Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD).

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Clinical Trials.gov, etc. were searched from inception to October 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) comparing ERAS program with traditional protocol of MIS-TLIF for LDD were included.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies were included for final analysis. The pooled results of RCTs showed that compared with MIS-TLIF, the ERAS program used in MIS-TLIF could reduce the length of hospital stay, operation time, intraoperative blood loss and incidence of postoperative complications, decrease visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and improve patient satisfaction (P < 0.05). However, the pooled results of CSs revealed no statistical difference in the ODI score, fusion rate, operation time, and incidence of complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with MIS-TLIF, the ERAS program used in MIS-TLIF could effectively shorten the length of hospital stay, operation time, decrease intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of postoperative complications, promote postoperative pain relief, functional recovery, and patient satisfaction. This study confirmed the value of ERAS in MIS-TLIF surgery and provided evidence for the standardization of ERAS in the future. Considering that the pooled results of RCTs and CSs are not completely consistent, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.

A novel endoscope-port unit for lumbar microendoscopic surgery: a single-center case series review

Minimally invasive spinal surgery has shown benefits not only from a clinical standpoint but also in some cost-effectiveness metrics. Microendoscopic procedures combine optical advantages of endoscopy with the preservation of bimanual surgical maneuvers that are not feasible with full percutaneous endoscopic procedures. TELIGEN is a new endoscopic platform designed to optimize these operations. Our aim was to present a retrospective review of surgical data from the first consecutive cases applying this device in our institution and describe some of its technical details. 25 patients have underwent procedures using this device at our institution to the date, with a mean follow-up of 341.7 ± 45.1 days. 17 decompression-only procedures, including microendoscopic discectomies (MED) and decompression of stenosis (MEDS), with or without foraminotomies (± MEF) and 8 microendoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (ME-TLIF) were performed. Mean age and body mass index (BMI) were respectively 58.8 ± 17.4 years and 27.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2. Estimated blood loss (13 ± 4.8, 12.8 ± 6.98 and 76.3 ± 35.02 mL), postoperative length of hospital stay (11.2 ± 21.74, 22.1 ± 26.85 and 80.7 ± 44.60 h), operative time (130.3 ± 58.53, 121 ± 33.90 and 241.5 ± 45.27 min) and cumulative intraprocedural radiation dose (14.2 ± 6.36, 15.4 ± 12.17 and 72.8 ± 12.26 mGy) are reported in this paper for MED ± MEF, MEDS ± MEF and ME-TLIF, respectively. TELIGEN affords an expanded surgical field of view with unique engineered benefits that provide a promissing platform to enhance minimally invasive spine surgery.

The impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on opioid consumption and postoperative pain levels in elective spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols were developed to counteract the adverse effects of the surgical stress response, aiming for quicker postoperative recovery. Initially applied in abdominal surgeries, ERAS principles have extended to orthopedic spine surgery, but research in this area is still in its infancy. The current study investigated the impact of ERAS on postoperative pain and opioid consumption in elective spine surgeries.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing elective spine surgery from May 2019 to July 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups: those enrolled in the ERAS pathway and those adhering to traditional surgical protocols. Data on demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while opioid utilization was quantified in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). NRS and MME were averaged for each patient across all days under observation. Differences in outcomes between groups (ERAS vs. treatment as usual) were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson's or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.

RESULTS

The median of patient's mean daily NRS scores for postoperative pain were not statistically significantly different between groups (median = 5.55 (ERAS) and 5.28 (non-ERAS), p=.2). Additionally, the median of patients' mean daily levels of MME were similar between groups (median = 17.24 (ERAS) and 16.44 (non-ERAS), p=.3) ERAS patients experienced notably shorter LOS (median=2 days) than their non-ERAS counterparts (median=3 days, p=.001). The effect of ERAS was moderated by whether the patient had ACDF surgery. ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had ACDF surgery had 1.64 lower average NRS (p=.006). ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had a different surgery had 0.72 higher average NRS (p=.02) but had almost half the length of stay, on average (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study underscores the dynamic nature of ERAS protocols within the realm of spine surgery. While ERAS demonstrates advantages such as reduced LOS and improved patient-reported outcomes, it requires careful implementation and customization to address the specific demands of each surgical discipline. The potential to expedite recovery, optimize resource utilization, and enhance patient satisfaction cannot be overstated. However, the fine balance between achieving these benefits and ensuring comprehensive patient care, especially in the context of postoperative pain management, must be maintained. As ERAS continues to evolve and find its place in diverse surgical domains, it is crucial for healthcare providers to remain attentive to patient needs, adapting ERAS protocols to suit individual patient populations and surgical contexts.

Advances and Challenges in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery continues to grow and develop. Over the past 50 years, there has been immense growth within this subspecialty of neurosurgery. A deep understanding of the historical context and future directions of this subspecialty is imperative to developing safe adoption and targeted innovation. This review aims to describe the advancements, and challenges that we face today in minimally invasive spine surgery.

The Impact of Peri-operative Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols on Outcomes Following Adult Cervical Deformity Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols on peri-operative course in adult cervical deformity (ACD) corrective surgery.

METHODS

Patients ≥18 yrs with complete pre-(BL) and up to 2-year (2Y) radiographic and clinical outcome data were stratified by enrollment in an ERAS protocol that commenced in 2020. Differences in demographics, clinical outcomes, radiographic alignment targets, peri-operative factors and complication rates were assessed via means comparison analysis. Logistic regression analysed differences while controlling for baseline disability and deformity.

RESULTS

We included 220 patients (average age 58.1 ± 11.9 years, 48% female). 20% were treated using the ERAS protocol (ERAS+). Disability was similar between both groups at baseline. When controlling for baseline disability and myelopathy, ERAS- patients were more likely to utilize opioids than ERAS+ (OR 1.79, 95% CI: 1.45-2.50, P = .016). Peri-operatively, ERAS+ had significantly lower operative time (P < .021), lower EBL (583.48 vs 246.51, P < .001), and required significantly lower doses of propofol intra-operatively than ERAS- patients (P = .020). ERAS+ patients also reported lower mean LOS overall (4.33 vs 5.84, P = .393), and were more likely to be discharged directly to home (χ2(1) = 4.974, P = .028). ERAS+ patients were less likely to require steroids after surgery (P = .045), were less likely to develop neuromuscular complications overall (P = .025), and less likely experience venous complications or be diagnosed with venous disease post-operatively (P = .025).

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs in ACD surgery demonstrate significant benefit in terms of peri-operative outcomes for patients.

Transforming Outcomes of Spine Surgery-Exploring the Power of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of 15 198 Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to optimize patient outcomes by reducing the surgical stress response, expediting recovery, and reducing care costs. We aimed to evaluate the impact of implementing ERAS protocols on the perioperative surgical outcomes and financial implications associated with spine surgeries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies directly comparing outcome differences between spine surgeries performed with and without utilization of ERAS pathways was conducted along Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 676 unique articles identified, 59 with 15 198 aggregate patients (7748 ERAS; 7450 non-ERAS) were included. ERAS-treated patients had shorter operative times (mean difference [MD]: 10.2 mins; P < .01), shorter hospitalizations (MD: 1.41 days, P < .01), fewer perioperative complications (relative risk [RR] = 0.64, P < .01), lower postoperative opioid use (MD of morphine equivalent dose: 164.36 mg; P < .01), and more rapid mobilization/time to first out-of-bed ambulation (MD: 0.92 days; P < .01). Spine surgeries employing ERAS were also associated with lower total costs (MD: $1140.26/patient; P < .01), especially in the United States (MD: $2869.11/patient, P < .01) and lower postoperative visual analog pain scores (MD = 0.56, P < .01), without any change in odds of 30-day readmission (RR: 0.80, P = .13) or reoperation (RR: 0.88, P = .60). Subanalyses based on the region of spine showed significantly lower length of stay in both cervical and lumbar surgeries implementing ERAS. Type of procedure showed a significantly lesser time-to-initiate mobilization in fusion surgeries using ERAS protocols compared with decompression.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indicates that current literature supports ERAS implementation as a means of reducing care costs and safely accelerating hospital discharge for patients undergoing spine surgery.

Safety and Effectiveness of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in Patients Undergoing Burr Hole Evacuation for Chronic Subdural Hematoma

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Enhanced recovery programs may be especially useful in patients with chronic subdural hematoma or hygroma (cSDH), who frequently exhibit frailty and multimorbidity. We aim to evaluate the real-world safety and effectiveness of an enhanced recovery protocol in this population.

METHODS

From a prospective registry, burr hole evacuations for cSDH carried out under the protocol (including early thromboprophylaxis, no flat bed rest, early mobilization without drain clamping, and early resumption of antithrombotic medication) were extracted, along with those procedures carried out within the past year before protocol change. Propensity score-based matching was carried out. A range of clinical and imaging outcomes were analyzed, including modified Rankin Scale as effectiveness and Clavien-Dindo adverse event grading as safety primary end points.

