<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.0 20040830//EN" "journalpublishing.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="2.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">JMIR Perioper Med</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">periop</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="index">32</journal-id><journal-title>JMIR Perioperative Medicine</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>JMIR Perioper Med</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="epub">2561-9128</issn><publisher><publisher-name>JMIR Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Toronto, Canada</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">v9i1e86273</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2196/86273</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Original Paper</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Comparing the Quality of Patient Recovery After Open Appendectomy Under General Versus Spinal Anesthesia: Prospective Cohort Study</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gobezie</surname><given-names>Negesse Zurbachew</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Asmare</surname><given-names>Temesgen Birlie</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Belete</surname><given-names>Kumlachew Geta</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gedefaw</surname><given-names>Gezahagn Demsu</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Demissie</surname><given-names>Biruk</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abuhay</surname><given-names>Abere Gebru</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abate</surname><given-names>Belayneh Jejaw</given-names></name><degrees>MPH</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5">5</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Munie</surname><given-names>Birhanu Mengist</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6">6</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wondie</surname><given-names>Wubet Tazeb</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff7">7</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wubet</surname><given-names>Habtie Bantider</given-names></name><degrees>MSc</degrees><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><institution>Department of Anesthesia, School of Medicine, College of Health Science, Debre Tabor University</institution><addr-line>P.O. Box 272</addr-line><addr-line>Debre Tabor</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff2"><institution>Department of Neonatal Health Nursing, School of Nursing, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, and Specialized Hospital, University of Gondar</institution><addr-line>Gondar</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff3"><institution>Department of Environmental Health, College of Health Science, Debre Tabor University</institution><addr-line>Debre Tabor</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff4"><institution>Department of Pediatrics and Neonatal Nursing, College of Health Sciences, Debre Tabor University</institution><addr-line>Debre Tabor</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff5"><institution>University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital</institution><addr-line>Gondar</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff6"><institution>Department of Psychiatry, College of Health Science, Debre Tabor University</institution><addr-line>Debre Tabor</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><aff id="aff7"><institution>Department of Pediatrics and Child Health Nursing, School of Health Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Bahir Dar University</institution><addr-line>Bahir Dar</addr-line><country>Ethiopia</country></aff><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="editor"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rohatgi</surname><given-names>Nidhi</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="reviewer"><name name-style="western"><surname>Karahan</surname><given-names>Mahmut Alp</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp>Correspondence to Negesse Zurbachew Gobezie, MSc, Department of Anesthesia, School of Medicine, College of Health Science, Debre Tabor University, P.O. Box 272, Debre Tabor, Ethiopia; <email>123negessez@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2026</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>25</day><month>6</month><year>2026</year></pub-date><volume>9</volume><elocation-id>e86273</elocation-id><history><date date-type="received"><day>21</day><month>10</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>25</day><month>04</month><year>2026</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day><month>04</month><year>2026</year></date></history><copyright-statement>&#x00A9; Negesse Zurbachew Gobezie, Temesgen Birlie Asmare, Kumlachew Geta Belete, Gezahagn Demsu Gedefaw, Biruk Demissie, Abere Gebru Abuhay, Belayneh Jejaw Abate, Birhanu Mengist Munie, Wubet Tazeb Wondie, Habtie Bantider Wubet. Originally published in JMIR Perioperative Medicine (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://periop.jmir.org">http://periop.jmir.org</ext-link>), 25.6.2026. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2026</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Perioperative Medicine, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://periop.jmir.org">http://periop.jmir.org</ext-link>, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.</p></license><self-uri xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="https://periop.jmir.org/2026/1/e86273"/><abstract><sec><title>Background</title><p>Open appendectomy is commonly performed under either general or spinal anesthesia. Postoperative quality of recovery, a multidimensional patient-centered measure of outcomes after surgery, is affected by the choice of anesthesia technique.</p></sec><sec><title>Objective</title><p>The objective of our study was to compare the effects of general and spinal anesthesia on the immediate postoperative quality of recovery in adults undergoing open appendectomy.</p></sec><sec sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><p>In this prospective cohort study, 74 patients were assigned to either the general (n=37) or the spinal anesthesia (n=37) groups. The primary outcome was the total Quality of Recovery-15 score measured 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, analgesic consumption, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, time to first oral intake, time to first ambulation, and length of hospital stay. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the chi-square test, Fisher exact test, independent <italic>t</italic> test, or Mann-Whitney <italic>U</italic> test, as appropriate.</p></sec><sec sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><p>Patients in the spinal anesthesia group had significantly higher Quality of Recovery-15 scores than those in the general anesthesia group (<italic>P=.</italic>001). They also exhibited lower pain scores at 1, 2, 6, and 12 hours postoperatively (<italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001), reduced consumption of diclofenac and tramadol, and a decreased incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (<italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001). The time to first mobilization, time to first oral intake, and length of hospital stay were also significantly lower in the spinal anesthesia group (<italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001).</p></sec><sec sec-type="conclusions"><title>Conclusions</title><p>Spinal anesthesia is the preferred anesthesia technique for patients undergoing open appendectomy. It may provide improved postoperative recovery, with lower pain scores and improved analgesia. It may also reduce the need for additional analgesics, decrease the incidence of nausea and vomiting, and improve intrahospital patient recovery trajectories.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>appendectomy</kwd><kwd>anesthesia</kwd><kwd>surgery</kwd><kwd>outcome</kwd><kwd>recovery</kwd><kwd>postoperative</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1" sec-type="intro"><title>Introduction</title><p>Acute appendicitis, defined as inflammation of the vermiform appendix, remains one of the most common causes of acute abdomen and emergency abdominal surgery worldwide [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>]. Current epidemiological data indicate an increasing incidence of this condition in both middle-income and high-income countries [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>]. Although laparoscopic appendectomy is increasingly used in high-resource settings [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>], open appendectomy remains the predominant approach in resource-limited settings and is performed under either general anesthesia (GA) with endotracheal intubation or spinal anesthesia (SA) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>].</p><p>GA is associated with several potential adverse effects, including airway complications during induction or extubation, hemodynamic instability, aspiration, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>]. SA has emerged as a viable alternative to GA, with increasing use in abdominal surgeries performed below the umbilicus, including open appendectomy [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>]. The use of SA for abdominal surgeries is associated with superior postoperative pain control, fewer cardiorespiratory adverse events, and a lower incidence of PONV [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>]. Nevertheless, these individual outcomes do not completely reflect the patient&#x2019;s overall recovery from anesthesia and surgery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>]. Consequently, evaluating the quality of recovery (QoR) from the patient&#x2019;s perspective has emerged as a critical metric for assessing the impact of anesthesia and surgery on overall patient recovery and well-being [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>].