bullock, Nicole R. Guinn, Christopher I. Shaffrey, Muhammad M. Abd‐El‐Barr, A.W. Saleh, Taylor C. Wallace, Favour C. Ononogbu-Uche, Joshua Woo, Felix Toussaint
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Degenerative lumbar spine disease (DLSD) is increasingly managed with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and evolving anesthesia methods. While general anesthesia (GA) remains standard, spinal anesthesia (SA) may offer faster recovery and fewer side effects. This study compares the clinical and economic outcomes of GA versus SA in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). <b>Methods</b>: A retrospective review of 18 TLIF patients (2018-2022) was performed, with 9 patients in each cohort. Patients were matched by demographics and procedure type. Data collected included operative time, blood loss, complications, postoperative opioid utilization, and 30-day readmissions. Costs were analyzed in categories: anesthesia, implants, inpatient care, operating room (OR) supplies, OR time, and PACU fees, using Wilcoxon Rank T-tests and Pearson Chi-Squared tests. <b>Results</b>: Clinical outcomes such as blood loss, and operative time were similar between groups. However, SA patients had significantly shorter LOS compared to GA (SA: 12 h vs. GA: 84 h, % difference: -150%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). Additionally, SA patients had lower total direct costs ($27,881.85 vs. $35,669.01; <i>p</i> = 0.027). Significant cost reductions with SA were noted in OR supplies/medications ($7367.93 vs. $10,879.46; <i>p</i> = 0.039) and inpatient costs ($621.65 vs. $3092.66; <i>p</i> = 0.027). Within these categories, reductions were observed for intravenous solutions, sedatives/anesthetics, pressure management, labs, imaging, evaluations, hospital care, and medications. Although costs for implants, anesthesia care, OR time, and PACU fees were lower with SA, these differences did not reach statistical significance. <b>Conclusions</b>: In TLIF for DLSD, SA provides significant economic advantages over GA while yielding comparable clinical outcomes. These results support SA as a cost-effective alternative, warranting further prospective studies to confirm these findings.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(11)
Duke University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 79%
Anesthesia and Pain Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.