Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 229774

AbstractCase ReportDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Case report
Year : 2026 | Month : September | Volume : 20 | Issue : 9 | Page : UD05 - UD08 Full Version

Anaesthetic Management of a Patient with Severe Thoracolumbar Kyphoscoliosis Undergoing Exploratory Laparotomy for a Large Ovarian Cyst: A Case Report


Published: September 1, 2026 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2026/90687.24253
Charmi Hitenbhai Shah, Tejash H Sharma, Dinesh K Chauhan

1. Assistant Professor, Anesthesia, Shrimati Bhikhiben Kanjibhai Shah Medical Institute and Research Centre, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Vadodara, Gujarat, India. 2. Professor, Anesthesia, Shrimati Bhikhiben Kanjibhai Shah Medical Institute and Research Centre, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Vadodara, Gujarat, India. 3. Professor and Medical Superintendant, Anesthesia, Smt. Bhikhiben Kanjibhai Shah Medical Institute and Research Centre, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Vadodara, Gujarat, India.

Correspondence Address :
Charmi Hitenbhai Shah,
20, Netaji Society, Near Muktanand, Karelibaug, Vadodara, Gujarat, India.
E-mail: charmi28shah@gmail.com

Abstract

Severe thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis usually makes anaesthesia difficult. The chest is deformed, the lungs work poorly, and the twisted spine is hard to reach for a neuraxial block. A 30-year-old woman with this deformity presented with a large ovarian cyst and was listed for open abdominal surgery. Before this illness she could carry out her routine household work (about four metabolic equivalents) but became breathless on climbing one flight of stairs (modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea grade 2). Her chest radiograph showed a double curve, with the thoracic spine bent to the right at a Cobb’s angle of 74 degrees and the lumbar spine to the left at 64 degrees. Lung function testing showed a severe restrictive pattern, and her breathing did not improve after a bronchodilator. The heart scan and the rest of the workup were normal. General anaesthesia in a patient with such poor lung reserve carries a real risk of breathing trouble after surgery, so a spinal block was chosen instead, even though the distorted anatomy made it harder. The landmarks were felt for patiently, and the block was placed in the sitting position at the L3-L4 space. A dose of 3.8 mL of 0.5 percent heavy bupivacaine with 10 micrograms of dexmedetomidine was given. A sensory level of T6 was reached. She stayed stable through the whole operation, with no drop in oxygen and no swings in blood pressure, and her recovery was smooth. This case shows that a spinal block, planned with care and placed with patience, can be a safe option for major abdominal surgery in a patient with severe kyphoscoliosis and weak lungs.

Keywords

Cobb angle, Dexmedetomidine, Neuraxial anaesthesia, Restrictive lung disease

Case Report

A 30-year-old woman presented to the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology with lower-abdominal pain and swelling. The pain had begun gradually about three months earlier, was dull and aching, felt deep in the lower abdomen, and had slowly grown worse along with steadily increasing abdominal distension. She was a homemaker. Before this illness she could carry out her routine household work (about four metabolic equivalents) but became breathless on climbing one flight of stairs (modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea grade 2). Imaging showed a large complex cyst in the right ovary, and an open operation was planned. She had delivered twice by caesarean section and had undergone tubal ligation. Detailed anaesthetic records of these two earlier caesarean deliveries were not available. She also carried a long-standing, severe kyphoscoliosis of the thoracolumbar spine that had never been operated on (Table/Fig 1). The deformity had been present since her teenage years and had slowly progressed. There was no history of spinal injury, spinal tuberculosis, poliomyelitis or any neuromuscular illness, so it was taken to be idiopathic. There was no diabetes, hypertension, tuberculosis or asthma.

She looked comfortable at rest. Her height was 156 cm and her weight 45 kg, giving a body mass index of about 18.5. Pulse was 88 per minute, blood pressure 118 by 78 mmHg, and oxygen saturation 99 percent in room air. The airway looked reasonable, with a Mallampati class II and a good mouth opening. Her spine carried an obvious twist and hump. Breath sounds were equal on both sides and the heart sounds were normal.


