Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care following laminoplasty: A retrospective case-cohort study

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.

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.

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.

Fast-track protocols for patients undergoing spine surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Fast-track is an evidence-based multidisciplinary strategy for pre-, intra-, and postoperative management of patients during major surgery. To date, fast-track has not been recognized or accepted in all surgical areas, particularly in orthopedic spine surgery where it still represents a relatively new paradigm.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was provided an evidenced-based assessment of specific interventions, measurement, and associated outcomes linked to enhanced recovery pathways in spine surgery field.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in three databases from February 2012 to August 2022 to assess the pre-, intra-, and postoperative key elements and the clinical evidence of fast-track protocols as well as specific interventions and associated outcomes, in patients undergoing to spine surgery.

RESULTS

We included 57 full-text articles of which most were retrospective. Most common fast-track elements included patient's education, multimodal analgesia, thrombo- and antibiotic prophylaxis, tranexamic acid use, urinary catheter and drainage removal within 24 hours after surgery, and early mobilization and nutrition. All studies demonstrated that these interventions were able to reduce patients' length of stay (LOS) and opioid use. Comparative studies between fast-track and non-fast-track protocols also showed improved pain scores without increasing complication or readmission rates, thus improving patient's satisfaction and functional recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the review results, fast-track seems to be a successful tool to reduce LOS, accelerate return of function, minimize postoperative pain, and save costs in spine surgery. However, current studies are mainly on degenerative spine diseases and largely restricted to retrospective studies with non-randomized data, thus multicenter randomized trials comparing fast-track outcomes and implementation are mandatory to confirm its benefit in spine surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce early post-operative pain, complications, and length of stay (LOS) in open one- to two-level TLIF. The benefit of ERAS in specifically frail patients undergoing TLIF has not been demonstrated. Frailty is clinically defined as a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose patients undergoing surgery to poor outcomes.

PURPOSE

This study primarily evaluated the benefit of an ERAS protocol in frail patients undergoing one- or two-level open TLIF compared to frail patients without ERAS. Secondarily, we assessed whether outcomes in frail patients with ERAS approximated those seen in nonfrail patients with ERAS.

STUDY DESIGN

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

PATIENT SAMPLE

Consecutive patients that underwent one- or two-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from August, 2015 to July, 2021 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was return of postoperative physiological function defined as the summation of first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, and first day to void. Additional outcome measures included LOS, daily average pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and reoperation.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of frail patients > 65 years of age undergoing one- to two-level open TLIF post-ERAS were compared to propensity matched frail pre-ERAS patients. Frailty was assessed using the Fried phenotype classification (score >1). Patient demographics, LOS, first-day-to-ambulate (A1), first-day-to-bowel movement (B1), first-day-to-void (V1) were collected. Return of physiological function was defined as A1+B1+V1. Primary analysis was a comparison of frail patients pre-ERAS versus post-ERAS to determine effect of ERAS on return of physiologic function with frailty. Secondary analysis was a comparison of post-ERAS frail versus post-ERAS nonfrail patients to determine if return of physiologic function in frail patients with ERAS approximates that of nonfrail patients.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, 32 frail patients were included with mean age ± standard deviation of 72.8±4.4 years, mean BMI 28.8±5.5, 65.6% were male, 15 pre-ERAS and 17 post-ERAS. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. After ERAS implementation, return of physiological function improved by a mean 3.2 days overall (post-ERAS 3.4 vs. pre-ERAS 6.7 days) (p<.0001), indicating a positive effect of ERAS in frail patients. Additionally, length of stay improved by 1 day (4.8±1.6 vs. 3.8±1.9 days, p<.0001). Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as well as average daily pain scores were similar between groups. Secondarily, 26 nonfrail patients post ERAS were used as a comparison group with the 17 post-ERAS frail cohort. Mean age of this cohort was 73.4±4.6 years, mean BMI 27.4±4.9, and 61.9% were male. Return of physiologic function was similar between cohorts (post-ERAS nonfrail 3.5 vs. post-ERAS frail 3.4 days) (p=.938), indicating the benefit with ERAS in frail patients approximates that of nonfrail patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS significantly improves return of physiologic function and length of stay in patients with frailty after one- to two-level TLIF, and approximates improved outcomes seen in non-frail patients.

Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have led to improvements in outcomes in several surgical fields, through multimodal optimization of patient pathways, reductions in complications, improved patient experiences and reductions in the length of stay. However, their use has not been uniformly recognized in all orthopedic fields, and there is still no consensus on the best implementation process. Here, we evaluated pre-, peri-, and post-operative key elements and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols, measurements, and associated outcomes in patients undergoing different orthopedic surgical procedures. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was conducted to identify clinical studies, from 2012 to 2022. Out of the 1154 studies retrieved, 174 (25 on spine surgery, 4 on thorax surgery, 2 on elbow surgery and 143 on hip and/or knee surgery) were considered eligible for this review. Results showed that ERAS protocols improve the recovery from orthopedic surgery, decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates. Comparative studies between ERAS and non-ERAS protocols also showed improvement in patient pain scores, satisfaction, and range of motion. Although ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery are safe and effective, future studies focusing on specific ERAS elements, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, are mandatory to optimize the protocols.

