Introduction: Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine

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.

Does the choice of chemoprophylaxis affect the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in lumbar fusion surgery? A systematic review of the literature

Introduction

To date, the available guidance on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in elective lumbar fusion surgery is largely open to surgeon interpretation and preference without any specific suggested chemoprophylactic regimen.

Research question

This study aimed to comparatively analyze the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) with the use of commonly employed chemoprophylactic agents such as unfractionated heparin (UH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in lumbar fusion surgery.

Material and methods

An independent systematic review of four scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Web of Science) was performed to identify relevant articles as per the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies reporting on DVT/PE outcomes of lumbar fusion surgery in adult patients with UH or LMWH chemoprophylaxis were included for analysis. Analysis was performed using the Stata software.

Results

Twelve studies with 8495 patients were included in the analysis. A single-arm meta-analysis of the included studies found a DVT incidence of 14% (95%CI [8%-20%]) and 1% (95%CI [-6% - 8%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. Both the chemoprophylaxis agents prevented PE with a noted incidence of 0% (95%CI [0%-0.1%]) and 0% (95%CI [0%-1%]) with LMWH and UH respectively. The risk of bleeding-related complications with the usage of LMWH and UH was 0% (95% CI [0.0%-0.30%]) and 3% (95% CI [0.3%-5%]) respectively.

Discussion and conclusion

Both LMWH and UH reduces the overall incidence of DVT/PE, but there is a paucity of evidence analyzing the comparative effectiveness of the chemoprophylaxis regimens in lumbar fusion procedures. The heterogeneity in data prevents any conclusions, as there remains an evidence gap. We recommend future high-quality randomized controlled trials to investigate in this regard to help develop recommendations on thromboprophylaxis usage.

A Bibliometric Analysis of Neurosurgical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

In the last 20 yr, the rate of neurosurgical guideline publication has increased. However, despite the higher volume and increasing emphasis on quality there remains no reliable means of measuring the overall impact of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

OBJECTIVE

To utilize citation analysis to evaluate the dispersion of neurosurgical CPGs.

METHODS

A list of neurosurgical guidelines was compiled by performing electronic searches using the Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and National Guideline Clearinghouse databases. The Scopus database was queried to obtain current publication and citation data for all included documents and categorized based upon recognized neurosurgical specialties. The h-index, R-index, h2-index, i10-index, and dissemination index (D-Index) were manually calculated for each subspecialty.

RESULTS

After applying screening criteria the search yielded 372 neurosurgical CPGs, which were included for bibliometric analysis. The overall calculated h-index for neurosurgery was 56. When broken down by subspecialty trauma/critical care had the highest value at 35, followed by spine and peripheral nerve at 30, cerebrovascular at 28, tumor at 16, pediatrics at 14, miscellaneous at 11, and functional/stereotactic/pain at 6. Cerebrovascular neurosurgery was noted to have the highest D-Index at 3.4.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive framework is useful for guideline impact analysis. Bibliometric data provides a novel and adequate means of evaluating the successful dissemination of neurosurgical guidelines. There remains a paucity of data regarding implementation and clinical outcomes of individual guidelines.

Efficacy of Using Platelet-Rich Plasma in Spinal Fusion Surgery-A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Compliant Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been frequently used to enhance bone regeneration. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically assess the fusion rate and pain relief of applying PRP during spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

Studies investigating spinal fusion surgery combined with PRP were retrieved from Medline and the Web of Science in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A quality evaluation was conducted using the Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale quality assessment for cohort trials. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan, version 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies, including 3 randomized controlled trials and 9 cohort studies, with 661 patients, were included in the present meta-analysis. The mean age was 52.3 ± 8.0 years. Overall, the pooled results demonstrated that the differences in the fusion rates between the PRP and non-PRP treatment groups were not statistically significant. The risk ratio was 1.01 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.06; P = 0.83). Also, no significant difference in pain relief measured using the visual analog scale was found between the 2 groups. The mean difference was -0.08 (95% confidence interval, -0.26 to 0.11; P = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding PRP did not increase the fusion rates from spinal fusion surgery. In addition, no significant difference was found in pain relief between the PRP and non-PRP treatment groups.