Preoperative Evaluation

The chest radiograph showed the deformity clearly: a severe double curve, convex to the right in the thoracic region at a Cobb’s angle of 74 degrees and convex to the left in the lumbar region at 64 degrees (Table/Fig 2). The lung fields, heart shadow and mediastinum looked normal. Routine blood tests came back largely normal apart from mild anaemia and a slightly raised INR; the full set of values is given in (Table/Fig 3). The INR of 1.35 was only mildly raised and stayed below the value of 1.5 that is generally accepted as safe for a spinal injection; the platelet count and the activated partial thromboplastin time were normal, so no correction was needed before the block. The lung function test was the key investigation in this patient. It showed a severe restrictive defect. The forced vital capacity and the forced expiratory volume in one second were both about 44 percent of predicted, the FEV1/FVC ratio was preserved at 85 percent, and there was no useful response to a bronchodilator; the full spirometry values are given in (Table/Fig 4). The electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm with poor R-wave progression. Echocardiography was reassuring, with normal chamber function, an ejection fraction of 55 percent, and no pulmonary hypertension. A contrast CT of the abdomen confirmed a large cystic lesion, roughly 9.9 by 17.6 by 21 cm, arising from the right adnexa and reaching up to the level of the umbilicus.
Because of the lung disease, the team did not rush to surgery. Opinions were taken from pulmonary medicine and cardiology. Sputum was sent to screen for tuberculosis, and it was negative. The pulmonologist’s view was that she could be taken up for surgery, but only as a high-risk case, with the final anaesthetic decision left to the anaesthesia team. She was started on bronchodilator nebulisation. Even though the spirometry showed no reversibility, regular bronchodilator nebulisation and chest physiotherapy were continued to clear secretions, treat any small reversible airway component, and lower the chance of lung collapse and chest infection after surgery. The night before surgery she was given alprazolam 0.5 mg, and the nebulisation was repeated that night 6
and again in the morning. She was kept fasting from 8 pm. She was graded ASA physical status III, and high-risk written consent was taken from the patient and her family.

Anaesthetic Management

Inside the operating room, standard monitors- electrocardiography, non-invasive blood pressure and pulse oximetry - were attached, and two 20G intravenous cannulae were secured. Before the block she received ranitidine 50 mg and ondansetron 4 mg into the vein, and a litre of Ringer’s lactate was run in to preload her.

The block was the most challenging part of the anaesthetic. With the spine so badly twisted, the usual surface landmarks could not be trusted. With the patient seated upright, the midline and the interspaces were identified by slow, careful palpation rather than a quick guess. The L3-L4 space, which lay below the lumbar curve, turned out to be the most accessible. A 23G Quincke needle was used. After free flow of clear cerebrospinal fluid, 3.8 mL of 0.5 percent heavy bupivacaine mixed with 10 micrograms of dexmedetomidine was injected. The sensory level was checked with a pinprick and reached the T6 dermatome in about ten minutes. Motor power was tested by the modified Bromage scale and showed a complete block (grade 3). Oxygen was given by face mask at 6 L per minute.

The procedure carried out was an exploratory laparotomy with cystectomy and removal of the right tube and ovary, lasting about 70 minutes. She stayed steady throughout. There was no fall in blood pressure, no drop in oxygen saturation, and no breathing distress. Tramadol 50 mg was given into the vein for pain, along with maintenance fluids.

Postoperative Course

She recovered from the block without trouble. Once it wore off she was awake, oriented and moving all four limbs. Oxygen by face mask was continued, fluids were kept running to maintain hydration, and her vital signs were watched closely. The rest of her stay passed without event, and she was discharged in good condition.

Discussion

Kyphoscoliosis bends the spine in two directions at once, sideways and forward. When the curve is large, the chest cage is pulled out of shape, the lungs can no longer expand fully, and breathing becomes restricted (1). The present patient fitted this picture closely. Cobb’s angles of 74 and 64 degrees, together with lung volumes at 44 percent of predicted, confirmed a severe restrictive defect and marked her out as a high-risk anaesthetic case.

For a patient like this, general anaesthesia is the less attractive choice. A deformed chest and limited movement can make the airway hard to manage, and weak lungs raise the chance of lung tissue collapsing, a long stay on the ventilator, and chest infections after surgery (2). The main anaesthetic challenges in such patients are threefold. The airway can be awkward because of the short, deformed neck and chest. The lungs have little reserve, so any depression of breathing is poorly tolerated. And the twisted spine makes a neuraxial block hard to place and its spread hard to predict. Staying away from a breathing tube and positive-pressure ventilation, where it is possible, makes sense. A spinal block lets the patient keep breathing on her own and gives good pain relief afterwards, and it has been used successfully for caesarean section and lower abdominal surgery in patients with kyphoscoliosis (3),(4).

A few similar cases have been reported, and they are summarised in (Table/Fig 5) (1),(5),(6). Kaur M et al., described a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis and an intertrochanteric femur fracture in whom the first spinal attempt failed even under fluoroscopy; the block succeeded the next day at the L3-L4 space only after the preoperative spine films were studied carefully (1). The same lesson- study the films and pick a space below the main curve- worked in the present case and gave a first-attempt success. Deshmukh S et al., managed a young primigravida with congenital thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis for an emergency caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with the help of a full multidisciplinary team (5), much as a joint pulmonary, cardiology and anaesthesia review guided the plan here.

Not every such case ends with a successful spinal. Beh ZY et al., reported a 29-year-old woman with osteogenesis imperfecta, severe kyphoscoliosis and very poor lung function who needed an open ovarian cystectomy; their neuraxial attempt failed, and the surgery was completed with a quadratus lumborum block and deep sedation (6). That report is a reminder that the spread of a spinal drug is unpredictable in these spines and that a backup plan must be ready. For the present patient several other options were weighed. General anaesthesia was set aside because of the difficult airway and the poor lung reserve. An epidural alone was thought likely to be slow and patchy. A truncal block such as the quadratus lumborum block was kept in reserve as a fallback, and ultrasound was on hand in case the landmarks could not be felt. In the end a carefully placed single-shot spinal proved enough.