</p><p>Postoperative QoR is a multidimensional outcome measure that encompasses physical comfort, emotional state, psychological support, physical independence, pain, and return to normal activities [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref21">21</xref>]. It has emerged as a holistic and patient-centered measure of surgical and anesthetic success compared to traditional, isolated metrics such as pain scores, duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, length of hospital stay, and complication rates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref22">22</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref24">24</xref>].</p><p>In addition to the surgical-related and patient factors such as age, comorbidities, nutritional status, and frailty status, the choice of anesthetic technique significantly influences postoperative outcomes and QoR [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref20">20</xref>]. Several studies have compared GA and SA across different surgical procedures and have frequently demonstrated the benefits of SA in terms of pain control, PONV, and length of hospital stay [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref25">25</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>]. However, limited data exist regarding the impact of anesthetic techniques on postoperative QoR in patients undergoing open appendectomy.</p><p>Therefore, this study primarily aimed to compare the effects of GA and SA on immediate postoperative QoR in adult patients undergoing open appendectomy. The secondary objective of this study was to compare postoperative pain scores, analgesia consumption, incidence of PONV, and immediate intrahospital recovery trajectories such as time to first oral intake, first ambulation, and length of hospital stay. The findings of this study may provide evidence to guide anesthesia decision-making and optimize patient-centered outcomes in the surgical care for patients undergoing open appendectomy.</p></sec><sec id="s2" sec-type="methods"><title>Methods</title><sec id="s2-1"><title>Overview</title><p>An institution-based prospective cohort study was conducted at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital from December 1, 2024, to June 6, 2025. The hospital is located in Debre Tabor town, South Gondar Zone, Amhara Region, Northwest Ethiopia. It is a governmental hospital in Debre Tabor town that serves a population of approximately 3 million people. The hospital provides gynecologic, obstetric, orthopedic, and general abdominal and urologic surgical procedures on an elective and emergency basis. It has 2 operating rooms and 1 dedicated surgical ward with 32 beds, specifically allocated to patients undergoing general surgery.</p></sec><sec id="s2-2"><title>Study Population</title><p>Adult surgical patients aged &#x2265;18 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification I or II, diagnosed with acute appendicitis, and who underwent open appendectomy were included in our study. Patients were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status &#x2265;III, pre-existing neuropsychiatric disorders impairing effective communication, periappendiceal abscess or generalized peritonitis requiring midline laparotomy, intraoperative discovery of additional pathologies necessitating concurrent surgical procedures, inadequate spinal block necessitating conversion to GA during the operation, or occurrence of unexpected intraoperative catastrophic events requiring postoperative admission to the intensive care unit.</p></sec><sec id="s2-3"><title>Sample Size Determination and Sampling Procedure</title><p>The sample size for this study was calculated using a standard formula to compare means between 2 independent groups. The primary outcome of our study was the mean difference in the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score at 24 hours postoperatively: n=(&#x03C3;<sub>1</sub><sup>2</sup>+&#x03C3;<sub>2</sub><sup>2</sup>)(Z<sub>&#x03B2;</sub>+Z<sub>&#x03B1;/2</sub>)<sup>2</sup>/(&#x00B5;<sub>1</sub>&#x2013;&#x00B5;<sub>2</sub>)<sup>2</sup>, where n is the required sample size for each group; &#x03C3;<sub>1</sub> and &#x00B5;<sub>1</sub> are the SD and mean of the first group (SA), respectively; &#x03C3;<sub>2</sub> and &#x00B5;<sub>2</sub> are the SD and mean of the second group (GA), respectively; <italic>Z<sub>&#x03B1;</sub></italic><sub>/2</sub> is the critical value for the desired confidence level; and Z<sub>&#x03B2;</sub> is the critical value for the desired statistical power.</p><p>As no similar study had been conducted in the study setting, parameter estimates for sample size calculation were obtained from a pilot study (n=20) conducted 1 month before the actual data collection period. In the pilot study, the mean QoR-15 scores for the SA and GA groups were 123.9 (SD 22.4) and 111.2 (SD 14.6), respectively. Using a 95% significance level (Z<sub>&#x03B1;/2</sub>=1.96) and 80% power (Z<sub>&#x03B2;</sub>=0.84): n=[{(22.4)<sup>2</sup>+(14.6)<sup>2</sup>}(1.96+0.84)<sup>2</sup>]/(123.9&#x2013;111.2)<sup>2</sup>=34.7&#x2248;35. After adding a 5% nonresponse rate, the final sample size was 37 participants per group, resulting in a total of 74 participants included in the study. Subsequently, all consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study until the required sample size was achieved.</p></sec><sec id="s2-4"><title>Data Collection Procedure, Data Collection Tools, and Measurements</title><p>A structured questionnaire was prepared to collect information on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and anesthesia- and surgery-related variables during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. The original questionnaire was developed in English and was subsequently translated into Amharic. To ensure linguistic accuracy and maintain the original content, the questionnaire was back-translated into English by 2 bilingual language experts fluent in both English and Amharic. Data were collected through chart reviews and direct interviews with participants conducted by anesthetists and nurses who were not directly involved in patient management.</p><p>In the study setting, anesthesia management for patients who underwent appendectomy was carried out by anesthesia professionals using either GA or SA following a standardized protocol. Preoperative evaluation, documentation of preoperative vital signs, and premedication with intravenous dexamethasone were performed in the anesthesia waiting area. For patients receiving GA, the available analgesics (1.5 mg/kg diclofenac and 1-2 mg/kg pethidine) were administered. Patients were then preoxygenated for 3-5 minutes and induced under rapid sequence induction with Ketofol (ketamine-propofol in a 1:2 ratio) and suxamethonium at a dose of 2 mg/kg. Endotracheal intubation was then performed using a Macintosh-type laryngoscope. Following intubation, mechanical ventilation was initiated using a standard anesthesia machine, with a tidal volume of 7&#x2010;10 mL/kg and a respiratory rate of 10&#x2010;14 breaths per minute. Throughout the surgical procedure, anesthesia was maintained using halothane or isoflurane, intravenous normal saline was infused, and muscle relaxation was achieved using vecuronium. Intraoperative vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded at 5-minute intervals by the attending anesthetist until completion of the procedure. Upon completion of surgery, neuromuscular blockade was reversed with the administration of 0.05 mg/kg of neostigmine and atropine at a dosage of 0.2 mg/kg. Patients were then extubated in the operating theater before being transferred to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).</p><p>For patients receiving SA, patients were positioned in a sitting position. Under complete aseptic technique, the skin was infiltrated with 3 mL of 2% lidocaine, and lumbar puncture was performed at the level of the L3-L4 lumbar interspace using a midline approach with a 24- or 25-gauge spinal needle. Once free flow of clear cerebrospinal fluid was restored, 3.5&#x2010;4.0 mL of hyperbaric bupivacaine was injected intrathecally, and the patient was then asked to lie in a supine position. The adequacy of anesthesia was assessed using the pinprick method for the sensory block level and the modified Bromage scale for the motor block level [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref27">27</xref>]. Surgery was started once the target sensory block level of the T6-T4 dermatomes was achieved. Throughout surgery, intravenous normal saline was infused, and intraoperative vital signs were continuously monitored and recorded at 5-minute intervals. Upon completion of the surgical procedure, patients were transferred to the PACU.</p><p>Postoperatively, data collectors documented the incidence of PONV in both the PACU and within the first 24 hours following PACU discharge. Pain intensity was assessed using an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS; scores ranging from 0=&#x201C;no pain&#x201D; to 10=&#x201C;worst imaginable pain&#x201D;) at the first, second, sixth, 12th, and 24th postoperative hours. The cumulative consumption of diclofenac and tramadol, both in the PACU and within the first 24 hours postoperatively, was recorded. In addition, postoperative outcomes, including the occurrence of complications, time to first ambulation, time to first oral intake, and time to discharge home, were recorded.