Abstract

Background

Loss of muscle mass (sarcopenia) and function in ageing are associated with reduced functional ability, quality of life and reduced life expectancy. In cancer patients, age related muscle loss may be exacerbated by cachexia and poor nutritional intake. Individuals with widespread disseminated disease are most prone to increasing functional decline, increased morbidity and accelerated death. However subjective assessments of physical performance have been shown to be poor indicators of life expectancy in these patients.

Introduction

Given the rising incidence of obesity in the adult population, it is more than likely that orthopaedic surgeons will be treating more obese patients with lumbar disc pathologies. The relationship between obesity and recurrent herniated nucleus pulposus (HNP) following microdiscectomy remains unclear.

It is widely recognised that pelvic disruption in association with high-energy trauma is a life-threatening injury. The potential morbidity and mortality associated with acetabular injuries are less well understood. Due to chronic underfunding and the absence of a comprehensive and coordinated national approach to the management of acetabular trauma throughout the UK, patients can incur prolonged recumbency. Prompt and appropriate referral for specialist management, thromboprophylaxis and venous thrombosis surveillance are important issues for the referring centre. We performed a postal questionnaire to establish the current clinical practice in the specialist centres throughout the UK in pelvic and acetabular trauma, with respect to time to surgery, thromboprophylaxis, and surveillance.

We identified twenty-one units and thirty-seven surgeons in the NHS who deal with pelvic and acetabular injuries. The mean time to surgery from injury in the UK is 8.5 days (range 2-19 days). The larger units that accept and treat patients from outside their region experience the greatest delay to surgery. Mechanical thromboprophylaxis was used in 67% (14) of the units. 24% (5) use arterio-venous boots, 19% (4) use calf pumps, and 52% (11) use TEDS stockings. No unit routinely use prophylactic IVC filters in acetabular trauma. Chemical thromboprophylaxis is routinely used in 100% (21) of the units. 95% (20) used prophylactic doses of unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin. Clinical surveillance alone for thromboembolism is employed in 90% (19) of the units. Only 2 (10%) units routinely perform radiological surveillance with ultrasound Doppler on its acetabular fracture cases pre-operatively.

Currently there is no published directory of dedicated pelvic and acetabular surgeons in the UK. There is no general consensus on the approach to thromboprophylaxis and surveillance in acetabular trauma in the UK. There is no consensus approach to thromboprophylaxis and surveillance in the literature.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the mode of anaesthesia chosen for patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy surgery has any significant influence on the immediate outcome in terms of safety, efficacy or patient satisfaction.

This prospective randomised study compared safety, efficacy and satisfaction levels in patients having spinal versus general anaesthesia for single level lumbar microdiscectomy.

Fifty consecutive healthy and cooperative patients were recruited and prospectively randomised into two equal groups; half the patients received a spinal anaesthetic (SA), the remainder a general anaesthetic (GA). Each specific mode of anaesthesia was standardised.

Comprehensive post-operative evaluation concentrated on documenting any complications specific to the particular mode of anaesthesia, recording the pace at which the various milestones of physiological and functional recovery were reached, and the level of patient satisfaction with the type of anaesthesia used.

The results showed no serious complication specific to their particular mode of anaesthesia in either group. Thirteen out of 25 SA patients required temporary urinary catheterisation (9 males, 4 females) while among the GA group 4 patients required urinary catheterisation (4 males and 1 female). Post-operative pain perception was significantly lower in the SA group. The SA patients achieved the milestones of physiological and functional recovery more rapidly. While both groups were satisfied with their procedure, the level of satisfaction was significantly higher in the SA group.

In conclusion, lumbar spinal microdiscectomy can be carried out with equal safety, employing either spinal or general anaesthesia. While they require more temporary urinary catheterisation associated with the previous use of intrathecal morphine, patients undergoing SA suffer less pain in association with their procedure and recover more rapidly. Blinded to an extent by not having experienced the alternative, both groups appeared satisfied with their anaesthetic. However, the level of satisfaction was significantly higher in the SA group.