Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection: a randomized controlled trial

Enhanced Recovery after Cranial Surgery in Elderly: A Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach aimed at reducing the length of hospital stay, improving patient outcomes, and reducing the overall cost of care. Although ERAS protocols have been widely adopted in various surgical fields, their application in cranial surgery remains relatively limited.

METHODS

Considering that the aging of the population presents significant challenges to healthcare systems, and there is currently no ERAS protocol available for geriatric patients over the age of 65 requiring cranial surgery, this article proposes a new ERAS protocol for this population by analyzing successful ERAS protocols and optimal perioperative care for geriatric patients described in the literature.

RESULTS

Our aim is to develop a feasible, safe, and effective protocol for geriatric patients undergoing elective craniotomy, which includes preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative assessments and management, as well as outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This multidisciplinary and evidence-based ERAS protocol has the potential to reduce perioperative morbidity, improve functional recovery, and enhance postoperative outcomes after cranial surgery in elderly. Further research will be necessary to establish strict guidelines.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Craniotomies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The efficacy of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in neurosurgery has not yet been established. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effects of ERAS protocols and conventional perioperative care on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing craniotomy. The primary outcome was postoperative length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain visual analog pain scores, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative complications, all-cause reoperation, readmission after discharge, and mortality. A literature search up to August 10, 2023, was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Five studies, including 871 patients, were identified for inclusion in this review. Compared with conventional perioperative care, ERAS protocols reduced the length of postoperative hospital stay (difference of medians, -1.52 days; 95% CI: -2.55 to -0.49); there was high heterogeneity across studies (I2, 74%). ERAS protocols were also associated with a lower risk of PONV (relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69-0.90; I2, 99%) and postoperative pain with a visual analog scale score ≥4 at postoperative day 1 (relative risk, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.28-0.49; I2, 14%). Other outcomes, including postoperative complications, did not differ between ERAS and conventional care groups. ERAS protocols may be superior to conventional perioperative care in craniotomy patients in terms of lower length of hospital stay, lower incidence of PONV, and improved postoperative pain scores. Further randomized trials are required to identify the impact of ERAS protocols on the quality of recovery after craniotomy.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing craniotomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The incidence of nausea and vomiting following craniotomy is high, and pericardium 6 (P6; Neiguan) acupoint stimulation is an important strategy for treating postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) at P6 as an adjunct to antiemetic drugs to prevent PONV after craniotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized placebo-controlled trial enrolled 120 patients scheduled for craniotomy. The enrolled patients were randomly assigned to a TEAS or sham TEAS group. The incidence of PONV, pain score, and postoperative remedial treatment with antiemetics and analgesics at 0-2, 2-6, and 6-24 h after craniotomy were assessed.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics did not significantly differ between the two groups (P > 0.05). During 0-2 and 6-24 h after craniotomy, the incidence of vomiting was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05). During 2-6 h, the incidence of vomiting was higher in the sham TEAS group than in the TEAS group (29.3 % vs. 14.0 %, P = 0.047). During 0-2 and 2-6 h, the pain scores did not differ significantly between the two groups (P > 0.05). During 6-24 h after craniotomy, the pain score was significantly higher in the sham TEAS group than in the TEAS group (P = 0.001). The degree of nausea and proportion of patients requiring antiemetic drugs were not significantly different between the two groups in each period (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TEAS at P6 may reduce vomiting incidence and pain scores following craniotomy.

Effect of Systemic Lidocaine on Postoperative Early Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Supratentorial Tumor Resection

Purpose

Lidocaine has been gradually used in general anesthesia. This study was designed to investigate the effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) in patients undergoing supratentorial tumor resection, and to explore its brain-injury alleviation effect in neurosurgical anesthesia.