</p><p>Postoperative QoR was assessed 24 hours after surgery using the QoR-15 questionnaire. QoR-15 is a validated and reliable tool designed to assess patient-reported QoR in the immediate postoperative period. It assesses 5 dimensions of recovery: psychological support, physical comfort, emotional support, physical independence, and pain level. The tool comprises 15 items, each scored on an 11-point Likert scale (from 0=&#x201C;strongly negative&#x201D; to 10=&#x201C;strongly positive&#x201D;), resulting in a total score ranging from 0 to 150, with higher scores indicating better QoR [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref19">19</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref28">28</xref>].</p></sec><sec id="s2-5"><title>Data Quality Control</title><p>To assess the validity of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted on 20 participants at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, 1 month before the actual data collection period. Data collectors and supervisors were trained in the proper use of data collection tools and the overall data collection process. Throughout the data collection period, regular supervision and close follow-up were conducted to ensure data completeness, consistency, and accuracy.</p></sec><sec id="s2-6"><title>Statistical Analysis</title><p>Data were coded and entered using EpiData (version 4.6; EpiData Association) software and exported to and analyzed using Stata (version 17; StataCorp) software. The normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables are reported as either means with SDs or medians with IQRs, as appropriate. Intergroup comparisons between the SA and GA groups were performed using the chi-square test (or Fisher exact test, where appropriate) for categorical variables and the independent <italic>t</italic> test or Mann-Whitney <italic>U</italic> test for continuous variables, depending on the distribution of the data.</p></sec><sec id="s2-7"><title>Ethical Considerations</title><p>Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the research ethical review committee of the College of Health Sciences at Debre Tabor University (CHS 17/2017). The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, local legislation, and institutional requirements. Informed consent was obtained from each study participant, and confidentiality was ensured by avoiding questions that contained identifiers or sensitive content.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3" sec-type="results"><title>Results</title><sec id="s3-1"><title>Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics</title><p>A total of 74 participants, including 37 in the SA group and 37 in the GA group, were included in our study. Age, sex, BMI, and comorbid status were comparable between the 2 groups, with no statistically significant difference between them. Moreover, the mean duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss, and amount of intraoperative fluid administered were comparable between the 2 groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="t1" position="float"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of study participants<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn1">a</xref></sup></p></caption><table id="table1" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="2">Variables</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">General anesthesia group (n=37)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Spinal anesthesia group (n=37)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>P</italic> value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Age (years), mean (SD)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">27.6 (4.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">29 (4.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Sex, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.48</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Female</td><td align="left" valign="top">17 (23)</td><td align="left" valign="top">14 (19)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Male</td><td align="left" valign="top">20 (27)</td><td align="left" valign="top">23 (31)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">20.1 (19.5-21.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">20.5 (20.3-22.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">Comorbidities, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>No</td><td align="left" valign="top">31 (41)</td><td align="left" valign="top">30 (40)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Yes</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7 (9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">American Society of Anesthesiologists status, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>I</td><td align="left" valign="top">31 (42)</td><td align="left" valign="top">30 (40)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>II</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (8.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7 (9.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Intraoperative blood loss (mL), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">60 (50-80)</td><td align="left" valign="top">50 (50-80)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Intraoperative fluid administered (mL), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">700 (500-800)</td><td align="left" valign="top">600 (500-700)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Duration of surgery (minutes), mean (SD)<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table1fn1">a</xref></sup></td><td align="left" valign="top">46.4 (8.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">42.8 (8.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.09</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table1fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>Values expressed as mean (SD) were analyzed using the independent <italic>t</italic> test, values expressed as frequencies (%) were analyzed using the chi-square test, and values expressed as median (IQR) were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney <italic>U</italic> test.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3-2"><title>Postoperative QoR</title><p>The total postoperative QoR-15 score at 24 hours was significantly higher in the SA group than in the GA group, with median scores of 128 (IQR 124-136) vs 100 (IQR 90-133), respectively (<italic>P</italic>&#x003C;.001). A detailed analysis of individual QoR-15 items revealed that the SA group scored significantly higher on the majority of items than the GA group (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="t2" position="float"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Comparison of general and spinal anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery in patients after appendectomy.<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn1">a</xref></sup></p></caption><table id="table2" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom">Variables</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">General anesthesia group</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">Spinal anesthesia group</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>P</italic> value<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table2fn2">b</xref></sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Postoperative total Quality of Recovery-15 score, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">100 (90-133)</td><td align="left" valign="top">128 (124-136)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;<italic>.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Been able to enjoy food, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.1 (1.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7.4 (1.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.<italic>002</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Feeling rested, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7.7 (1.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8.4 (1.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Able to look after personal toilet and hygiene unaided, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.4 (1.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7.7 (1.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;<italic>.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Getting support from hospital physicians and nurses, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9.5 (0.7)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9.3 (0.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.30</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Able to return to work or usual home activities, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4.9 (1.6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.6 (1.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">&#x003C;<italic>.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Moderate pain, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.5 (2.0)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.5 (1.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.02</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Severe pain, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6.8 (1.8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">7.8 (1.