Home > Journals > Minerva Anestesiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 June;84(6) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 June;84(6):712-9



To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



Minerva Anestesiologica 2018 June;84(6):712-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12557-0


language: English

Effectiveness of spinal anesthesia in transanal endoscopic microsurgery: a 3-year experience

Gerardo CORTESE 1, Gabriele SALES 2, Giorgia MAIOLO 2, Mario MORINO 2, 3, Martina SCANU 2, Luca BRAZZI 1, 2

1 Department of Anesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy; 2 Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy; 3 Department of Surgery, Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital, Turin, Italy


BACKGROUND: The feasibility and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) performed under spinal anesthesia (SA) has been recently demonstrated. This retrospective study compared the differences in opioid consumption and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing TEM under GA and SA.
METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent TEM at Città della Salute e della Scienza Hospital of Turin (Italy) between January 2012 and December 2015 were enrolled. Data related to demographic characteristics, surgery, anesthesia management and postoperative course were recorded from the hospital electronic registry of medical records. Patients were treated according to a standardized protocol by a team of three anesthesiologists with experience in both GA and SA.
RESULTS: The study included 148 patients: 77 in GA group and 71 in SA, with no switch among groups. Hospital length of stay was shorter in SA group (3 vs. 4 days, P=0.0201). SA patients were earlier mobilized and applied to oral postoperative intake (18 vs. 24 hours and 24 vs. 48 hours, respectively, P<0.0001). Peri-procedural complications, postoperative nausea, vomiting and pain were comparable between groups. Percentage of patients requiring postoperative rescue therapy with Tramadol was similar between groups, but SA patients received a lower opioid dosage (176.6±67.8 mg vs. 238.3±79.5 mg, P=0.0011). Operating room occupancy times was longer in GA group (120 vs. 100 minutes, P=0.0008).
CONCLUSIONS: SA seems to be the treatment of choice, when not contraindicated, in patients undergoing TEM, allowing a reduction in perioperative opioid consumption and a faster postoperative recovery.

KEY WORDS: Anesthesia, general - Anesthesia, spinal - Transanal endoscopic surgery - Pain Management - Perioperative care

top of page