RESULTS

Per group, 91 procedures were analyzed. At discharge, there was no significant difference in the modified Rankin Scale among the standard and enhanced recovery groups (1 [1; 2] vs 1 [1; 3], P = .552), or in Clavien-Dindo adverse event grading classifications of adverse events (P = .282) or occurrence of any adverse events (15.4% vs 20.9%, P = .442). There were no significant differences in time to drain removal (2.00 [2.00; 2.00] vs 2.00 [1.25; 2.00] days, P = .058), time from procedure to discharge (4.0 [3.0; 6.0] vs 4.0 [3.0; 6.0] days, P = .201), or total hospital length of stay (6.0 [5.0; 9.0] vs 5.0 [4.0; 8.0] days, P = .113). All-cause mortality was similar in both groups (8.8% vs 4.4%, P = .289), as was discharge disposition (P = .192). Other clinical and imaging outcomes were similar too (all P > .05).

CONCLUSION

In a matched cohort study comparing perioperative standard of care with a novel enhanced recovery protocol focusing on evidence-based drainage, mobilization, and thromboprophylaxis regimens as well as changes to the standardized reuptake of oral anticoagulants and antiaggregants, no differences in safety or effectiveness were observed after burr hole evacuation of cSDH.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Spine Pathways and the Role of Perioperative Checklists

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. ERAS pathways have been shown to help reduce complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, pain scores, and ultimately surgical costs, while improving patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in multiple surgical subspecialties [1-6]. Numerous specialties have implemented ERAS programs across the globe, providing a foundation for spine surgeons to begin the process themselves. Over the last few years, a significant number of papers have been addressing ERAS pathways for spinal surgery [7-19]. The majority have addressed the lumbar spine [9, 20-26]. The number of cervical ERAS pathways has been limited [27-29]. Many spine programs have begun the implementation of ERAS pathways, incorporating principles and interventions to various spine surgical procedures. Although differences in implementation across programs exist, there are a few common elements that promote a successful enhanced recovery approach [11, 16, 23, 25, 30-33]. All spinal ERAS pathways have three major elements, which are preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. Within these phases some common elements include preoperative and intraoperative surgical checklists. Intraoperative checklist in addition to the "surgical time out" has been integrated into the workflow of most hospitals doing surgeries and have become a standard of care. The surgical checklist is designed to help reduce surgical errors and prevent wrong site/patient surgeries. Several surgical checklists have been developed throughout the years. Despite these safety protocols wrong site/level and other surgical errors continue to occur. Many cases of wrong level spine surgery (WLSS) still occur even when intraoperative imaging is performed [34, 35]. One survey reported that about 50% of spine surgeons have performed at least one WLSS during their career [36, 37]. Another survey reported that 36% of spine surgeons had performed at least one WLSS that was not recognized intraoperatively [38]. On a similar account, about 30% of spine surgery fellows have experienced wrong-site surgery [39]. From raw incidence rates, WLSS may seem rare, but these surveys show that the experience of WLSS is rather common among spine surgeons. WLSS is not yet a "never event." This may be due to poor quality of the intraoperative images, hindering subsequent level identification [34, 35, 38, 40]. Errors in interpretation of the imaging may also occur, including inconsistency in numbering vertebrae, inconsistency in landmark usage for level counting, and problems with numbering vertebrae due to lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) and other anatomical variants [34, 38, 41-43]. This chapter will describe a framework for the development and implementation of ERAS pathway for patients undergoing spine surgery. In addition, we will propose preoperative imaging guidelines and a comprehensive spine surgical checklist to incorporate into the perioperative phase to help reduce further surgical errors and WLSS.

Impact of ERAS compliance on the short-term outcomes for distal radius surgery: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Distal radius fractures (DRF) account for one in five bony injuries in both primary and secondary trauma care. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been adopted successfully to improve clinical outcomes in multiple surgical disciplines; however, no study has investigated the effect of different degrees of compliance with ERAS protocol on short-term outcomes following distal radius surgery. We aimed to analyze whether different degrees of compliance with the ERAS pathway are associated with clinical improvement following surgery for DRF.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all consecutive patients with ERAS who underwent surgery for DRF at our department between May 2019 and October 2022. Their pre-, peri-, and post-operative compliance with the 22 elements of the ERAS program were assessed. We compared parameters between low- (< 68.1%) and high-compliance (> 68.1%) groups, including patient complications, total length of hospitalization, discharge time after surgery, hospital costs, time taken to return to preinjury level performance level, number of visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores > 3 points during hospitalization, disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) scores. We performed multiple linear regression analyses to assess the impact of ERAS compliance on the postoperative function level (DASH scores).

RESULTS

No significant differences were detected between the high- and low-compliance groups with respect to demographics, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities (P > 0.05). We observed significant differences between the high- and low-compliance groups in terms of the DASH score (32.25 ± 9.97 vs. 40.50 ± 15.65, p < 0.05) at 6 months postoperatively, the discharge time after surgery (2.45 ± 1.46 vs. 3.14 ± 1.50, p < 0.05), and number of times when the VAS pain score was > 3 points during hospitalization (0.88, [0.44, 1.31], p < 0.05). Our study demonstrated a significant negative association between ERAS compliance and the function level of patients postoperatively (DASH scores) when adjusted for age, comorbidity, sex, and BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided a realistic evaluation and comparison of the ERAS protocol among patients with DRF and can guide clinical decision making. The ERAS protocol may improve outcomes after surgery, with high postoperative function levels and reduced pain and discharge time after surgery, without increased complication rates or hospital costs.

Role of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in the Management of Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma

OBJECTIVE

Among the already difficult management of neuro-oncological patients, the elderly population remains vulnerable. Because of the pathology and the comorbidities, they present a significantly higher rate of medical issues related to surgical management. Despite this, the surgical option, if feasible, remains the gold standard in these patients, and an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol could improve the postoperative safety of the patients. With this purpose, we prepared this study with the aim of defining the postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS), but also of evaluating the postoperative morbidity, perioperative complications, and postoperative pain scores.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-cohort study performed at an academic hospital (Department of Neurosurgery, Neurocenter of South Switzerland, Switzerland) on elderly patients who underwent craniotomy for glioblastoma. Patients were enrolled in a novel ERAS protocol from January 2022 to December 2022. Since this is a feasibility study and a direct comparison was not possible, we used a historical cohort of elderly patients who had undergone elective craniotomy surgery for glioblastoma as a control group.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients treated in our center for glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who were aged over 75 years were included in this study. Among those, seven were newly recruited patients included in the ERAS protocol, while the remaining twelve were part of a historical cohort of previously treated patients. From a statistical point of view, the two cohorts were comparable in terms of baseline demographics. In the follow-up, it was shown that in the ERAS group, there was a reduction in the use of opioids after the surgical procedures that could be seen at 30 days (36.2% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), but also at 3 months, after surgery (33.0% vs. 80.0%, p < 0.001). A significant difference has also been documented in terms of mobilization and ambulation: compared to the historical cohort, in the ERAS group, there was a higher rate of mobilization (60.0% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001), but also of ambulation (36.1% vs. 10.0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS protocol for the management of glioblastoma in elderly patients seems to be an effective option for reducing LOS in the hospital, as well as for reducing the number of days spent in the ICU, improving the general recovery of the patient, and reducing the costs associated with hospitalization.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery on Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an elective spine surgery population.

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and opioid utilization greatly contribute to patient satisfaction and societal healthcare costs. ERAS protocols are multimodal, patient-centered care pathways shown to reduce postoperative opioid use, reduced LOS, and improved ambulation; however, prospective ERAS data are limited in spine surgery.

METHODS

This single-center, institutional review board-approved, prospective RCT-enrolled adult patients undergoing elective spine surgery between March 2019 and October 2020. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-month postoperative opioid use. Patients were randomized to ERAS (n=142) or standard-of-care (SOC; n=142) based on power analyses to detect a difference in postoperative opioid use.

RESULTS

Opioid use during hospitalization and the first postoperative month was not significantly different between groups (ERAS 112.2 vs SOC 117.6 morphine milligram equivalent, P =0.76; ERAS 38.7% vs SOC 39.4%, P =1.00, respectively). However, patients randomized to ERAS were less likely to use opioids at 6 months postoperatively (ERAS 11.4% vs SOC 20.6%, P =0.046) and more likely to be discharged to home after surgery (ERAS 91.5% vs SOC 81.0%, P =0.015).

CONCLUSION

Here, we present a novel ERAS prospective RCT in the elective spine surgery population. Although we do not detect a difference in the primary outcome of short-term opioid use, we observe significantly reduced opioid use at 6-month follow-up as well as an increased likelihood of home disposition after surgery in the ERAS group.