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.02</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Able to breathe easily, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (5-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Have had a good sleep, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (5-8)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (8-9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Able to communicate with family or friends, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (9-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (10-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Feeling comfortable and in control, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (6-9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Having a feeling of general well-being, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (6-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.004</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Nausea and vomiting, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (10-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.003</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Feeling worried or anxious, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (7-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (9-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top">Feeling sad or depressed, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">8 (6-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top">10 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.005</italic></td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table2fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>Values expressed as mean (SD) were analyzed using the independent <italic>t</italic> test, whereas values expressed as median (IQR) were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney <italic>U</italic> test.</p></fn><fn id="table2fn2"><p><sup>b</sup><italic>P </italic>values of &#x003C;.05 are considered statistically significant and are italicized.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3-3"><title>Postoperative Complications and Outcomes</title><p>In terms of PONV, the incidence of nausea and vomiting in the PACU was significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group (<italic>P=.</italic>02). However, the incidence of PONV within 24 hours after PACU discharge was comparable between the 2 groups (<italic>P=.</italic>67). In addition, postoperative complications, such as postoperative adhesions, surgical site infections, and relaparotomy, were not observed in either group. Pain scores on the NRS at the first, second, sixth, and 12th postoperative hours were significantly lower (<italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001) in the SA group than in the GA group, whereas pain scores at the 24th postoperative hour were comparable between the two groups (<italic>P=.</italic>12). Regarding the postoperative analgesic consumption, cumulative diclofenac and tramadol consumption in the PACU and within the first 24 postoperative hours were significantly higher in the GA group than in the SA group. Furthermore, the times to first ambulation, first oral intake, and discharge home were significantly lower in the SA group than in the GA group (<italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001, <italic>P&#x003C;.</italic>001, and <italic>P=.</italic>005, respectively; <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="t3" position="float"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Comparison of secondary recovery outcomes of study participants between the general anesthesia (GA) and the spinal anesthesia (SA) groups.<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn1">a</xref></sup></p></caption><table id="table3" frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><td align="left" valign="bottom" colspan="2">Variables</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">GA group (n=37)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom">SA group (n=37)</td><td align="left" valign="bottom"><italic>P</italic> value<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn2">b</xref></sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">PONV<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn3">c</xref></sup> in the PACU<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn4">d</xref></sup>, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.02</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Yes</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (12)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (3)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>No</td><td align="left" valign="top">28 (38)</td><td align="left" valign="top">35 (47)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="4">PONV within 24 postoperative hours, n (%)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.67</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>Yes</td><td align="left" valign="top">4 (5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2 (3)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2"><named-content content-type="indent">&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;&#x00A0;</named-content>No</td><td align="left" valign="top">33 (45)</td><td align="left" valign="top">35 (47)</td><td align="left" valign="top"/></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">NRS<sup><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="table3fn5">e</xref></sup> score at first hour postoperatively, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">3 (1-4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0-0)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">NRS score at second hour postoperatively, median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4 (3-6)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0-0)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">NRS score at sixth hour postoperatively, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4.2 (2.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top">2.1 (1.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">NRS score at 12th hour postoperatively, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">6 (1.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4.6 (0.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">NRS score at 24th hour postoperatively, mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">5.5 (1.5)</td><td align="left" valign="top">4.9 (1.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top">.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Total diclofenac consumption in PACU (mg), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">75 (0-75)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0-0)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Total diclofenac consumption within the first 24 hours (mg), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">150 (75-150)</td><td align="left" valign="top">75 (75-150)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Total tramadol consumption in PACU (mg), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">50 (0-50)</td><td align="left" valign="top">0 (0-0)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Total tramadol consumption within the first 24 hours (mg), mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">185.1 (10.4)</td><td align="left" valign="top">133.8 (13.1)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.003</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Time to first ambulation (hours), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">12 (10-13)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (8-10)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Time to first oral intake (hours), median (IQR)</td><td align="left" valign="top">13 (12-14)</td><td align="left" valign="top">9 (9-12)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>&#x003C;.001</italic></td></tr><tr><td align="left" valign="top" colspan="2">Time to discharge (hours), mean (SD)</td><td align="left" valign="top">48.8 (6.2)</td><td align="left" valign="top">42.6 (10.9)</td><td align="left" valign="top"><italic>.005</italic></td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="table3fn1"><p><sup>a</sup>Values expressed as frequencies (%) were analyzed using the chi-square test (for PONV in the PACU) or the Fisher exact test (for PONV within 24 postoperative hours), values expressed as mean (SD) were analyzed using the independent <italic>t</italic> test, and values expressed as median (IQR) were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney <italic>U</italic> test.</p></fn><fn id="table3fn2"><p><sup>b</sup><italic>P </italic>values of &#x003C;.05 are considered statistically significant and are italicized.</p></fn><fn id="table3fn3"><p><sup>c</sup>PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting.</p></fn><fn id="table3fn4"><p><sup>d</sup>PACU: postanesthesia care unit.</p></fn><fn id="table3fn5"><p><sup>e</sup>NRS: Numeric Rating Scale.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="s4" sec-type="discussion"><title>Discussion</title><sec id="s4-1"><title>Principal Findings</title><p>This prospective cohort study aimed to compare the postoperative recovery outcomes between patients who underwent appendectomy under SA and those who received GA. The findings revealed that patients in the SA group had significantly better early postoperative recovery profiles, as evidenced by higher QoR-15 scores, lower postoperative pain and analgesic consumption, reduced incidence of early PONV, and faster recovery outcome measures.</p><p>Our study revealed that patients who underwent appendectomy under SA experienced better recovery, with higher total postoperative QoR-15 scores and improved scores on the majority of individual QoR-15 items. These findings align with previous studies comparing neuraxial anesthesia with GA, which also showed enhanced recovery profiles in patients receiving neuraxial techniques [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref18">18</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref26">26</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>]. One possible explanation for this finding is that patients receiving GA are exposed to multiple systemic medications, including volatile agents and opioids, which may have residual postoperative effects and impair early postoperative recovery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">30</xref>]. In contrast, neuraxial techniques such as SA provide more effective pain control, reduce the need for systemic medications, and minimize opioid-related side effects, thereby contributing to enhancing overall well-being and recovery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref29">29</xref>].