Patients and Methods

Sixty adult patients undergoing elective supratentorial tumor resection. Patients were randomly assigned either to receive lidocaine (Group L: 1.5 mg/kg bolus completed 10 min before anesthesia induction followed by an infusion at 2.0 mg/kg/h) or to receive normal saline (Group C: received volume-matched normal saline at the same infusion rate). Primary outcome measures were Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. Plasma concentrations of S100B protein (S100B), neuron specific enolase (NSE), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) before anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery were assessed. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were assessed at 1, 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Perioperative parameters and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

Patients between two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Global QoR-40 scores on POD 1 and POD 2 were significantly higher (P <0.001) in group L (165.5±3.8 vs 173.7±4.7) than those in group C (155.6±4.0 vs 163.2±4.5); and scores of physical comfort, emotional state, and pain in group L were superior to those in group C (P <0.05). In group L, patients possessed lower plasma concentration of pro-inflammatory factors (IL-6, TNF-α) and brain injury-related factors (S100B, NSE) (P <0.05), consumed less remifentanil and propofol, and experienced lower pain intensity. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated age and pain were correlated with postperative recovery quality.

Conclusion

Systemic lidocaine improved early recovery quality after supratentorial tumor resection with general anesthesia, and had certain brain-injury alleviation effects. These benefits may be attributed to the inflammation-alleviating and analgesic properties of lidocaine.

Systematic Review of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Patients Undergoing Cranial Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways are increasingly being integrated in neurosurgical patient management. The full extent of ERAS in cranial surgery is not well studied. We performed a systematic review examining ERAS in cranial surgery patients to 1) identify the extent to which ERAS is integrated in cranial neurosurgical procedures and 2) assess effectiveness of ERAS interventions for patients undergoing these procedures.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, PsychInfo, and Google Scholar was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines (CRD42020197187). Studies eligible for inclusion assessed patients undergoing any cranial surgical procedure using an ERAS or ERAS-like pathway, defined by ≥2 ERAS protocol elements per the ERAS Society's RECOvER Checklist and the recommendations of Hagan et al. 2016 (not including patient education, criteria for discharge, or tracking of postdischarge outcomes).

RESULTS

Nine studies were included in qualitative synthesis, 2 of which were randomized controlled trials. All studies showed a moderate risk of bias. The most common ERAS elements used were screening and/or optimization and formal discharge criteria. The least common ERAS elements used were fasting/carbohydrate loading and antithrombotic prophylaxis. Complication rates were similar in studies comparing ERAS with non-ERAS groups. ERAS interventions were associated with reduced length of stay, with comparable and/or improved patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS is a safe and potentially favorable perioperative pathway for select patients undergoing cranial surgery. Future studies of ERAS in cranial surgery patients should emphasize postoperative optimizations and patient-reported outcome measures as key features.

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.

"Enhanced recovery after surgery - ERAS in elective craniotomies-a non-randomized controlled trial"

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal perioperative care bundle aimed at the early recovery of patients. Well accepted in gastric and pelvic surgeries, there is minimal evidence in neurosurgery and neurocritical care barring spinal surgeries. We wished to compare the length of intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) stay of patients undergoing elective craniotomy for supratentorial neurosurgery: ERAS protocol versus routine care. The secondary objective was to compare the postoperative pain scores, opioid use, glycemic control, and the duration of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups.

METHODS

In this pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial (CTRI/2017/07/015451), consenting adult patients scheduled for elective supratentorial intracranial tumor excision were enrolled prospectively after institutional ethical clearance and consent. Elements-of-care in the ERAS group were- Preoperative -family education, complex-carbohydrate drink, flupiritine; Intraoperative - scalp blocks, limited opioids, rigorous fluid and temperature regulation; Postoperative- flupiritine, early mobilization, removal of catheters, and initiation of feeds. Apart from these, all perioperative protocols and management strategies were similar between groups. The two groups were compared with regards to the length of ICU stay, pain scores in ICU, opioid requirement, glycemic control, and hospital stay duration. The decision for discharge from ICU and hospital, data collection, and analysis was by independent assessors blind to the patient group.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were enrolled. Baseline demographics - age, sex, tumor volume, and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. The proportion of patients staying in the ICU for less than 48 h after surgery, the cumulative insulin requirement, and the episodes of VAS scores > 4 in the first 48 h after surgery was significantly less in the ERAS group - 40.6% vs. 65.7%, 0.6 (±2.5) units vs. 3.6 (±8.1) units, and one vs. ten episodes (p = 0.04, 0.001, 0.004 respectively). The total hospital stay was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring ICU/ HDU stay > 48 h. Better pain and glycemic control in the postoperative period may have contributed to a decreased stay. More extensive randomized studies may be designed to confirm these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trial Registry of India ( CTRI/2018/04/013247 ), registered retrospectively on April 2018.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

Retraction Note: Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces nausea and vomiting after infratentorial craniotomy for tumour resection: a randomized controlled trial

This article has been retracted. Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-020-02027-1.