Enhanced recovery after microdiscectomy: reductions in opioid use, length of stay and cost

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely used worldwide. Recently, studies of the ERAS program in spinal surgery subspecialties have been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impacts of ERAS in minimally invasive microdiscectomy (MD) surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing MD at a single center. From March 2018 to March 2021, 286 patients were in the ERAS group. A total of 140 patients from March 2017 to February 2018 were in the conventional group. The outcomes included length of stay (LOS), the postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS), complications, 30-day readmission rate, 30-day reoperation rate and cost. Moreover, perioperative factors were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with the conventional group, the LOS and cost were reduced in the ERAS group. There were no significant differences in the NRS, complication rate, 30-day readmission or reoperation rates between the groups. Furthermore, postoperative drainage volume, and postoperative opioid use were lower in the ERAS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS protocol for MD surgery reduces LOS, cost and opioid use and accelerates patient recovery.

A standardized anesthetic/analgetic regimen compared to standard anesthetic/analgetic regimen for patients with high-risk factors undergoing open lumbar spine surgery: a prospective comparative single-center study

The objective of the study is to improve the results of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery who are at high risk for anesthesia and/or surgical complications. Two independent groups were compared: the study group (SG, n = 40) (standardized neuroanesthetic protocol with multimodal analgesia) and the control group (CG, n = 40) (intravenous anesthesia based on propofol and fentanyl). The data were collected using prospective observation of early and long-term results of lumbar fusion. After 24 months, the level of functional state and quality of life were studied. Patients in the SG did not have statistically significant changes in intraoperative hemodynamics; the best indicators of cognitive functions were noted. The effectiveness of the SG compared with the CG was confirmed by a statistically significantly lower amount of perioperative opioid drugs required (p = 0.01) and a minimal level of incisional pain (p < 0.05). An intergroup comparison of the adverse effects of anesthesia revealed a significantly lower number in the SG (n = 4) compared to the CG (n = 16) (p = 0.004). The number of postoperative surgical complications was comparable (p = 0.72). Intergroup comparison showed improved ODI, SF-36, and the Macnab scale at 24 months after surgery in the SG compared to the CG (p < 0.05). Long-term clinical results correlated with the level of incisional pain in the first three postoperative days. Our standardized neuroanesthetic protocol ensured effective treatment of postoperative incisional pain, significantly decreased the perioperative use of opioids, reduced adverse anesthesia events, and improved long-term clinical results in patients with high risk factors for anesthetic complications who undergoing open lumbar spine surgery.

Incremental Cost-effectiveness Analysis on Length of Stay of an Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery Program: A Single-center, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after spine surgery (ERAS) is increasingly utilized to improve postoperative outcomes and reduce cost. There are limited data on the monetary benefits of ERAS when incorporating the costs of developing, operationalizing, and maintaining ERAS programs. The objective of this study was to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness of a spine surgery ERAS program, modeling hospital and operational cost and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

The study included adult patients undergoing spine surgery before and after implementation of an ERAS program. Variables included individual patient-level and ERAS personnel costs, with LOS as the outcome utility of interest. Propensity score matching was used to create a quasi-experimental design to equate the standard care and ERAS groups.

RESULTS

Four hundred and nine patients were included in the unmatched group, with 54 patients each in the standard care and ERAS groups after matching. In the matched cohort, the only imbalance in predictors (standard mean difference [SMD] >0.2) were race (SMD, 0.21), American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status (SMD, 0.32), fluid balance in the operating room (SMD, 0.21), median (interquartile range) LOS (standard care, 2.0 [1.0, 3.75] days vs. ERAS, 4.0 [3.0, 5.0]; SMD, 0.81) and mean (±SD) total cost (standard care, $19,291.57±13,572.24 vs. ERAS, $24,363.45±26,352.45; SMD, 0.24). In the incremental cost effectiveness analysis, standard care was the dominant strategy in both 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a real-world, cost-effectiveness analysis following implementation of an ERAS program for spine surgery at a quaternary medical center. Our study demonstrated that considering LOS as the sole determinant, standard care is the dominant cost-effective strategy compared with the ERAS protocol.

The "In-Parallel" Technique for Awake, Bilateral Simultaneous Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Multilevel Lumbar Decompression

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) and MIS lumbar decompression have been successfully undertaken in the absence of general anesthesia in well-selected patients. By leveraging spinal anesthesia, surgeons may safely conduct surgeries on one- or two-level lumbar pathology. However, surgeries on more extensive pathology have not yet been described, because of concerns about the duration of efficacy of spinal anesthetic in the awake patient.

OBJECTIVE

To report the use of a novel awake technique for "in parallel," simultaneous lumbar spinal surgery on three-segment pathology.

METHODS

We describe concurrent performance of a dual microscopic, navigated MIS TLIF and MIS two-level decompression, using a combination of liposomal bupivacaine erector spinae block in conjunction with a spinal anesthetic.

RESULTS

We show that a left-sided, two-level MIS tubular microscopic decompression combined with a concurrent right-sided, transfacet MIS TLIF via a tubular microscopic approach was well tolerated in an 87-year-old patient with multilevel lumbar stenosis with a mobile spondylolisthesis.

CONCLUSION

We provide the first description of a dual-surgeon approach for minimally invasive spine surgery. This "in-parallel" technique-reliant on 2, independent spine surgeons-may aid in the performance of surgeries previously considered too extensive, given the time constraints of regional anesthesia and can be successfully applied to patients who otherwise may not be candidates for general anesthesia.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Setting with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to surgical care that aims to improve outcomes and reduce costs. Its application to spine surgery has been increasing in recent years, with a notable focus on lumbar fusion. This study describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of the first ERAS pathway for ambulatory spine surgery and the largest ambulatory minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) series to date.

METHODS

A comprehensive protocol for ambulatory lumbar fusion is described, including patient selection criteria, a multimodal analgesia regimen, and discharge assessment. Consecutive patients undergoing 1- or 2-level MIS TLIF using the described protocol at a single ambulatory surgery center (ASC) over a five-year period were queried.

RESULTS

A total of 215 patients underwent ambulatory MIS TLIF over the study period. There were no intraoperative or immediate postoperative complications. All but one patient (99.5%) were discharged home from the ASC. Almost three-quarters (71.2%) were discharged on the day of surgery. Thirty- and 90-day readmission rates were 1.4% and 2.8%, respectively. Only one readmission (0.5%) was for intractable back pain. There were no reoperations or mortalities within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS TLIF can be performed safely in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center with minimal perioperative and short-term morbidity. The addition of comprehensive ERAS protocols to the ambulatory setting can promote the transition of fusion procedures to this lower cost environment in an effort to provide higher value care.

Unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion enhanced the recovery of patients with the lumbar degenerative disease compared with the conventional posterior procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Minimally invasive endoscopic technique is an important component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for neurosurgery. In recent years, unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) has been used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). This study aims to investigate whether ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with the conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was performed for relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library database, China National Knowledge Internet, and Wanfang database. Surgical data, clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and surgical complications were compared between patients with LDD who underwent ULIF and those who underwent conventional MI-TLIF or PLIF.

Results

Notably, 12 studies, comprising 981 patients with LDD, were included. Of these patients, 449 underwent ULIF and 532 patients (355 MI-TLIF and 177 PLIF) were treated with conventional procedures. There was no significant difference in the fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, and surgical complications between the ULIF group and the MI-TLIF or PLIF group. Compared with MI-TLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced estimated blood loss (EBL) (WMD, -106.00; 95% CI -140.99 to -71.10, P < 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD, -1.27; 95% CI -1.88 to -0.66, P < 0.001); better short-term improvement in ODI (WMD, -2.12; 95% CI -3.53 to -0.72, P = 0.003) and VAS score for back pain (VAS-BP) (WMD, -0.86; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.58, P < 0.001) at 1 month post-operatively. Compared with PLIF, the ULIF group presented a significantly reduced EBL (WMD, -149.22; 95% CI -284.98 to -13.47, P = 0.031) and shorter LOS (WMD, -4.40; 95% CI -8.04 to -0.75, P = 0.018); better short-term improvement in VAS-BP (WMD, -1.07; 95% CI -1.77 to -0.38, P = 0.002) and VAS score for leg pain (VAS-LP) (WMD, -0.40; 95% CI -0.72 to -0.08, P = 0.014) at 1-2 week post-operatively; enhanced short- and long-term improvement in ODI at 1 month post-operatively (WMD, -3.12; 95% CI -5.72 to -0.53, P = 0.018) and the final follow-up (WMD, -1.97; 95% CI -3.32 to -0.62, P = 0.004), respectively.

Conclusion

Compared with conventional MI-TLIF and PLIF, ULIF was associated with reduced EBL, shorter LOS, and comparable fusion rate as well as complication management. Compared with MI-TLIF, a better short-term improvement in VAS-BP and ODI was achieved by ULIF; compared with open PLIF, additional enhanced short-term improvement in VAS-LP and long-term improvement in ODI were observed in ULIF. ULIF could enhance the recovery of patients with LDD compared with conventional posterior procedures.