</p><p>Supporting the QoR findings, postoperative pain management outcomes were significantly improved in the SA group during the early postoperative hours. Pain scores were significantly lower at the first, second, sixth, and 12th postoperative hours. This can be attributed to SA&#x2019;s ability to block the afferent nociceptive pathway, thereby providing long-lasting postoperative pain relief despite recovery of motor function [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref30">30</xref>]. This superior quality of postoperative analgesia was directly related to a significant reduction in analgesic requirements, which may have contributed to the improved QoR-15 scores and faster mobilization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref31">31</xref>]. At the 24th postoperative hour, pain scores were comparable between the 2 groups. This may be due to the wearing-off effects of SA and the initiation of standard oral analgesia protocols. In addition, both cumulative diclofenac and tramadol consumption in both the PACU and during the first 24 postoperative hours was significantly lower in the SA group. The reduction in postoperative opioid requirement is particularly important because it mitigates opioid-related side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sedation, and ileus [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref32">32</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref33">33</xref>].</p><p>In terms of clinical significance, between-group differences in pain scores were most pronounced during the first 6 hours, with differences of approximately 3 points at 1 hour, 4 points at 2 hours, and 2.1 points at 6 hours, which are generally considered clinically meaningful. In contrast, the difference observed at 12 hours (1.4 points) was smaller and may be of borderline clinical relevance, whereas no clinically significant difference was detected at 24 hours [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref34">34</xref>]. When analgesic consumption was expressed in intravenous morphine equivalents, the reduction in 24-hour opioid use corresponds to approximately 5 mg of intravenous morphine, which falls below commonly accepted thresholds for a clinically important effect. This finding suggests that, despite statistical significance, the overall reduction in opioid requirements over 24 hours was modest, and the clinical importance of this difference should be interpreted with caution [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref35">35</xref>].</p><p>In this study, the incidence of PONV in the PACU was significantly higher in the GA group. This may be due to the residual effects of inhaled anesthetic agents and increased opioid use for postoperative analgesia, which are known risk factors for PONV [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref36">36</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref37">37</xref>]. The incidence of PONV after discharge from the PACU was similar in both groups, which may reflect the resolution of early anesthetic effects and the standardization of postoperative care.</p><p>In addition, functional recovery outcome measures, such as time to first ambulation, time of first oral intake, and time of discharge to home, were significantly better in the SA group. Better pain control, reduced sedative drug requirements, and fewer side effects in the SA group may contribute to a quicker return to baseline function, reduced hospital stay, and lower health care costs [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref17">17</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref38">38</xref>]. Conversely, the use of inhaled anesthetics, sedatives, and opioids in the GA group may contribute to postoperative complications, such as cardiorespiratory depression, delayed bowel activity, and paralytic ileus, which can delay oral intake and ambulation and prolong hospitalization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref6">6</xref>].</p><p>This study has some limitations. First, the study was conducted at a single center, and the generalizability of the findings to a wider population might be limited. In addition, although the sample size was determined using appropriate statistical methods, the final number of participants included in each group was relatively small. This may have reduced the statistical power of the study and may also restrict the external validity of the findings. Second, the study participants were selected in a nonrandomized manner, and allocation of anesthesia types may have introduced selection bias. Finally, this study focused exclusively on immediate QoR and did not include intermediate- and long-term follow-up, which limits conclusions regarding the intermediate- and long-term recovery outcomes.</p></sec><sec id="s4-2"><title>Conclusions and Recommendations</title><p>The findings of our study demonstrated that SA provides better early postoperative recovery and postoperative analgesia than GA in patients undergoing appendectomy. In addition, patients undergoing appendectomy under SA had reduced early postoperative analgesia consumption, a reduced incidence of early PONV, and faster in-hospital recovery trajectories than those undergoing appendectomy under GA. Therefore, in the absence of specific contraindications, SA seems to be a preferred anesthesia technique for patients undergoing appendectomy for acute appendicitis. We recommend that future research explore intermediate- and long-term recovery outcomes in patients who undergo appendectomy under SA vs GA.</p></sec></sec></body><back><ack><p>The authors acknowledge Debre Tabor University for providing ethical clearance to conduct this study. The authors also extend their sincere appreciation to Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital for permitting the conduct of this research within the facility. The authors also express their gratitude to the study participants, supervisors, and data collectors for their invaluable contributions.</p><p>All authors declared that they had insufficient funding to support open access publication of this manuscript, including from affiliated organizations or institutions, funding agencies, or other organizations. JMIR Publications provided article processing fee support for the publication of this paper.</p></ack><notes><sec><title>Funding</title><p>No external financial support or grants were received from any public, commercial, or not-for-profit entities for the research, authorship, or publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec><title>Data Availability</title><p>The datasets used and analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p></sec></notes><fn-group><fn fn-type="con"><p>Conceptualization: NZG, TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG, AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Data curation: NZG, TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG</p><p>Formal analysis: NZG</p><p>Investigation: AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Methodology: NZG</p><p>Software: NZG, AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Study design: NZG, TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG, AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Supervision: TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG, AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Validation: TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG</p><p>Visualization: AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p><p>Writing &#x2013; original draft: NZG</p><p>Writing &#x2013; review &#x0026; editing: NZG, TBA, HBW, KGB, GDG, AGA, BJA, BMM, BD, WTW</p></fn><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>None declared.</p></fn></fn-group><glossary><title>Abbreviations</title><def-list><def-item><term id="abb1">GA</term><def><p>general anesthesia</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb2">PACU</term><def><p>postanesthesia care unit</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb3">PONV</term><def><p>postoperative nausea and vomiting</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb4">QoR</term><def><p>quality of recovery</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb5">QoR-15</term><def><p>Quality of Recovery-15</p></def></def-item><def-item><term id="abb6">SA</term><def><p>spinal anesthesia</p></def></def-item></def-list></glossary><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="ref1"><label>1</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Guan</surname><given-names>L</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Z</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Pan</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>The global, regional, and national burden of appendicitis in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019</article-title><source>BMC Gastroenterol</source><year>2023</year><month>02</month><day>22</day><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>44</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12876-023-02678-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">36814190</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref2"><label>2</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Moris</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Paulson</surname><given-names>EK</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Pappas</surname><given-names>TN</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in adults: a review</article-title><source>JAMA</source><year>2021</year><month>12</month><day>14</day><volume>326</volume><issue>22</issue><fpage>2299</fpage><lpage>2311</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1001/jama.2021.20502</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">34905026</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref3"><label>3</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ferris</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Quan</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Kaplan</surname><given-names>BS</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>The