title: Spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for elective lumbar spine surgery: A randomized clinical trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Either general or regional anesthesia can be used for lumbar disk surgery. The common anesthetic technique is general anesthesia (GA). The aim of this study was to compare the intra and postoperative outcomes of spinal anesthesia (SA) with GA in these patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. They were randomized into two groups with 37 patients in GA Group and 35 ones in SA Group. The heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), blood loss, surgeons satisfaction with the operating conditions, the severity of postoperative pain based on visual analogue scale (VAS) and analgesic use were recorded.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean blood loss was significantly less in the SA Group compared to GA Group (p < 0.05). Intraoperative maximum blood pressure and heart rate changes were significantly less in SA Group (p < 0.05). The surgeons satisfaction was significantly more in the SA Group (p < 0.05). The number of patients who used postoperative analgesic as well as postoperative mean VAS was significantly less in SA Group in comparison with GA group (p < 0.05 for both).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our study showed that SA was superior to GA in providing postoperative analgesia and decreasing blood loss while maintained better perioperative hemodynamic stability without increasing adverse side effects.
authors.affiliation: Associate Professor of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine and Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
authors.forename: Mohammad Ali
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Attari
authors.forename: Sayyed Ahmad
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Mirhosseini
authors.forename: Azim
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Honarmand
authors.forename: Mohammad Reza
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Safavi
references.citation: Br J Surg. 1988 Apr;75(4):299-304
references.pmid: 3282596
references.citation: Masui. 2007 Feb;56(2):130-8
references.pmid: 17315725
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1987 Jun;59(6):725-9
references.pmid: 3606916
references.citation: J Neurosurg Spine. 2005 Jan;2(1):17-22
references.pmid: 15658121
references.citation: Surg Neurol. 2009 Jan;71(1):60-5; discussion 65
references.pmid: 19084683
references.citation: BMJ. 2000 Dec 16;321(7275):1493
references.pmid: 11118174
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 2000 Apr;84(4):450-5
references.pmid: 10823094
references.citation: Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1989;550:22-8
references.pmid: 2652970
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Dec;441:250-5
references.pmid: 16331011
references.citation: Can Anaesth Soc J. 1978 Mar;25(2):133-9
references.pmid: 638826
references.citation: Cah Anesthesiol. 1995;43(1):21-5
references.pmid: 7671051
references.citation: Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2011 Jan-Feb;61(1):110-20
references.pmid: 21334513
references.citation: J Clin Anesth. 2011 Mar;23(2):169; author reply 169
references.pmid: 21377086
references.citation: Anesthesiology. 1981 Aug;55(2):120-6
references.pmid: 7258714
references.citation: Anaesth Intensive Care. 1986 Nov;14(4):373-80
references.pmid: 3551674
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1980 Nov;52(11):1117-21
references.pmid: 7426216
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1988;1(2):139-43
references.pmid: 2980070
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 2010 Dec;111(6):1511-9
references.pmid: 20861423
references.citation: Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1987 Sep;4(5):345-55
references.pmid: 3322824
references.citation: Int Anesthesiol Clin. 1989 Spring;27(1):8-12
references.pmid: 2646234
references.citation: J Clin Anesth. 1998 Dec;10(8):666-9
references.pmid: 9873969
references.citation: Anesth Analg. 1959 Mar-Apr;38(2):118-24
references.pmid: 13627523
references.citation: Br J Anaesth. 1987 May;59(5):561-71
references.pmid: 3107600