Systematic trial registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=230695, CRD42021230695.

Post-operative neurosurgery outcomes by race/ethnicity among enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) participants

OBJECTIVE

Prior work reveals that Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs decrease opioid use, improve mobilization, and shorten length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing spine surgery. The impact of ERAS on outcomes by race/ethnicity is unknown. This study examined outcomes by race/ethnicity among neurosurgical patients enrolled in an ERAS program.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgeries at a multi-hospital university health system from April 2017 to November 2020 were enrolled in an ERAS program that involves preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases focused on improving outcomes through measures such as specialty consultations for co-morbidities, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and wound care education. The following outcomes for ERAS patients were compared by race/ethnicity: length of stay, discharge disposition, complications, readmission, pain level at discharge, and post-operative health rating. We estimated the association between race/ethnicity and the outcomes using linear and logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, insurance, BMI, comorbid conditions, and surgery type.

RESULTS

Among participants (n = 3449), 2874 (83.3%) were White and 575 (16.7%) were Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). BIPOC patients had significantly longer mean length of stay compared to White patients (3.8 vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.005) and were significantly more likely to be discharged to a rehab or subacute nursing facility compared to White patients (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 3.01 (2.26-4.01), p < 0.001). The complication rate did not significantly differ between BIPOC and White patients (13.7% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.29). BIPOC patients were not significantly more likely to be readmitted within 30 days compared to White patients in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.30 (0.91-1.86), p = 0.15) CONCLUSION: BIPOC as compared to White ERAS participants in ERAS undergoing neurosurgical procedures had significantly longer hospital stays and were significantly less likely to be discharged home. ERAS protocols present an opportunity to provide consistent high quality post-operative care, however while there is evidence that it improves care in aggregate, our results suggest significant disparities in outcomes by patient race/ethnicity despite enrollment in ERAS. Future inquiry must identify contributors to these disparities in the recovery pathway.

Patient outcomes following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for patients with metastatic spine tumors

BACKGROUND

Metastatic spine tumor surgery consists of palliative operations performed on frail patients with multiple medical comorbidities. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs involve an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach to improve perioperative outcomes. This study presents clinical outcomes of a metastatic spine tumor ERAS pathway implemented at a tertiary cancer center.

METHODS

The metastatic spine tumor ERAS program launched in April 2019, and data from January 2018 to May 2020 were reviewed. Measured outcomes included the following: hospital length of stay (LOS), time to ambulation, urinary catheter duration, time to resumption of diet, intraoperative fluid intake, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraoperative and postoperative day 0-5 cumulative opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]).

RESULTS

A total of 390 patients were included in the final analysis: 177 consecutive patients undergoing metastatic spine tumor surgery enrolled in the ERAS program and 213 consecutive pre-ERAS patients. Although the mean case durations were similar in the ERAS and pre-ERAS cohorts (265 vs. 274 min; p = .22), the ERAS cohort had decreased EBL (157 vs. 215 ml; p = .003), decreased postoperative day 0-5 cumulative mean opioid use (178 vs. 396 MME; p < .0001), earlier ambulation (mean, 34 vs. 57 h; p = .0001), earlier discontinuation of urinary catheters (mean, 36 vs. 56 h; p < .001), and shorter LOS (5.4 vs. 7.5 days; p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a multidisciplinary ERAS program designed for metastatic spine tumor surgery led to improved clinical quality metrics, including shorter hospitalizations and significant reductions in opioid consumption.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in spine surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are a set of interventions which are carried out in the preoperative and perioperative period. They are aimed to decrease the harmful effects of surgery on the body and help the patient recover better post-surgery. The effectiveness of ERAS has been well established in various other surgical specialities. Earlier spine surgery was thought to be very complex for application of ERAS protocols. However, this has changed over the last decade with (ERAS) protocols gaining widespread popularity in spine surgery. Initial studies involving ERAS in spine surgery were limited to lumbar spine. However, over the years the horizon of ERAS has expanded to include anterior cervical surgeries, spine deformity, spinal tumors and spine surgery in the elderly. ERAS has been shown to reduce the length of hospital stay, overall hospital costs, opioid consumption in perioperative and postoperative period and to lower complication rates in spine surgery. In this narrative review, we discuss various aspects of ERAS in spine surgery including the benefits of ERAS in spine surgery, the various components of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative measures of ERAS protocol.

Safe Electromyography Stimulation Thresholds Within Kambin's Triangle During Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal endoscopic approaches through Kambin's triangle traditionally require surgery to be performed without general anesthesia to allow live patient feedback. No reliable intraoperative neuromonitoring method specific to the dorsal root ganglion (DRG), the structure most at risk during this approach, currently exists.

OBJECTIVE

To correlate evoked electromyography (EMG) thresholds within Kambin's triangle with new postoperative pain or sensorimotor symptoms potentially resulting from DRG irritation.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) under general anesthesia at a single institution. A stimulation probe was inserted into Kambin's triangle under fluoroscopic and robotic guidance, before passage of endoscopic instruments. EMG thresholds required to elicit corresponding myotomal responses were measured. Postoperatively, any potential manifestations of DRG irritation were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent a total of 34 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion levels during the study period, with symptoms of potential DRG irritation occurring in 5. The incidence of new onset symptoms increased with lower stimulation thresholds. Sensitivities for EMG thresholds of ≤4, ≤8, and ≤11 mA were 0.6, 0.8, and 1, respectively. Corresponding specificities were 0.90, 0.69, and 0.55, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated for the first time the feasibility of direct intraoperative neuromonitoring within Kambin's triangle in transforaminal endoscopic surgery. Eight milliampere seems to be a reasonable compromise between sensitivity and specificity for this monitoring technique. In the future, larger-scale studies are required to refine safe stimulation thresholds.

The Future of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Strong forces are pushing minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) to the forefront of spine care. Less-invasive surgical techniques have been enabled by a variety of technical advances. Despite the promise of MISS, however, several factors, including few training opportunities, perception of a steep learning curve, and high upfront costs, have limited the adoption of these techniques. The "6 T's" is a framework highlighting key factors that must be accounted for to ensure safe and effective MISS as techniques continually evolve. Further, technological advancement in endoscopy, robotics, and augmented/virtual reality is enhancing minimally invasive surgeries to make them even less invasive and safer for patients. The evolution of these new techniques and technologies is driving the future of MISS.

Current and Future Applications of the Kambin’s Triangle in Lumbar Spine Surgery

Kambin’s triangle has become the anatomical location of choice when accessing the lumbar spine to treat degenerative spinal disorders. Currently, lumbar interbody fusion is the most common procedure utilizing this space; however, with the advent of the Kambin’s prism definition, advanced imaging modalities, and robotic-assisted techniques, lumbar spine surgery has become increasingly precise and less invasive. These technological and procedural advances have drastically reduced the rate of complications, improved patient outcomes, and expanded the use of the Kambin’s triangle to treat different pathologies utilizing cutting-edge techniques. In this review, the authors present the current uses of the Kambin’s triangle and the future application of this anatomical corridor in lumbar spine surgery.

Endoscopic decompression for the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar stenosis treatment has evolved with the introduction of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques. Endoscopic methods take the concepts applied to MIS a step further, with multiple studies showing that endoscopic techniques have outcomes that are similar to those of more traditional approaches. The aim of this study was to perform an updated meta-analysis and systematic review of studies comparing the outcomes between endoscopic (uni- and biportal) and microscopic techniques for the treatment of lumbar stenosis.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, and PubMed databases from their dates of inception to December 14, 2020. All identified articles were then systematically screened against the following inclusion criteria: 1) studies comparing endoscopic (either uniportal or biportal) with minimally invasive approaches, 2) patient age ≥ 18 years, and 3) diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis. Bias was assessed using quality assessment criteria and funnel plots. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was used to synthesize the metadata.

RESULTS

From a total of 470 studies, 14 underwent full-text assessment. Of these 14 studies, 13 comparative studies were included for quantitative analysis, totaling 1406 procedures satisfying all criteria for selection. Regarding postoperative back pain, 9 studies showed that endoscopic methods resulted in significantly lower pain scores compared with MIS (mean difference [MD] -1.0, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.4, p < 0.01). The length of stay data were reported by 7 studies, with endoscopic methods associated with a significantly shorter length of stay versus the MIS technique (MD -2.1 days, 95% CI -2.7 to -1.4, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference with respect to leg visual analog scale scores, Oswestry Disability Index scores, blood loss, surgical time, and complications, and there were not any significant quality or bias concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Both endoscopic and MIS techniques are safe and effective methods for treating patients with symptomatic lumbar stenosis. Patients who undergo endoscopic surgery seem to report less postoperative low-back pain and significantly reduced hospital stay with a trend toward less perioperative blood loss. Future large prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm the findings in this study.

