Accelerated Recovery Program for Patients with Polysegmental Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease

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.

Comparison of clinical outcomes and complications between endoscopic and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the efficacy and complications of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar fusion (Endo-TLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) in treating lumbar degenerative diseases. It aims to provide reference data for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled studies and non-randomized controlled studies on Endo-TLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating lumbar degenerative diseases based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were managed with Endnote X9 software and meta-analyzed using Revman 5.3 software. Extracted outcomes included lower back VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS score, low back pain ODI score, complication rate, fusion rate, time to surgery, blood loss, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

① Thirteen high-quality studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 1015 patients-493 in the Endo-TLIF group and 522 in the MIS-TLIF group. ② Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in preoperative, postoperative 6-month, and final follow-up waist VAS scores, lower limb pain VAS score, ODI index, complications, and fusion rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). The MIS-TLIF group had a shorter operative time (MD = 29.13, 95% CI 10.86, 47.39, P = 0.002) than the Endo-TLIF group. However, the Endo-TLIF group had less blood loss (MD = - 76.75, 95% CI - 111.59, - 41.90, P < 0.0001), a shorter hospital stay (MD = - 2.15, 95% CI - 2.95, - 1.34, P < 0.00001), and lower lumbar VAS scores both immediately postoperative (≤ 2 week) (MD = - 1.12, 95% CI - 1.53, - 0.71, P < 0.00001) compared to the MIS-TLIF group.

CONCLUSION

Meta-analysis results indicated that Endo-TLIF is similar to MIS-TLIF in terms of long-term clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complication rates. Although MIS-TLIF has a shorter operation time, Endo-TLIF can significantly reduce blood loss and hospital stay duration. Endo-TLIF offers the advantages of less surgical trauma, reduced blood loss, faster recovery, and early alleviation of postoperative back pain.

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.

Patients Older Than 75 Years Undergoing Polysegmental Lumbar Fusion Surgery Can also Benefit from Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program

Purpose

To compare pain scores (visual analog scale) on postoperative days 1–3 and length of stay after implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in elderly patients undergoing multi-segments lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, patients older than 75 years were enrolled in the study. We selected two periods, before (Pre-ERAS, n =54 patients) and after (ERAS, n =46 patients) implementation of ERAS. Data were collected on patient demographics, operative and perioperative details, 30-day readmission. The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS), and the secondary outcomes were postoperative mean pain scores on postoperative days (POD) 1–3 and 30-day readmission rates.

Results

A total of 100 patients (46 in ERAS and 54 in pre-ERAS) were enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking and comorbidities between the groups. However, there was a significant difference in pain on postoperative day (POD) 1 (5.31 ± 1.98 vs 4.37 ± 0.85, p = 0.002), while there was no difference in postoperative complications. The mean LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS than in the pre-ERAS group, it reduced from 12.29 ± 3.93 to 9.45 ± 2.72 days (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first ERAS protocol used in patients (older than 75 years) undergoing polysegmental lumbar fusion surgery. Pain scores on POD 1 and LOS were significantly lower without increased adverse events after implementation of ERAS. This finding suggests that elderly people (>75 years of age) undergoing polysegmental lumbar fusion surgery could also benefit from ERAS.