When the landmarks are impossible to feel, ultrasound is now the most useful aid. In a randomised trial in patients with abnormal spines, including scoliosis, a pre-procedure ultrasound scan cut the number of needle passes and improved first-attempt success compared with the landmark method (7). Kilicaslan B described the same benefit in a very difficult spine, in a patient with achondroplasia and scoliosis (8), and a recent Cochrane review supports ultrasound guidance for neuraxial blocks in adults with difficult anatomy (9). Ultrasound was available as a backup here, though careful palpation alone proved enough.

Dexmedetomidine was added to the bupivacaine. This drug is an alpha-2 agonist. It lengthens both the sensory and the motor block and the period of pain relief, it allows a smaller dose of local anaesthetic, and it adds light, rousable sedation without depressing breathing (10),(11). That last point matters in a patient whose lungs have so little to spare (12). She stayed calm and stable for the whole case, which fits well with what others have reported using this combination.

This report has limits. It is a single case, so the findings cannot be generalised. An arterial blood gas was not taken before surgery, as the saturation stayed at 99 percent on room air, but it might have added to the assessment of respiratory reserve in such a high-risk patient.

Conclusion

A spinal block can be a safe and practical choice for major abdominal surgery in a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis and restrictive lung disease. It sidesteps the airway and breathing risks that come with general anaesthesia. The keys are a careful preoperative check with help from other specialists, a good look at the spine films, the choice of an interspace below the main curve, sound positioning, and an unhurried, careful technique. Adding dexmedetomidine to the local anaesthetic is a useful way to lengthen the block while keeping breathing and circulation steady.

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the department of obstetrics and gynaecology, under whose care the patient was admitted and operated. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case and the accompanying images, and the photographs were de-identified.

References

1.
Kaur M, Aujla KS, Gosal JS. Anesthetic challenges in a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis. Anesth Essays Res. 2020;14(1):170-72. [crossref] [PubMed]
2.
Jeong H, Chae M, Seo H, Yi JW, Kang JM, Lee BJ. Face-to-face intubation using a lightwand in a patient with severe thoracolumbar kyphosis: A case report. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18(1):86. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Misra S, Shukla A, Rao KG. Subarachnoid block in kyphoscoliosis: A reliable technique? Med J DY Patil Univ. 2016;9(6):761-64. [crossref]
4.
Ko JY, Leffert LR. Clinical implications of neuraxial anesthesia in the parturient with scoliosis. Anesth Analg. 2009;109(6):1930-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Deshmukh S, Mahanta D, Roshni Y, Jena S. Anesthetic challenges in a pregnancy case with congenital kyphoscoliosis. Cureus. 2024;16(5):e61269. [crossref]
6.
Beh ZY, Mok CS, Lim WL, Yip HW, Loh PS, Ramli MAS, et al. Quadratus lumborum block for ovarian cystectomy surgery in a patient with severe kyphoscoliosis. Cureus. 2024;16(1):e51513. [crossref]
7.
Park SK, Bae J, Yoo S, Kim WH, Lim YJ, Bahk JH, et al. Ultrasound-assisted versus landmark-guided spinal anesthesia in patients with abnormal spinal anatomy: A randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(3):787-95. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Kilicaslan B. Ultrasound-guided spinal anaesthesia in a patient with achondroplastic dwarfism and scoliosis: A case report. Hong Kong Med J. 2023;29(5):459-61. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Makino Y, Miyake K, Roche D, Yoshimura S, Nahara I, Sahker E, et al. Ultrasound guidance versus anatomical landmarks for neuraxial anaesthesia in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025;5(5):CD014964. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
Kanazi GE, Aouad MT, Jabbour-Khoury SI, Al Jazzar MD, Alameddine MM, Al-Yaman R, et al. Effect of low-dose dexmedetomidine or clonidine on the characteristics of bupivacaine spinal block. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50(2):222-27. [crossref] [PubMed]
11.
Gupta R, Verma R, Bogra J, Kohli M, Raman R, Kushwaha JK. A comparative study of intrathecal dexmedetomidine and fentanyl as adjuvants to bupivacaine. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011;27(3):339-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Al-Mustafa MM, Abu-Halaweh SA, Aloweidi AS, Murshidi MM, Ammari BA, Awwad ZM, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine added to spinal bupivacaine for urological procedures. Saudi Med J. 2009;30(3):365-70 [crossref]. [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2026/90687.24253

Date of Submission: May 20, 2026
Date of Peer Review: Jun 08, 2026
Date of Acceptance: Jun 29, 2026
Date of Publishing: Sep 01, 2026

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: May 28, 2026
• Manual Googling: Jun 25, 2026
• iThenticate Software: Jun 27, 2026 (1%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 6

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com