Innovations in Spinal Endoscopy

Innovations in spinal endoscopy technology and technique have broadened their applications during the past 10 years. Smaller outer-diameter working-channel endoscopes have permitted safe usage in the cervical spine for full endoscopic decompressions. Endoscopic fusions have now been widely reported, leveraging compatible instrumentation for disc preparation and expandable interbody grafts. This ultra-minimally invasive technique has also enabled the performance of fusion procedures in awake patients under monitored anesthesia care, affording speedier recovery and treatment options for those unable to undergo general anesthesia. Revision surgery after open or minimally invasive posterior discectomy or instrumentation can now be performed with endoscopic techniques, which often leverage the transforaminal approach to avoid scar tissue and adhesions. These procedures, among other endoscopic surgeries, are now being increasingly performed in ambulatory surgery centers, as safe outcomes, economic benefits to the healthcare system, and patients' desire to recover at home are becoming more apparent. Finally, the standardization of endoscopic terminology, which has long been a confounder to proper communication and education in this field, has recently been addressed by leading experts in a consensus document, which will serve as the foundation for future collaborative advancements.

Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Principles and Context

Endoscopic techniques in spine surgery are rapidly evolving, with operations becoming progressively safer and less invasive. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) procedures comprise many spine procedures that have benefited from endoscopic assistance and minimally invasive approaches. Though considerable variation exists within endoscopic LIF, similar principles and techniques are common to all types. Nonetheless, innovations continually emerge, requiring trainees and experienced surgeons to maintain familiarity with the domain and its possibilities. We present two illustrative cases of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a comprehensive literature review of the different approaches to endoscopic LIF procedures.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce postoperative pain, complication rates, and length of stay without adversely affecting readmission rates. Design and implementation of ERAS protocols in the recent spine surgery literature has primarily focused on patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar surgery. However, conventional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains a common procedure and to date there are no studies assessing an ERAS protocol in this patient population.

PURPOSE

This study presents a single surgeon experience implementing an ERAS protocol in patients undergoing 1- or 2-level open TLIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive patients that underwent 1- or 2-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from 12/2018 - 02/2021 and controls from 12/2011-12/2017 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary: length of stay; Secondary: first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, first day to void, daily average and maximum pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and re-operations.

METHODS

Demographic, perioperative, clinical, radiographic data were collected. Multivariate mixed-linear regression models were developed for length of stay, physiological function, pain scales, and opiate use.

RESULTS

There were 114 patients included with 57 in each cohort. After propensity matching, patient characteristics were similar between groups. Operative time decreased significantly after institution of ERAS (170±44 vs. 141±37 minutes, p <.0001) as did length of stay (4.6±1.7 vs. 3.6±1.6 days, p<.0001). First day of ambulation, bowel movement, and bladder voiding improved by 0.8 (p<.0001), 0.7 (p=.008), and 0.8 (p<.0001) days, respectively, in the ERAS cohort. Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) (8±9 vs. 36±38, p<0.0001) and total 72-hour MME consumption (53±33 vs. 68±48, p<.0001) was significantly lower in the ERAS cohort; however, 72-hour MME consumption was not found to be significantly different in a sensitivity analysis controlling for preoperative MME. Average daily pain scores were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with other studies demonstrating benefit of an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive spine procedures, ERAS was associated with decreased operative time, reduced length of stay, decrease in IV opioid consumption, and improved physiological outcomes for open 1- and 2-level TLIF. ERAS can be a potentially effective strategy for improving patient outcome and efficiency of healthcare resources for common conventional spinal surgeries such as open TLIF.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery strategies for elective craniotomy: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has led to a paradigm shift in perioperative care through multimodal interventions. Still, ERAS remains a relatively new concept in neurosurgery, and there is no summary of evidence on ERAS applications in cranial neurosurgery.

METHODS

The authors systematically reviewed the literature using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for ERAS protocols and elements. Studies had to assess at least one pre-, peri-, or postoperative ERAS element and evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: 1) length of hospital stay, 2) length of ICU stay, 3) postoperative pain, 4) direct and indirect healthcare cost, 5) complication rate, 6) readmission rate, or 7) patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A final 27 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, with mixed quality of evidence ranging from high in 3 cases to very low in 1 case. Seventeen studies reported a complete ERAS protocol. Preoperative ERAS elements include patient selection through multidisciplinary team discussion, patient counseling and education to adjust expectations of the postoperative period, and mental state assessment; antimicrobial, steroidal, and antiepileptic prophylaxes; nutritional assessment, as well as preoperative oral carbohydrate loading; and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis. Anesthesiology interventions included local anesthesia for pin sites, regional field block or scalp block, avoidance or minimization of the duration of invasive monitoring, and limitation of intraoperative mannitol. Other intraoperative elements include absorbable skin sutures and avoidance of wound drains. Postoperatively, the authors identified early extubation, observation in a step-down unit instead of routine ICU admission, early mobilization, early fluid de-escalation, early intake of solid food and liquids, early removal of invasive monitoring, professional nutritional assessment, PONV management, nonopioid rescue analgesia, and early postoperative imaging. Other postoperative interventions included discharge criteria standardization and home visits or progress monitoring by a nurse.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of evidence-based interventions are available to improve recovery after elective craniotomy, although there are few published ERAS protocols. Patient-centered optimization of neurosurgical care spanning the pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods is feasible and has already provided positive results in terms of improved outcomes such as postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, reduced length of stay, and cost reduction with an excellent safety profile. Although fast-track recovery protocols and ERAS studies are gaining momentum for elective craniotomy, prospective trials are needed to provide stronger evidence.

Evaluation of enhanced recovery after spine surgery: Specificities in an academic public hospital

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been well described in many surgical specialties, including orthopedics. Application in spine surgery, on the other hand, is more recent and not yet precisely assessed. The present study aimed to assess the implementation of an ERAS program in a European spine surgery department and its impact on length of hospital stay and complications rate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative observational study was conducted on patient progression with and without ERAS. As of the launch date of the program, all eligible patients were included over a 6-month period. A retrospective control group comprised patients managed over the same 6-month period of the previous year, matched for pathology, comorbidity and individual surgeon. Endpoints comprised mean length of stay and major complications (i.e., requiring readmission or revision surgery within 90days).

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were included: 44 per group. Demographic characteristics did not significantly differ between groups. Mean length of stay, taking all pathologies together, was 3.3days in ERAS versus 6days in the control group (p<0.001). Complications rates did not significantly differ between groups (p=1).

DISCUSSION

The introduction of the ERAS program gave care teams the opportunity to think over good practices and set up a number of concomitant measures generally agreed to be effective in isolation. The present study showed ERAS to be perfectly feasible in a public-sector structure, reducing length of stay without increasing the rate of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV CEBM.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Lumbar Spinal Surgery With Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Review

Background

In the USA, spinal fusion surgery incurs the highest hospital cost. Despite the recent advances in the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in these surgeries, the efficacy of these protocols in improving the perioperative outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a retrospective review as a quality improvement (QI) project to analyze the efficacy of the ERAS protocol with intraoperative modified thoracolumbar interfascial plane (mTLIP) block to determine whether these interventions reduce the length of stay (LOS) and opioid requirements during the postoperative period.

Methods

Retrospective reviews of adult patients (>18 yrs) who underwent elective lumbar spinal fusion or laminectomy at our institute were reviewed. Patients were administered oral gabapentin and acetaminophen preoperatively. Prior to incision, an mTLIP block was performed using liposomal bupivacaine. Intraoperatively, ketamine, ketorolac, and tranexamic acid were administered. Postoperative, pain control was treated with scheduled acetaminophen, ketorolac, and low-dose ketamine infusion. Hydromorphone and oxycodone were administered for breakthrough pain. Patients who underwent a similar procedure without ERAS protocol were chosen as controls to assess the efficacy of ERAS protocol. Data pertaining to patient demographics, operative and perioperative use of analgesics, LOS, 90-day readmissions, and morbidity were collected. Patients who underwent laminectomy and spinal fusion surgery were analyzed separately

Results

A total of 65 patients were identified; laminectomy (n- 24), spinal fusion surgery (n-41). In the laminectomy patients, treatment group (n-12) and the control group (n-12). Treatment group receiving the ERAS protocol with the regional anesthesia via the mTLIP (n= 12) opioid requirement was reduced by 51.42% [P = 0.03], and LOS was reduced by 2.04 days [P = 0.01] [0.75 days vs. 2.79 days]). In the spinal fusion patients, treatment group (n-15) and control group (n-26). Treatment group receiving the ERAS protocol with the use of regional anesthesia via the mTLIP group (n= 15), opioid requirement was reduced by 38.33% [P = 0.04]. No difference in LOS was observed at 5.4 days vs. 4.88 days (P = 0.28).

