Comparison of Spinal vs General Anaesthesia for Lower Abdominal Surgeries in Infants
Introduction: Lower abdominal procedures (e.g., inguinal herniotomy, orchiopexy, pyloromyotomy) are common in early infancy, a period with heightened vulnerability to postoperative apnoea and hemodynamic instability. Spinal anaesthesia (SA) has re-emerged as an attractive alternative to general anaesthesia (GA) to minimize airway manipulation, opioid exposure, and early apnoea risk, while maintaining surgical conditions. The evidence base includes randomized trials and large observational cohorts. Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted on 60 full-term infants (ASA status I-II) scheduled for elective lower abdominal surgeries (e.g., inguinal hernia repair, orchidopexy). Infants were randomly allocated to either the SA group (n=30) or the GA group (n=30). The primary outcome was the incidence of perioperative respiratory events (apnoea, desaturation). Secondary outcomes included haemodynamic stability, postoperative pain scores (FLACC scale), time to full recovery, parental satisfaction, and complications. Result: The incidence of perioperative respiratory events was significantly lower in the SA group (3.3% vs. 30%, p<0.01). Haemodynamic parameters were more stable in the SA group. Postoperative pain scores were comparable at initial assessment but were significantly lower in the SA group at 2 and 4 hours postoperatively. Time to first oral intake and discharge readiness was shorter in the SA group. Conversion to GA was required in 2 patients (6.6%) in the SA group. Conclusion: Spinal anaesthesia is a safe and effective technique for lower abdominal surgeries in infants. It is associated with a significantly lower risk of respiratory complications, greater haemodynamic stability, and a faster recovery profile compared to general anaesthesia. It should be considered a primary anaesthetic option in this vulnerable population.