Spinal Anesthesia With Erector Spinae Plane Block and Sedation for Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Decompression: A Preliminary Study.

Clin Spine Surg · Sep 30 2026 · Recent

Kang TH, Jang S, Cho M, Lee JH, Lee JM

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine

Spine

SUMMARY — THE REDUCTIONIn a small retrospective study of 41 patients, spinal anesthesia with erector spinae block and sedation for biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression beat general anesthesia on pain, ambulation, hospital stay, and complications; randomized confirmation is needed.
Abstract, as published

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and perioperative outcomes of spinal anesthesia combined with erector spinae plane block and dexmedetomidine sedation (SES) compared with general anesthesia (GA) in patients undergoing biportal endoscopic lumbar decompression (BELD).

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia has shown advantages in spine surgery, including reduced complications and faster recovery. However, spinal anesthesia alone has limitations in duration and patient tolerance during prolonged prone positioning. The erector spinae plane block provides extended analgesia, and dexmedetomidine sedation offers patient comfort without respiratory depression. Evidence regarding the combined application of these techniques for lumbar decompression surgery, especially BELD, is limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 41 patients who underwent 1- or 2-level BELD between June 2023 and June 2024. Nineteen patients received SES, and 22 patients underwent GA. Outcomes included operative times, hemodynamic parameters, postoperative pain, ambulation timing, hospital stay, and complications.

RESULTS: All SES procedures were completed without conversion to GA. SES was associated with significantly shorter operation times and earlier emergence, improved intraoperative hemodynamic stability, reduced postoperative pain scores (Visual Analog Scale: 0.2 ± 0.7 vs. 2.7 ± 1.4, P < 0.001), earlier ambulation (0.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 d, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (3.8 ± 1.5 vs. 6.6 ± 3.0 d, P < 0.001). No anesthesia-related complications occurred in the SES group, whereas the GA group experienced several complications, including postoperative nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSIONS: SES is a feasible and safe anesthetic technique for BELD, offering favorable perioperative outcomes compared with GA. These preliminary results support SES as a promising approach for enhanced recovery protocols in minimally invasive spine surgery. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm its safety and effectiveness.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Featured in the 2026-10-16 issue.

← Sagittal Alignment in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis with Ma…Are pain intensity measures interchangeable? agreement among … →

The Reduction is a free email digest of newly published orthopaedic literature — a handful of new papers in the subspecialties you choose, each summarized like this one. Subscribe free or browse the archive.