global incidence of appendicitis: a systematic review of population-based studies</article-title><source>Ann Surg</source><year>2017</year><month>08</month><volume>266</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>237</fpage><lpage>241</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1097/SLA.0000000000002188</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">28288060</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref4"><label>4</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adu</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Birhanu</surname><given-names>Y</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Acute appendicitis in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis</article-title><source>Int J Afr Nurs Sci</source><year>2021</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>100343</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ijans.2021.100343</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref5"><label>5</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Uzman</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Donmez</surname><given-names>T</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Erdem</surname><given-names>VM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hut</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Yildirim</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Akinci</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Combined spinal-epidural anesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective feasibility study</article-title><source>Ann Surg Treat Res</source><year>2017</year><month>04</month><volume>92</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>208</fpage><lpage>213</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4174/astr.2017.92.4.208</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">28382293</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref6"><label>6</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>X</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Y</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Che</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ren</surname><given-names>W</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Effect of intraspinal anesthesia on postoperative recovery in elderly patients with acute appendicitis: a retrospective study</article-title><source>Ann Ital Chir</source><year>2024</year><volume>95</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>669</fpage><lpage>677</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.62713/aic.3415</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">39186347</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref7"><label>7</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>El Moheb</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Han</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Breen</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>General versus neuraxial anesthesia for appendectomy: a multicenter international study</article-title><source>World J Surg</source><year>2021</year><month>11</month><volume>45</volume><issue>11</issue><fpage>3295</fpage><lpage>3301</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s00268-021-05978-9</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33554296</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref8"><label>8</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Erdem</surname><given-names>VM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Donmez</surname><given-names>T</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Uzman</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ferahman</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hatipoglu</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Sunamak</surname><given-names>O</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Spinal/epidural block as an alternative to general anesthesia for laparoscopic appendectomy: a prospective randomized clinical study</article-title><source>Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne</source><year>2018</year><month>06</month><volume>13</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>148</fpage><lpage>156</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5114/wiitm.2018.72684</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">30002746</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref9"><label>9</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kayani</surname><given-names>KM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Malik</surname><given-names>UE</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hafiz</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hussain</surname><given-names>F</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Munir</surname><given-names>H</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>us Saqib</surname><given-names>N</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Comparison of hemodynamic stability of patients undergoing appendectomy under spinal anesthesia versus blend of ketamine and midazolam with spinal anesthesia</article-title><source>PAFMJ</source><year>2023</year><volume>73</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>1128</fpage><lpage>1132</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.51253/pafmj.v73i4.9481</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref10"><label>10</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Balc&#x0131;</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Balc&#x0131;</surname><given-names>F</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Atay</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bozkurt</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ertekin</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Comparison of bupivacaine&#x2013;fentanyl and bupivacaine-alfentanil used intrathecally in laparoscopic appendectomy surgery</article-title><source>Kocatepe T&#x0131;p Dergisi</source><year>2021</year><volume>22</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>414</fpage><lpage>421</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18229/kocatepetip.835963</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref11"><label>11</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bilal</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Muneer</surname><given-names>B</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ullah</surname><given-names>MS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shahbaz</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ali</surname><given-names>R</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Noman</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Postoperative complications of anaesthesia following appendectomy: complications of anaesthesia following appendectomy</article-title><source>Heal J Physiother Rehabil Sci</source><year>2024</year><volume>4</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>15</fpage><lpage>22</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.55735/hjprs.v4i5.287</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref12"><label>12</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jun</surname><given-names>GW</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Kim</surname><given-names>MS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>HJ</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Laparoscopic appendectomy under spinal anesthesia with dexmedetomidine infusion</article-title><source>Korean J Anesthesiol</source><year>2014</year><month>10</month><volume>67</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>246</fpage><lpage>251</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4097/kjae.2014.67.4.246</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">25368782</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref13"><label>13</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Latif</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bhatti</surname><given-names>MF</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Qadir</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shahwar</surname><given-names>ZA</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shahzad</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Effectiveness of anaesthesia for appendicectomy: comparison of spinal anaesthesia with other modalities being practiced in emergency department of Allama Iqbal Memorial Teaching Hospital</article-title><source>Pak J Med Health Sci</source><year>2017</year><access-date>2025-05-25</access-date><volume>11</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>1402</fpage><lpage>1403</lpage><comment><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.pjmhsonline.com/2017/oct_dec/pdf/1402.pdf">https://www.pjmhsonline.com/2017/oct_dec/pdf/1402.pdf</ext-link></comment></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref14"><label>14</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mai</surname><given-names>DV</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Sagar</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Claydon</surname><given-names>O</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Park</surname><given-names>JY</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Tapuria</surname><given-names>N</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Keeler</surname><given-names>BD</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Open appendicectomy under spinal anesthesia-a valuable alternative during COVID-19</article-title><source>Surg J (N