Conclusion

ERAS protocol in patients undergoing lumbar spinal surgery incorporated the use of regional anesthesia via the mTLIP block, we observed there is a statistically significant reduction in the LOS for lumbar laminectomy and a significant reduction in opioid administration for lumbar laminectomies and spinal fusion surgery.

The Effect of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program on Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease at Short-Term Follow-Up

Purpose

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach has been increasingly frequently performed in recent years. However, neither studies of OLIF approach nor the researches of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgery are relatively rare. Here, our study is aimed at investigating the therapeutic effects of the application of OLIF compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approach combined with ERAS in dealing with this disorder at short-term follow-up. Material and Methods. Thirty-eight patients who undergone OLIF and forty patients who undergone TLIF with pedicle screws were included in our study. The concept of ERAS was applied in the perioperative period of the patients. Preoperative and postoperative laboratory test indexes of blood were examined and evaluated in all individuals. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Clinical Symptom Score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) were used in preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up. Satisfaction survey was also performed after surgery.

Result

The postoperative results of red blood count, C-reaction protein, D-dimer, and albumin were still within the reference ranges in most of the patients. It was shown that objective evaluations including VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score were significantly improved after OLIF and TLIF surgery. The follow-up of 6 months after surgery showed that VAS, ODI, and JOA were improved more in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group. The overall satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied) was 95% and 97.4% in the TLIF group and the OLIF group, respectively, and there was no difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study indicated that OLIF and TLIF approach were both rather effective therapies for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The effect of OLIF procedure could be better than TLIF procedure in the early stage after surgery.

Neurosurgery perception of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are widespread in several fields, particularly general surgery, and attempt to deliver surgical care at a lower cost while also improving patient outcomes. However, few institutions have implemented ERAS protocols in neurosurgery. As such, a survey of neurosurgeons on the current state of ERAS in neurosurgery was conducted to provide insight on scaling the practice nationally. A 15-question survey was designed to assess the implementation of andsatisfaction with ERAS protocols at individual institutions. A total of 39 responses were collected from 38 unique institutions. 58.9%(N = 23) reported implementation of neurosurgical ERAS protocols. 52.1% (N = 12) of the responses were neurosurgeons at academic institutions withneurosurgical residency programs. Most neurosurgeons used ERAS protocolsfor spine cases (N = 23), with only 17.3% (N = 4) employing ERAS protocolsfor cranial cases. 69.5% (N = 16) of survey participants reported that thedesign and implementation of ERAS was a multidisciplinary effort acrossmany departments, including neurosurgery, anesthesia, and pharmacy.Decreased costs and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were reported tobe unanticipated benefits of ERAS implementation. Unanticipated challenges to implementation of new protocols included difficulties withelectronic medical record (EMR) integration, agreement of protocoldetails amongst stakeholders, uniform implementation of protocols by allneurosurgeons, and lack of adaptability by multidisciplinary staff. Meandepartment satisfaction with ERAS protocol implementation was 4.00 +/- 0.81 (N = 22) on a 5-point Likert scale.

Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine in spine surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spine surgery with posterior approaches may involve extensive manipulation of native structures, resulting in significant postoperative pain. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is an injectable analgesic that has demonstrated efficacy in decreasing postoperative pain and opioid requirements in patients across multiple surgical subspecialties.

PURPOSE

To consolidate and analyze the findings of retrospective cohort-matched studies and prospective randomized controlled trials investigating the use of LB in spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review.

STUDY SAMPLE

Retrospective cohort-matched studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of injected LB in spinal surgery compared with a control/no treatment group.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane controlled trials register, and Google Scholar were searched to identify all studies that examined the effect of LB use on outcomes in spine surgery. Our search identified 10 articles that independently evaluated the effect of LB on reduction of postoperative opioid use, pain scores, hospital length of stay, cost, and incidence of adverse effects. The principles of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) were applied to assess the quality of evidence from each study.

RESULTS

Ten studies were analyzed (1,112 total patients). LB was associated with significantly lower millimolar morphine equivalents (MME) of postoperative opioids, especially in opiate-tolerant patients, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, area under the curve (AUC) of cumulative pain scores, numeric pain scale scores, and hospital length of stay (LOS), with comparable or lower odds of adverse effects relative to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that liposomal bupivacaine may safely decrease postoperative opioid requirements, pain scores, and length of stay in patients undergoing spine surgery, whereas moderate-quality evidence does not support its use at this time. Therefore, additional standardized well-powered prospective studies are necessary to more clearly assess the efficacy of LB in spine surgery.

How Much Benefit Can Patients Acquire from Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols with Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Purpose

We aimed to explore the role of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF).

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective, observational, cohort study on 91 patients who underwent PELIF for degenerative disc disease. The primary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospital cost.

Results

Forty-six patients comprised the ERAS group, and 45 patients comprised the pre-ERAS group (control group). The groups had comparable demographic characteristics. Good compliance with the ERAS pathway was observed in the ERAS group. Patients in the ERAS group used significantly fewer morphine equivalents compared with the pre-ERAS group (25.0 vs 33.3, respectively; p = 0.017). Hospital LOS did not decrease significantly in the ERAS group compared with the pre-ERAS group (3.1days vs 3.4 days, respectively; p = 0.096). Likewise, there was no significant difference in hospital cost between the pre-ERAS group and the ERAS group ($10,598.60 vs $10,384.50, respectively; p = 0.468).

Conclusion

In the present study, the benefit of ERAS in the context of PELIF was limited. Although a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol can improve analgesia and decrease opioid consumption, no significant reduction in hospital LOS and cost was observed.

Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Elective Lumbar Spine Fusion by Posterior Approach: A Retrospective, Comparative Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to design an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for elective lumbar spine fusion by posterior approach, and to compare the results after ERAS implementation in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine fusion with conventional perioperative care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite wide adoption in other surgical disciplines, ERAS has only been recently implemented in spine surgery. The integrated multidisciplinary approach of ERAS aims to reduce surgical stress to achieve better outcomes.

METHODS

Hospital records of adult patients who underwent one- to three-level elective lumbar spine fusion by posterior approach at a single center were retrospectively studied. An ERAS protocol was designed based on the prevalent hospital practices, local resources and supportive evidence from literature. The ERAS protocol was implemented at our institute in December 2016-dividing patients into pre-ERAS and post-ERAS groups. The outcome measures for comparison were: length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 60-day readmission rate, 60-day reoperation rate, and patient-reported outcome measures (visual analogue scale [VAS] and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score) at stipulated time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 812 patients were included - 496 in the pre-ERAS group and 316 in the post-ERAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline demographic, clinical, and surgery-related variables. Patients in the post-ERAS group had a significantly shorter LOS (2.94 vs. 3.68 days). The rate of postoperative complications (13.5% vs. 11.7%), 60-day readmission (1.8% vs. 2.2%), and 60-day reoperation (1.2% vs. 1.3%) did not differ significantly between the pre-ERAS and post-ERAS groups. The VAS and ODI scores, similar at baseline, were significantly lower in the post-ERAS group (VAS: 49.8 ± 12.0 vs. 44 ± 10.8, ODI: 31.6 ± 14.2 vs. 28 ± 12.8) at 4 weeks after surgery. This difference however was not significant at intermediate-term follow-up (6 months and 12 months).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol is feasible for elective lumbar spine fusion, and leads to shorter LOS and improved early pain and functional outcome scores.Level of Evidence: 3.

Reduction of Postoperative Opioid Use After Elective Spine and Peripheral Nerve Surgery Using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have previously been shown to be feasible and safe in elective spinal procedures. As publications on ERAS pathways have recently emerged in elective neurosurgery, long-term outcomes are limited. We report on our 18-month experience with an ERAS pathway in elective spinal surgery.

METHODS

A historical cohort of 149 consecutive patients was identified as the control group, and 1,141 patients were prospectively enrolled in an ERAS protocol. The primary outcome was the need for opioid use one month postoperation. Secondary outcomes were opioid and nonopioid consumption on postoperative day (POD) 1, opioid use at three and six months postoperation, inpatient pain scores, patient satisfaction scores, postoperative Foley catheter use, mobilization/ambulation on POD0-1, length of stay, complications, and intensive care unit admissions.

RESULTS

There was significant reduction in use of opioids at one, three, and six months postoperation (38.6% vs 70.5%, P < 0.001, 36.5% vs 70.9%, P < 0.001, and 23.6% vs 51.9%, P = 0.008) respectively. Both groups had similar surgical procedures and demographics. PCA use was nearly eliminated in the ERAS group (1.4% vs 61.6%, P < 0.001). ERAS patients mobilized faster on POD0 compared with control (63.5% vs 20.7%, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the ERAS group required postoperative catheterization (40.7% vs 32.7%, P < 0.001). The ERAS group also had decreased length of stay (3.4 vs 3.9 days, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols for all elective spine and peripheral nerve procedures are both possible and effective. This standardized approach to patient care decreases opioid usage, eliminates the use of PCAs, mobilizes patients faster, and reduces length of stay.

Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care have led to improvements in outcomes in numerous surgical areas, through multimodal optimization of patient pathway, reduction of complications, improved patient experience and reduction in the length of stay. ERAS represent a relatively new paradigm in spine surgery.

PURPOSE

This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery with an ERAS program.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a review article.

METHODS

Under the impetus of the ERAS® society, a multidisciplinary guideline development group was constituted by bringing together international experts involved in the practice of ERAS and spine surgery. This group identified 22 ERAS items for lumbar fusion. A systematic search in the English language was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies were included, and the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Consensus recommendation was reached by the group after a critical appraisal of the literature.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-six articles were included to develop the consensus statements for 22 ERAS items; one ERAS item (prehabilitation) was excluded from the final summary due to very poor quality and conflicting evidence in lumbar spinal fusion. From these remaining 21 ERAS items, 28 recommendations were included. All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on the best available evidence. These included nine preoperative, eleven intraoperative, and six postoperative recommendations. They span topics from preoperative patient education and nutritional evaluation, intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques, and postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies. The level of evidence for the use of each recommendation is presented.

CONCLUSION

Based on the best evidence available for each ERAS item within the multidisciplinary perioperative care pathways, the ERAS® Society presents this comprehensive consensus review for perioperative care in lumbar fusion.

Current state of benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgeries: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have been characterized by a great technological and clinical development in spine surgery. In particular, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, started to gain interest also in this surgical field. Here we tried to analyse the current state of art of ERAS technique in spine surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A systematic review of the literature has been performed in order to find all the possible inclusions. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing the use of ERAS programs or techniques for spine surgery in adult patients.

RESULTS

Out of the 827 studies found, only 21 met the inclusion criteria has been retained to be included in the present study. The most frequently benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter hospitalisations (n=15), and decreased complication rates (n=8) lower postoperative pain scores (n=4). These benefits were seen in the 3 main categories considered: lumbar spine surgeries, surgeries for correction of scoliosis or deformity, and surgeries of the cervical spine.

CONCLUSION

There are an arising amount of data showing that the use of ERAS programs could be helpful in reducing the days of hospitalizations and the number of complications for certain spinal procedures and in a highly selected group of patients. Despite the large interest on the topic; there is an important lack of high level of scientific evidences. Because of that, there is the need to encourage the design and creation of new randomized clinical trials that will validate the present findings.

Experience with an Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery protocol at an academic community hospital

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have rapidly gained popularity in multiple surgical specialties and are recognized for their potential to improve patient outcomes and decrease hospitalization costs. However, they have only recently been applied to spinal surgery. The goal in the present work was to describe the development, implementation, and impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery (ERASS) protocol for patients undergoing elective spine procedures at an academic community hospital.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team, drawing on prior publications and spine surgery best practices, collaborated to develop an ERASS protocol. Patients undergoing elective cervical or lumbar procedures were prospectively enrolled at a single tertiary care center; interventions were standardized across the cohort for pre-, intra-, and postoperative care using standardized order sets in the electronic medical record. Protocol efficacy was evaluated by comparing enrolled patients to a historic cohort of age- and procedure-matched controls. The primary study outcomes were quantity of opiate use in morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) on postoperative day (POD) 1 and length of stay. Secondary outcomes included frequency and duration of indwelling urinary catheter use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission and reoperation rates, and complication rates. Multivariable linear regression was used to determine whether ERASS protocol use was independently predictive of opiate use on POD 1.

RESULTS

In total, 97 patients were included in the study cohort and were compared with a historic cohort of 146 patients. The patients in the ERASS group had lower POD 1 opiate use than the control group (26 ± 33 vs 42 ± 40 MMEs, p < 0.001), driven largely by differences in opiate-naive patients (16 ± 21 vs 38 ± 36 MMEs, p < 0.001). Additionally, patients in the ERASS group had shorter hospitalizations than patients in the control group (51 ± 30 vs 62 ± 49 hours, p = 0.047). On multivariable regression, implementation of the ERASS protocol was independently predictive of lower POD 1 opiate consumption (β = -7.32, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found that the development and implementation of a comprehensive ERASS protocol led to a modest reduction in postoperative opiate consumption and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing elective cervical or lumbar procedures. As suggested by these results and those of other groups, the implementation of ERASS protocols may reduce care costs and improve patient outcomes after spine surgery.

Comparative short-term outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program and non-ERAS traditional care in elderly patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis: a retrospective study

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is an evidence-based improvement over non-ERAS traditional care. The aim of the present study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an ERAS program in patients over 70 years undergoing lumbar arthrodesis by comparison with non-ERAS traditional care.

Methods

During January 2018 to December 2018, patients enrolled received non-ERAS traditional care, while the ERAS program was implemented from January to December 2019. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical data and postoperative recovery parameters were collected from all patients. Postoperative pain scores were evaluated by visual analog scales (VAS). The clinical outcomes were length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications and postoperative pain scores. Compliance results were also collected.

Result

A total of 127 patients were enrolled, including 67 patients in the non-ERAS traditional care group and 60 patients in the ERAS group. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities of the two groups showed no significant differences. The LOS of patients treated with ERAS program (13.6 ± 4.0 days) was significantly less than that of patients treated with non-ERAS traditional care (15.6 ± 3.9 days) (p = 0.034). Complication rate was 8.3% in the ERAS group versus 20.9% in the non-ERAS traditional care group (p = 0.048). VAS (back) in the ERAS group was significantly lower on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD2. Postoperative recovery parameters were improved in the ERAS group. The overall compliance with the ERAS program was 94%.

Conclusions

Based on our results, ERAS program is safer and more effective for elderly patients over 70 undergoing lumbar arthrodesis than non-ERAS traditional care.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical utility of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery pathways in adult spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Spine surgery has been identified as a significant source of healthcare expenditures in the United States. Prolonged hospitalization has been cited as one source of increased spending, and there has been drive from providers and payors alike to decrease inpatient stays. One strategy currently being explored is the use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Here, the authors review the literature on adult spine ERAS protocols, focusing on clinical benefits and cost reductions. They also conducted a quantitative meta-analysis examining the following: 1) length of stay (LOS), 2) complication rate, 3) wound infection rate, 4) 30-day readmission rate, and 5) 30-day reoperation rate.

METHODS

Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, CINAHL, and OVID Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing ERAS protocol implementation for adult spine surgery. A quantitative meta-analysis using random-effects modeling was performed for the identified clinical outcomes using studies that directly compared ERAS protocols with conventional care.

RESULTS

Of 950 articles reviewed, 34 were included in the qualitative analysis and 20 were included in the quantitative analysis. The most common protocol types were general spine surgery protocols and protocols for lumbar spine surgery patients. The most frequently cited benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter LOS (n = 12), lower postoperative pain scores (n = 6), and decreased complication rates (n = 4). The meta-analysis demonstrated shorter LOS for the general spine surgery (mean difference -1.22 days [95% CI -1.98 to -0.47]) and lumbar spine ERAS protocols (-1.53 days [95% CI -2.89 to -0.16]). Neither general nor lumbar spine protocols led to a significant difference in complication rates. Insufficient data existed to perform a meta-analysis of the differences in costs or postoperative narcotic use.

CONCLUSIONS

Present data suggest that ERAS protocol implementation may reduce hospitalization time among adult spine surgery patients and may lead to reductions in complication rates when applied to specific populations. To generate high-quality evidence capable of supporting practice guidelines, though, additional controlled trials are necessary to validate these early findings in larger populations.

One Year Outcomes From a Prospective Multicenter Investigation Device Trial of a Novel Conformal Mesh Interbody Fusion Device

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective multicenter investigational device exempt trial is underway evaluating a novel conformable mesh interbody fusion device in subjects undergoing single-level fusion for degenerative disc disease. Patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were offered enrollment. There is no comparative group in this study.

OBJECTIVE

Establish the short and long-term safety and effectiveness of a novel conformable mesh interbody fusion device in subjects undergoing single-level fusion for degenerative disc disease unresponsive to conservative care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion remains a critical procedure for patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. Increasingly minimally invasive techniques have been proposed to minimize muscle dissection and tissue damage with the goal of minimizing pain and length of stay.

METHODS

One hundred two subjects were enrolled across 10 sites. Ninety nine subjects remained available for follow-up at 12-months. Physical evaluations/imaging were performed serially through 12-months. Validated assessment tools included 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for function, and computerized tomography scan for fusion. Independent committees were used to identify adverse events and for assessment of radiographic fusion.

RESULTS

Reductions in low back pain (LBP)/leg pain and improvements in functional status occur early and are maintained through 12-month follow-up. Mean VAS-LBP change from baseline to 6-weeks post-op (-46 mm) continued to improve through 12 months (-51 mm). Similar trends were observed for leg pain. Mean ODI change from baseline to 6 weeks post-op (-17) was almost doubled by 12 months (-32). Fusion rates at 12-months are high (98%). No device-related serious adverse events have occurred.