Oliceridine is Associated with Reduced Risk of Vomiting and Need for Rescue Antiemetics Compared to Morphine: Exploratory Analysis from Two Phase 3 Randomized Placebo and Active Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Use of parenteral opioids is a major risk factor for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Conventional opioids bind to µ-opioid receptors (MOR), stimulate both the G-protein signaling (achieving analgesia); and the β-arrestin pathway (associated with opioid-related adverse effects). Oliceridine, a next-generation IV opioid, is a G-protein selective MOR agonist, with limited recruitment of β-arrestin. In two randomized, placebo- and morphine-controlled phase 3 studies of patients with moderate-to-severe acute pain following bunionectomy or abdominoplasty, oliceridine at demand doses of 0.1, 0.35, and 0.5 mg provided rapid and sustained analgesia vs. placebo with favorable gastrointestinal (GI) tolerability. In this exploratory analysis, we utilized a clinical endpoint assessing gastrointestinal tolerability, "complete GI response" defined as the proportion of patients with no vomiting and no use of rescue antiemetic to characterize the GI tolerability profile of oliceridine vs. morphine.

METHODS

A logistic regression model was utilized to compare oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine, after controlling for analgesia (using the sum of pain intensity difference [SPID]-48/24 [bunionectomy/abdominoplasty] with pre-rescue scores carried forward for 6 h). This analysis excluded patients receiving placebo and was performed for each study separately and for pooled data from both studies.

RESULTS

In the unadjusted analysis, a significantly greater proportion of patients in the placebo (76.4%), oliceridine 0.1 mg (68.0%), and 0.35 mg (46.2%) demand dose achieved complete GI response vs. morphine 1 mg (30.8%), p ≤ 0.005. In the adjusted analysis, after controlling for analgesia, the odds ratio of experiencing a complete GI response with oliceridine (pooled regimens) vs. morphine was 3.14 (95% CI: 1.78, 5.56; p < 0.0001) in bunionectomy study and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.09, 3.36; p = 0.024) in abdominoplasty study.

CONCLUSIONS

When controlled for the analgesic effects (constant SPID-48/24), the odds ratio for complete GI response was higher with oliceridine than morphine, suggesting better GI tolerability with oliceridine.

Management of Postoperative Pain after Elective Craniotomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of a Neurosurgical Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Program

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy of a neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol on the management of postoperative pain after elective craniotomies. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in the neurosurgical center of Tangdu Hospital (Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China). A total of 129 patients undergoing craniotomies between October 2016 and July 2017 were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing an ERAS protocol to a conventional postoperative care regimen. The primary outcome was the postoperative pain score assessed by a verbal numerical rating scale (NRS). Results: Patients in the ERAS group had a significant reduction in their postoperative pain scores on POD 1 compared to patients in the control group (p < 0.05). More patients (n = 44, 68.8%) in the ERAS group experienced mild pain (NRS: 1 to 3) on POD1 compared with patients (n = 23, 35.4%) in the control group (p < 0.05). A further reduction in pain scores was also observed on POD 2 and maintained on POD 3 in the ERAS group compared with that in the control group. In addition, the median postoperative length of hospital stay was significantly decreased with the incorporation of the ERAS protocol compared to controls (ERAS: 4 days, control: 7 days, P<0.001). Conclusion: The implementation of a neurosurgical ERAS protocol for elective craniotomy patients has significant benefits in alleviating postoperative pain and enhancing recovery leading to early discharge after surgery compared to conventional care. Further evaluation of this protocol in larger, multi-center studies is warranted.