Y)</source><year>2021</year><month>04</month><volume>7</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>e69</fpage><lpage>e72</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1055/s-0041-1725933</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">34104718</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref15"><label>15</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gabriel</surname><given-names>MD</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Veronica</surname><given-names>AM</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Karen</surname><given-names>P</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Maria</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gerardo</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Daniela</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Comparison between spinal anesthesia vs general anesthesia in patients undergoing open appendectomy for acute appendicitis, a retrospective study</article-title><source>J Hepatol Gastroint Dis</source><year>2020</year><volume>7</volume><fpage>178</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.35248/2475-3181.7.178</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref16"><label>16</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gurudatta</surname><given-names>KN</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Arif</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>A clinical study of comparison between general anesthesia and spinal anesthesia for lower abdominal laparoscopic surgeries</article-title><source>Sch J Appl Med Sci</source><year>2014</year><volume>2</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>1127</fpage><lpage>1133</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.36347/sjams.2014.v02i03.053</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref17"><label>17</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hewson</surname><given-names>DW</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Tedore</surname><given-names>TR</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hardman</surname><given-names>JG</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Impact of spinal or epidural anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in adult noncardiac surgery: a narrative review of recent evidence</article-title><source>Br J Anaesth</source><year>2024</year><month>08</month><volume>133</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>380</fpage><lpage>399</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2024.04.044</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">38811298</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref18"><label>18</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>de Carli</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Meletti</surname><given-names>JF</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>de Camargo</surname><given-names>R</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gratac&#x00F3;s</surname><given-names>LS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Gomes</surname><given-names>VC</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Marques</surname><given-names>ND</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Effect of anesthetic technique on the quality of anesthesia recovery for abdominal histerectomy: a cross-observational study</article-title><source>Braz J Anesthesiol</source><year>2021</year><volume>71</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>221</fpage><lpage>227</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bjane.2021.01.013</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33930343</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref19"><label>19</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Myles</surname><given-names>PS</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Shulman</surname><given-names>MA</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Reilly</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Kasza</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Romero</surname><given-names>L</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Measurement of quality of recovery after surgery using the 15-item quality of recovery scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis</article-title><source>Br J Anaesth</source><year>2022</year><month>06</month><volume>128</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>1029</fpage><lpage>1039</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2022.03.009</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">35430086</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref20"><label>20</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Wessels</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Perrie</surname><given-names>H</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Scribante</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jooma</surname><given-names>Z</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Quality of recovery in the perioperative setting: a narrative review</article-title><source>J Clin Anesth</source><year>2022</year><month>06</month><volume>78</volume><fpage>110685</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110685</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">35190342</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref21"><label>21</label><nlm-citation citation-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bowyer</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Royse</surname><given-names>CF</given-names> </name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name name-style="western"><surname>Stuart-Smith</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Stuart-Smith</surname><given-names>K</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Defining postoperative quality of recovery</article-title><source>Perioperative Medicine &#x2013; Current Controversies</source><year>2016</year><publisher-name>Springer International Publishing</publisher-name><fpage>87</fpage><lpage>107</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/978-3-319-28821-5_5</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="other">9783319288215</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref22"><label>22</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Borrell-Vega</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Humeidan</surname><given-names>ML</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bergese</surname><given-names>SD</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Defining quality of recovery &#x2013; what is important to patients?</article-title><source>Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol</source><year>2018</year><volume>32</volume><issue>3-4</issue><fpage>259</fpage><lpage>268</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bpa.2018.07.002</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">30522716</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref23"><label>23</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>L&#x00E9;ger</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Campfort</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Cayla</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Lasocki</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Rineau</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Postoperative quality of recovery measurements as endpoints in comparative anaesthesia studies: a systematic review</article-title><source>Br J Anaesth</source><year>2021</year><month>06</month><volume>126</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>e210</fpage><lpage>e212</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2021.03.008</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33892949</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref24"><label>24</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bowyer</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Royse</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>The importance of postoperative quality of recovery: influences, assessment, and clinical and prognostic implications</article-title><source>Can J Anaesth</source><year>2016</year><month>02</month><volume>63</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>176</fpage><lpage>183</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s12630-015-0508-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">26475163</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref25"><label>25</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Mokhtar Mehanna</surname><given-names>AMA</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ibrahim</surname><given-names>AG</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Comparative study between general and spinal anaesthesia in laparoscopic appendectomy</article-title><source>J Anesth Clin Res</source><year>2017</year><volume>8</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>1000713</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4172/2155-6148.1000713</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref26"><label>26</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Taflan</surname><given-names>MG</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Akdeniz</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Kusderci</surname><given-names>H</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Comparison of combined spinal-epidural versus general anesthesia with epidural catheter on postoperative quality of recovery after abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective observational study</article-title><source>BMC Anesthesiol</source><year>2025</year><month>07</month><day>31</day><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>386</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12871-025-03252-2</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">40745528</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref27"><label>27</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Craig</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Carli</surname><given-names>F</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Bromage