CONCLUSION

12-month outcomes demonstrated excellent patient compliance and positive outcomes for pain, function, fusion, and device safety. Clinical improvements were observed by 6-weeks post-op and appear durable up to 1 year later. A novel mesh interbody device may provide an alternative means of interbody fusion that reduces connective tissue disruption.Level of Evidence: 3.

Intraoperative image guidance for endoscopic spine surgery

Endoscopic spine surgery is a burgeoning component of the minimally invasive spine surgeon’s armamentarium. The goals of minimally invasive, and likewise endoscopic, spine surgery include providing equivalent or better patient outcomes compared to conventional open surgery, while minimizing soft tissue disruption, blood loss, postoperative pain, recovery time, and time to return to normal activities. A multitude of indications for the utilization of endoscopy throughout the spinal axis now exist, with applications for both decompression as well as interbody fusion. That being said, spinal endoscopy requires many spine surgeons to learn a completely new skill set and the associated learning curve may be substantial. Fluoroscopy is most common imaging modality used in endoscopic spine surgery for the localization of spinal pathology and endoscopic access. Recently, the use of navigation has been reported to be effective, with preliminary data supporting decreased operative times and radiation exposure, as well as providing for improvements in the associated learning curve. A further development is the recent interest in combining robotic guidance with spinal endoscopy, particularly with respect to endoscopic-assisted lumbar fusion. While there is currently a paucity of literature evaluating these image modalities, they are gaining traction, and future research and innovation will likely focus on these new technologies.

Reduction in complication and revision rates for robotic-guided short-segment lumbar fusion surgery: results of a prospective, multi-center study

Studies evaluating robotic guidance in lumbar fusion are limited primarily to evaluation of screw accuracy and perioperative complications. This is the first study to evaluate granular differences in short and long-term complication and revision rate profiles between robotic (RG) fluoroscopic (FG) guidance for minimally invasive short-segment lumbar fusions. A retrospective analysis of a prospective, multi-center database was performed. Complications were subdivided into surgical (further subcategorized into adjacent segment disease, new-onset back pain, radiculopathy, motor-deficit, hardware failure, pseudoarthrosis), wound, and medical complications. Complication and revision rates were compared between RG and FG groups cumulatively at 30, 90 days, and 1 year. 374 RG and 111 FG procedures were performed. RG was associated with an 86.25, 83.20, and 69.42% cumulative reduction in complication rate at 30, 90 days, and 1 year, respectively, compared to FG (p < 0.001). At all follow-up points, new-onset radiculopathy and medical complications were most prevalent in both groups. The greatest reductions in complication rates were seen for new-onset back pain (88.13%; p = 0.001) and wound complications (95.05%; p < 0.001) at 30 days, new-onset motor deficits (90.11%; p = 0.004) and wound complications (85.16%; p < 0.001) at 90 days, and new-onset motor deficits (85.16%; p = 0.002), wound (85.16%; p < 0.001), and medical complications (75.72%; p < 0.001) at 1 year. RG was associated with a 92.58% (p = 0.002) reduction in revision rate at 90 days and a 66.08% (p = 0.026) reduction at 1 year. RG was associated with significant reductions in postoperative complication rates at all follow-up time points and significant reductions in revision rates at 90 days and 1 year.

Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate the feasibility of an endoscopically assisted minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and to study clinical outcomes with the use of a static oblique bullet-shaped cannulated poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) lumbar interbody fusion cage in conjunction with platelet enriched plasma infused allograft cancellous chips and posterior supplemental fixation.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent endoscopically assisted MIS-TLIF for spondylolisthesis (53.5%) and stenosis (46.3%), the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the modified Macnab criteria were used as primary clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcomes were cross-tabulated against fusion grade using the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (90.7%) had excellent (8/43; 18.6%) and good (31/43; 72.1%) Macnab outcomes. There were significant VAS back score reductions from an average preoperative values of 8.9070 to a postoperative VAS score of 3.8605, and a score of 2.7674 at final follow-up (P < .0001). The reductions in the VAS leg scores were also significant from preoperative score of 5.58 to a postoperative value of 2.16, and a final follow-up score of 1.67 (P < .0001); the Oswestry Disability Index score went from a preoperative value of 54.4 to 23.3 postoperatively and 18.5 at the final follow-up (P < .0001). The vast majority of patients (92.9%) with Bridwell grade I fusion had excellent and good Macnab outcomes (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend the use of an endoscope as an adjunct to MIS-TLIF, a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique in which many surgeons may be well versed and have a great deal of experience. Clinical outcomes with the endoscopic interbody fusion procedure with a static PEEK cage in conjunction with platelet-enriched bone allograft were favorable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility study.

Enhanced Recovery Implementation and Perioperative Outcomes in Posterior Fusion Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if there was an association between enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) implementation level and complication risk, length of stay, and cost of hospitalization.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ERAS protocols aim to minimize the stress response of surgery by promoting early mobilization, oral intake, as well as improvement of analgesia. Implementation of ERAS protocols in spine surgeries has been limited to mostly single-institution studies, and no population-based data exist on the impact of the level of implementation of various ERAS components on outcomes.

METHODS

In this study we identified 265,576 posterior lumbar fusion surgeries from 2006 to 2016. The main effect was the application of eight ERAS-related practices: (1) multimodal analgesia, (2) tranexamic acid, (3) antiemetics, (4) steroids, (5) early physical therapy, (6) avoidance of urinary catheters, (7) avoidance of patient-controlled analgesia, (8) avoidance of wound drains. Patients were classified by levels of ERAS implementation: "High," "Medium," and "Low" ERAS implementation if they received more than five, three to five, or less than three ERAS components, respectively. Mixed-effects models measured associations between ERAS implementation categories and complications, length and cost of hospitalization; odds ratios (OR, or average ratios for continuous outcomes), and 99.4% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 13.3%, 62.8%, and 24.4% of cases were categorized as "High," "Medium," and "Low" ERAS implementation, respectively. After adjusting for study variables, "Medium" and "High" (compared with "Low") ERAS implementation levels were significantly associated with incrementally improved outcomes regarding "any complication" (OR 0.84 CI 0.80-0.88 and OR 0.77 CI 0.71-0.84), cardiopulmonary complications (OR 0.75 CI 0.68-0.73 and OR 0.69 CI 0.59-0.80), length of stay (average ratio 0. 94 CI 0.93-0.94 and average ratio 0.91 CI 0.90-0.91), and hospitalization cost (average ratio 0.99 CI 0.98-0.99 and average ratio OR 0.95 0.95-0.96).

CONCLUSION

In a cohort undergoing posterior lumbar spine fusion the level of utilization of ERAS protocol components was independently associated with incrementally improved complication odds as well as reduced length of stay and a small decrease in overall hospitalization cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Trends in Adult Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, multidisciplinary approach to optimizing the postsurgical recovery process through preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative interventions. ERAS protocols are emerging quickly within orthopedic spine surgery, yet there is a lack of consensus on optimal ERAS practices.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review is to identify and discuss the trends in spine ERAS protocols and the associated outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search on PubMed was conducted to identify clinical studies that implemented ERAS protocols for various spine procedures in the adult population. The search included English-language literature published through December 2019. Additional sources were retrieved from the reference lists of key studies. Studies that met inclusion criteria were identified manually. Data regarding the study population, study design, spine procedures, ERAS interventions, and associated outcome metrics were extracted from each study that met inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 106 studies identified from the literature search, 22 studies met inclusion criteria. From the ERAS protocols in these studies, common preoperative elements include patient education and modified preoperative nutrition regimens. Perioperative elements include multimodal analgesia and minimally invasive surgery. Postoperative elements include multimodal pain management and early mobilization/rehabilitation/nutrition regimens. Outcomes from ERAS implementation include significant reductions in length of stay, cost, and opioid consumption. Although these trends were observed, there remained great variability among the ERAS protocols, as well as in the reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS may improve cost-effectiveness to varying degrees for spinal procedures. Specifically, the use of multimodal analgesia may reduce overall opioid consumption. However, the benefits of ERAS likely will vary based on the specific procedure.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This review contributes to the assessment of ERAS protocol implementation in the field of adult spine surgery.

Uniportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion

The cause of radiculopathy is the compression of the nerve root which can be secondary to sliding of the vertebra and reduced disc height. In some patients, decompression alone does not resolve this problem. We describe the uniportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion technique. Full-endocopic foraminotomy and discectomy are followed by cage implementation and percutaneous instrumentation. The goal of this surgical method is decompression of nerve roots, segment stabilization, disc height, and sagittal alignment restoration. Uniportal endoscopic facet sparing transforaminal transkambin lumbar interbody fusion is a good surgical option to treat degenerative disc disease, mechanical instability, and spondylolisthesis. This method shows favourable clinical outcomes in selected patients.