The Impact of Anaesthesia Method on the Use of Anaesthesia Department Resources in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Katarina Lahtinen, Elina Reponen, Noora Skants
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This randomised controlled trial compared spinal anaesthesia with general anaesthesia using total intravenous anaesthesia in 395 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Operating room time was similar between groups (median 152 min vs. 150 min; Hodges-Lehmann estimate 2 min [95% CI -3 to 6 min], p = 0.49), while post-anaesthesia care unit time was longer after spinal anaesthesia (104 min vs. 73 min; estimate 32 min [95% CI 23-42 min], p < 0.001). General anaesthesia used more disposable material and incurred higher medicine and equipment costs.
Key findings
- Operating room time did not differ significantly: median 152 min vs. 150 min (p = 0.49).
- Post-anaesthesia care unit time was longer after spinal anaesthesia: median 104 min vs. 73 min (p < 0.001).
- General anaesthesia generated more disposable material (1252 vs. 611 g) and higher total costs (€83 vs. €36).
- Medication for hypotension was more common with general anaesthesia; medication for hypertension was more common with spinal anaesthesia.
Why it matters
Anaesthesia choice may affect recovery-unit workload and resource use even when operating room duration is similar. These findings highlight that comparisons of anaesthetic approaches can include costs, disposable materials and post-operative flow, alongside patient health outcomes. The observed trade-offs may inform service-level evaluation of anaesthesia pathways.
What to keep in mind
The findings apply to the anaesthesia regimens and resource choices studied; costs and disposable-material use may differ with other equipment or practice patterns.