motor blockade score &#x2013; a score that has lasted more than a lifetime</article-title><source>Can J Anaesth</source><year>2018</year><month>07</month><volume>65</volume><issue>7</issue><fpage>837</fpage><lpage>838</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s12630-018-1101-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">29508151</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref28"><label>28</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kleif</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Waage</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Christensen</surname><given-names>KB</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>G&#x00F6;genur</surname><given-names>I</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Systematic review of the QoR-15 score, a patient- reported outcome measure measuring quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia</article-title><source>Br J Anaesth</source><year>2018</year><month>01</month><volume>120</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>28</fpage><lpage>36</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.013</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">29397134</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref29"><label>29</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Catro-Alves</surname><given-names>LJ</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>De Azevedo</surname><given-names>VL</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>De Freitas Braga</surname><given-names>TF</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Goncalves</surname><given-names>AC</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>De Oliveira</surname><given-names>GS</given-names>  <suffix>Jr</suffix></name></person-group><article-title>The effect of neuraxial versus general anesthesia techniques on postoperative quality of recovery and analgesia after abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial</article-title><source>Anesth Analg</source><year>2011</year><month>12</month><volume>113</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>1480</fpage><lpage>1486</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182334d8b</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">21926374</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref30"><label>30</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sekerak</surname><given-names>R</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Mostafa</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Morris</surname><given-names>MT</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nessim</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Vira</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Sharan</surname><given-names>A</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Comparative outcome analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in lumbar fusion surgery</article-title><source>J Clin Orthop Trauma</source><year>2021</year><month>02</month><volume>13</volume><fpage>122</fpage><lpage>126</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jcot.2020.11.017</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33680810</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref31"><label>31</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yoon</surname><given-names>SH</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Bae</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Yoon</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Na</surname><given-names>KJ</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>HJ</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Correlation between pain intensity and quality of recovery after video-assisted thoracic surgery for lung cancer resection</article-title><source>J Pain Res</source><year>2023</year><volume>16</volume><fpage>3343</fpage><lpage>3352</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2147/JPR.S426570</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">37808464</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref32"><label>32</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Hosseinzadeh Zorofchi</surname><given-names>B</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Jahan</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nassiri</surname><given-names>S</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Comparing spinal and general anesthesia in terms of postoperative pain in patients undergoing hysterectomy</article-title><source>J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res</source><year>2022</year><volume>3</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>73</fpage><lpage>77</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.30699/jogcr.3.2.73</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref33"><label>33</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>O&#x2019;Neill</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Helwig</surname><given-names>E</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Postoperative management of the physiological effects of spinal anesthesia</article-title><source>J Perianesth Nurs</source><year>2016</year><month>08</month><volume>31</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>330</fpage><lpage>339</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.jopan.2015.01.018</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">27444765</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref34"><label>34</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tian</surname><given-names>T</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Li</surname><given-names>XT</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>FS</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>The minimal clinically important differences as well as statistical differences of main endpoints are important in comparing postoperative benefits of different analgesic modalities [letter]</article-title><source>Drug Des Devel Ther</source><year>2022</year><volume>16</volume><fpage>3195</fpage><lpage>3196</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2147/DDDT.S370327</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">36172052</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref35"><label>35</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Laigaard</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Pedersen</surname><given-names>C</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>R&#x00F8;nsbo</surname><given-names>TN</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Mathiesen</surname><given-names>O</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Karlsen</surname><given-names>AP</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Minimal clinically important differences in randomised clinical trials on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review</article-title><source>Br J Anaesth</source><year>2021</year><month>05</month><volume>126</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>1029</fpage><lpage>1037</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.bja.2021.01.021</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">33678402</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref36"><label>36</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Shaikh</surname><given-names>SI</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Nagarekha</surname><given-names>D</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Hegade</surname><given-names>G</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Marutheesh</surname><given-names>M</given-names> </name></person-group><article-title>Postoperative nausea and vomiting: a simple yet complex problem</article-title><source>Anesth Essays Res</source><year>2016</year><volume>10</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>388</fpage><lpage>396</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4103/0259-1162.179310</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">27746521</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref37"><label>37</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Sansonnens</surname><given-names>J</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Taff&#x00E9;</surname><given-names>P</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Burnand</surname><given-names>B</given-names> </name><collab>ADS study group</collab></person-group><article-title>Higher occurrence of nausea and vomiting after total hip arthroplasty using general versus spinal anesthesia: an observational study</article-title><source>BMC Anesthesiol</source><year>2015</year><month>12</month><volume>16</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>44</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12871-016-0207-0</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref><ref id="ref38"><label>38</label><nlm-citation citation-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name name-style="western"><surname>Eoh</surname><given-names>KJ</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Ahn</surname><given-names>JH</given-names> </name><name name-style="western"><surname>Park</surname><given-names>JS</given-names> </name><etal/></person-group><article-title>Comparative analysis of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia in single-port access laparoscopic adnexal surgery: a propensity score matching study</article-title><source>BMC Womens Health</source><year>2025</year><month>02</month><day>24</day><volume>25</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>83</fpage><pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1186/s12905-025-03604-7</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="medline">39994702</pub-id></nlm-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>