Abstract
Background:
The choice between general anaesthesia (GA) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) during abdominal hysterectomy remains clinically significant, as each technique has distinct physiologic effects that may influence intraoperative stability and postoperative recovery. Existing evidence remains heterogeneous, and clarity is particularly needed in low-resource settings where open hysterectomy is common and anaesthetic decisions directly affect patient outcomes.
Objective:
To compare the effects of GA and SA on perioperative hemodynamic and early postoperative recovery among women undergoing elective abdominal hysterectomy.
Methods:
A comparative cross-sectional study including 30 women (15 GA, 15 SA) was conducted at DHQ Hospital Mianwali, Pakistan. Eligible participants were ASA class I–II and aged 35–70 years. Heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded at recovery entry, recovery exit, and during recovery. Data were analysed using SPSS v27.0.1, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
Results:
Baseline demographics, including age and BMI, were comparable between groups. Hemodynamic parameters demonstrated similar patterns in GA and SA across all timepoints. Heart rate remained <120 bpm in 56.7% at entry and 70.0% at exit, with no group differences (p = 0.70–1.00). Systolic blood pressure exceeded 80 mmHg in 73.3% at entry and exit, and in 80.0% during recovery, again without significant differences (p = 0.68–1.00). Diastolic pressure and oxygen saturation also showed no significant intergroup variation, with SpO₂ >92% increasing from 80.0% at entry to 93.3% at exit. Across all parameters, GA and SA yielded statistically equivalent recovery-phase stability.
Conclusion:
General and spinal anaesthesia produced comparable hemodynamic stability and early recovery profiles in ASA I–II women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. These findings suggest that, under standardized perioperative care, anaesthetic technique may not independently determine early physiological recovery. Anaesthetic choice should therefore be individualized, considering patient characteristics, surgical requirements, and resource context. Larger multicentre studies with extended follow-up are warranted to confirm long-term and patient-reported outcomes.