Foundations in Spinal Endoscopy

Spinal endoscopy has revolutionized the way spine surgeons deliver minimally invasive care for appropriately selected patients. The evolution of endoscopy has been tumultuous since its beginnings as a "blind" percutaneous procedure to access the disk until the present state, in which complex decompressions and even fusions can be accomplished through subcentimeter incisions. Engineering has played a crucial role in this evolution with advances in optics, illumination, and instrumentation that have allowed surgeons to work safely and efficiently in smaller and smaller corridors. Finally, the adaptation of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols have complemented the benefits offered by spinal endoscopy to help patients return to the quality of life they seek through surgical intervention. In this article, we explore foundational elements of spinal endoscopy and look ahead to the future of this maturing field.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Surgery Reduces Length of Hospital Stay and Inpatient Narcotic Use

Background

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has the potential to improve outcomes, hasten patient recovery, and reduce costs. ERAS has been applied to spine surgery for several years, but data are limited around the impact of ERAS on minimally invasive spine surgery, specifically. The authors report their experience implementing a multimodal ERAS protocol for patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

The ERAS protocol was implemented at The Valley Hospital Hospital in Ridgewood, New Jersey in January 2020. Following implementation, all patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by a single surgeon were studied. The authors analyze the impact of the protocol on length of stay (LOS), disposition post discharge, and opioid consumption postoperatively in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Results

Sixteen patients were enrolled in the protocol and compared with 17 historical controls. LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS cohort (1.6 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.022). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to disposition; the majority of patients were discharged to home without need for in-home medical services. Patients in the ERAS cohort consumed significantly fewer opioid analgesics postoperatively in the inpatient setting (51 mg morphine milligram equivalents vs. 320 mg morphine milligram equivalents, P = 0.00016). On average, patients in the ERAS cohort were prescribed fewer opioids analgesics post discharge.

Conclusions

ERAS application to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was safe and effective, significantly reducing LOS and inpatient opioid consumption. These data reflect the importance of uniformly applying a multimodal ERAS protocol to accelerate recovery and reduce narcotic use.

An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: LOS reduction, rapid discharge and minimal complications after anterior cervical spine surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhance recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a new and promising paradigm for spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of a multimodal and evidence-based ERAS pathway to the patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

The patients treated with the ACDF-ERAS pathway were compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent ACDF before ERAS pathway implementation. Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included cost, MacNab grading, complication rates and 90-day readmission and reoperation. And perioperative factors and postoperative complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

The ERAS protocol was composed of 21 components. More patients undergoing multi-level surgery (n ≥ 3) were included in the ERAS group. The ERAS group showed a shorter LOS and a lower cost than the conventional group. The postoperative satisfaction of patients in ERAS group was better than that in conventional group. In addition, the rate of overall complications was significantly higher in the conventional group than that in the ERAS group. There were no significant differences in operative time, postoperative drainage, or 90-day readmission and reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACDF-tailored ERAS pathway can reduce LOS, cost and postoperative complications, and improve patient satisfaction without increasing 90-day readmission and reoperation.

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.

Clinical application of enhanced recovery after surgery in lumbar disk herniation patients undergoing dynamic stabilization and discectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been demonstrated to improve early postoperative outcomes and is becoming a crucial component of any perioperative management paradigm.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of an ERAS protocol on lumbar disk herniation (LDH) patients undergoing dynamic stabilization and discectomy.

METHODS

A total of 119 lumbar disk herniation (LDH) patients undergoing Dynesys dynamic stabilization and discectomy were divided into the ERAS (n1 = 56) and control group (n2 = 63). ERAS group received an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol, and control group received a traditional care protocol.

RESULTS

Both the ERAS and control groups had significantly decreased visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and increased Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score at postoperative 1 week, 1 month and 3 months compared with preoperative scores. Moreover, the ERAS group had lower postoperative VAS score and ODI and higher postoperative JOA score and rate of improved JOA score compared with the control group. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, ambulation time and length of stay were all lower in the ERAS group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS protocol designed was feasible for LDH patients undergoing dynamic stabilization and discectomy with significantly improved perioperative outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

What Is the Evidence for Early Mobilisation in Elective Spine Surgery? A Narrative Review

Early mobilisation is a cornerstone of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) and is encouraged following spinal procedures. However, evidence of its implementation is limited and there are no formal guidelines on optimal prescription. This narrative review aimed to evaluate the evidence for the effect of early mobilisation following elective spinal surgery on length of stay, postoperative complications, performance-based function and patient-reported outcomes. Four trials (five articles) that compared a specific protocol of early in-hospital mobilisation to no structured mobilisation or bed rest were selected for inclusion. Nine studies that investigated the implementation of a multimodal intervention that was inclusive of an early mobilisation protocol were also included. Results suggest that goal-directed early mobilisation, delivered using an evidence-based algorithm with a clear, procedure-specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, may reduce length of stay and complication rate. In addition, there is evidence to suggest improved performance-based and patient-reported outcomes when compared to bed rest following elective spinal surgery. Whilst this review reveals a lack of evidence to determine the exact details of which early mobilisation protocols are most effective, mobilisation on the day of surgery and ambulation from the first postoperative day is possible and should be the goal. Future work should aim to establish consensus-based, best practice guidelines on the optimal type and timing of mobilisation, and how this should be modified for different spinal procedures.