Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review

Effect of Erector Spinae Plane Block on Postoperative Quality of Recovery in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal or Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) can has been used for analgesia after lumbar spine surgery. However, its effect on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) remains underexplored in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). This study hypothesized that ESPB would improve postoperative QoR in this patient cohort.

METHODS

Patients undergoing TLIF or OLIF were randomized into ESPB (n=38) and control groups (n=38). In the ESPB group, 25 mL of 0.375% bupivacaine was injected into each erector spinae plane at the T12 level under ultrasound guidance before skin incision. Multimodal analgesia, including wound infiltration, was applied in both groups. The QoR-15 score was measured before surgery and 1 day (primary outcome) and 3 days after surgery. Postoperative pain at rest and during ambulation and postoperative ambulation were also evaluated for 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Perioperative QoR-15 scores were not significantly different between the ESPB and control groups including at 1 day after surgery (80±28 vs. 81±25, respectively; P=0.897). Patients in the ESPB group had a significantly lower mean (±SD) pain score during ambulation 1 hour after surgery (7±3 vs. 9±1, respectively; P=0.013) and significantly shorter median (interquartile range) time to the first ambulation after surgery (2.0 [1.0 to 5.5] h vs. 5.0 [1.8 to 10.0] h, respectively; P=0.038). There were no between-group differences in pain scores at other times or in the cumulative number of postoperative ambulations.

CONCLUSION

ESPB, as performed in this study, did not improve the QoR after TLIF or OLIF with multimodal analgesia.

Physical therapy of patients undergoing first-time lumbar discectomy: a survey of current UK practice

BACKGROUND

The type, timing, and extent of provision of rehabilitation for lumbar discectomy patients in the UK are currently unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the provision and type of rehabilitation for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy in UK neurosurgical centers.

METHOD

Physical therapists involved in treating lumbar discectomy patients in UK neurosurgery centers were invited to complete an online survey that asked about the type, timing (preop, postop), and rehabilitation content for patients undergoing lumbar discectomy.

RESULTS

Seventeen UK neurosurgery centers completed the survey. Twelve (36%) responded from the 33 centers targeted as well as an additional five private centers. All participating centers provided a rehabilitation service for lumbar discectomy patients. Rehabilitation was provided preoperatively in n = 6 (35%) centers, postoperatively as an inpatient in all centers, and postoperatively as an outpatient in n = 14 (82%) centers. Factors that influenced the decision to provide rehabilitation included both external and internal or patient-related factors. Preoperative rehabilitation focused mainly on education, whilst postoperative outpatient rehabilitation focused more on exercises. Rehabilitation consistently included mobility, functional task training, and exercise prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst all neurosurgical centers in this survey provided some form of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery, the approach remains inconsistent. Rehabilitation was delivered most frequently postoperatively, with one in three centers providing it preoperatively. Rehabilitation content also varied depending on when it was provided. Further research is needed to determine the optimum timing, contents, and target of rehabilitation for patients undergoing LD surgery.

Accelerated Recovery Program for Patients with Polysegmental Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the accelerated recovery program for patients with polysegmental degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine.

Pathway for enhanced recovery after spinal surgery-a systematic review of evidence for use of individual components

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS) has shown promising improvements in clinical and economical outcomes. We have proposed an ERSS pathway based on available evidence. We aimed to delineate the clinical efficacy of individual pathway components in ERSS through a systematic narrative review.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies, and observational studies in adults and pediatric patients evaluating any one of the 22 pre-defined components. Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). Following databases (1990 onwards) were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two authors screened the citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was provided. We constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each component of the pathway, where appropriate information was available. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analyses. GRADE system was used to classify confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of the pathway.

RESULTS

We identified 5423 relevant studies excluding duplicates as relating to the 22 pre-defined components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. We included 664 studies in the systematic review. We identified specific evidence within the context of spinal surgery for 14/22 proposed components. Evidence was summarized in EP tables where suitable. We performed thematic synthesis without EP for 6/22 elements. We identified appropriate societal guidelines for the remainder of the components.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified the following components with high quality of evidence as per GRADE system: pre-emptive analgesia, peri-operative blood conservation (antifibrinolytic use), surgical site preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. There was moderate level of evidence for implementation of prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery, multimodal perioperative analgesia, intravenous lignocaine and ketamine use as well as early mobilization. This review allows for the first formalized evidence-based unified protocol in the field of ERSS. Further studies validating the multimodal ERSS framework are essential to guide the future evolution of care in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises]

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts or fast-track are supposed to accelerate recovery after surgery, reduce postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay when compared to traditional perioperative treatment.

METHODS

Electronic search of the PubMed database to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR) comparing ERAS and traditional treatment.

RESULTS

The presented SR investigated 70 randomized controlled studies (RCT) with 12,986 patients and 93 non-RCT (24,335 patients) concerning abdominal, thoracic and vascular as well as orthopedic surgery. The complication rates were decreased under ERAS following colorectal esophageal, liver and pulmonary resections as well as after implantation of hip endoprostheses. Pulmonary complications were reduced after ERAS esophageal, gastric and pulmonary resections. The first bowel movements occurred earlier after ERAS colorectal resections and delayed gastric emptying was less often observed after ERAS pancreatic resection. Following ERAS fast-track esophageal resection, anastomotic leakage was diagnosed less often as well as surgical complications after ERAS pulmonary resection. The ERAS in all studies concerning orthopedic surgery and trials investigating implantation of a hip endoprosthesis or knee endoprosthesis reduced the risk for postoperative blood transfusions. Regardless of the type of surgery, ERAS shortened hospital stay without increasing readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that ERAS reduces postoperative morbidity, shortens hospital stay and accelerates recovery without increasing readmission rates following most surgical operations.