Lumbar Fusion for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Due to uncertain evidence, lumbar fusion for degenerative indications is associated with the greatest measured practice variation of any surgical procedure.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current evidence on the comparative safety and efficacy of lumbar fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care for degenerative indications.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 30, 2016). Comparative studies reporting validated measures of safety or efficacy were included. Treatment effects were calculated through DerSimonian and Laird random effects models.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 65 studies (19 randomized controlled trials, 16 prospective cohort studies, 15 retrospective cohort studies, and 15 registries) enrolling a total of 302 620 patients. Disability, pain, and patient satisfaction following fusion, decompression-alone, or nonoperative care were dependent on surgical indications and study methodology. Relative to decompression-alone, the risk of reoperation following fusion was increased for spinal stenosis (relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.28) and decreased for spondylolisthesis (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.83). Among patients with spinal stenosis, complications were more frequent following fusion (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.18-2.96). Mortality was not significantly associated with any treatment modality.

CONCLUSION

Positive clinical change was greatest in patients undergoing fusion for spondylolisthesis while complications and the risk of reoperation limited the benefit of fusion for spinal stenosis. The relative safety and efficacy of fusion for chronic low back pain suggests careful patient selection is required (PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews number, CRD42015020153).

Indication Variability in Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Four-nation Survey

STUDY DESIGN

Electronic survey.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the international nuances in surgical treatment patterns for severals lumbar degenerative conditions, specifically, to identify differences in responses in each country groupand different treatment trends across countries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Significant variations in treatment of lumbar degenerative conditions exist among spine surgeons, related to the lack of established consensus in the literature.

METHODS

An online survey with preformulated answers was submitted to 52 orthopedic surgeons, 50 neurosurgeons from four different countries (United States, France, Spain, and Germany) regarding five vignette-cases. Cases included: multilevel stenosis, monolevel stenosis, lytic spondylolisthesis, isthmic lysis, and degenerative scoliosis. The variability for each country was calculated according to the Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV = 0: no variability and 1: maximal variability). We used Fleiss kappa (range: from -1, poor agreement, to 1, almost perfect agreement) for assessing the reliability of agreement between the participants concerning specialties, countries, and age groups.

RESULTS

For the two stenosis cases, US surgeons were more likely to propose decompression (IQV multilevel = 0.47 and monolevel = 0.32) comparing with European countries more heterogeneous (all IQV >0.70) and more frequently proposing fusion. As regards degenerative scoliosis, all attitudes were extremely heterogeneous with IQV >0.8. Fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis was more consensual (all IQV <0.63), but attitudes were more heterogeneous for isthmic lysis (IQV ranged from 0.48 to 0.76) with anterior approach proposed in France (37%) and United States (19.2%).The overall interrater agreement was equally slight not only for neurosurgeons (Fleiss Kappa = 0.04) and orthopedic surgeons (Kappa = 0.13), but also for countries (Kappa <0.13) and age groups (Kappa <0.1).

CONCLUSION

In this study, we found substantial agreement for some spinal conditions but a high variability in some others: intranational and international variations were observed, reflecting the lack of literature consensus.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Nonfusion Does Not Prevent Adjacent Segment Disease: Dynesys Long-term Outcomes With Minimum Five-year Follow-up

STUDY DESIGN

Case series.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between fusion and adjacent segment disease via Dynesys long-term outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Dynesys is a dynamic stabilization system meant to improve symptoms by stabilizing the spine without fusion and avoiding the development of adjacent segment disease. However, few studies have evaluated long-term outcomes.

METHODS

All patients were operated on with Dynesys from 2006 to 2009 by a single surgeon at a single institution. We prospectively collected 18 variables among the following categories: patient characteristics, comorbidities, surgical indications, and OR variables. We analyzed two primary endpoints: solid fusion on X-ray and clinical adjacent segment disease (ASD) both at 5 years. Secondary endpoints were time to fusion, time to ASD, reoperation, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) leg pain. We conducted a multivariate analysis via the random forest method. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were then used to qualify relationship between variables.

RESULTS

We had 52 patients to review in the database. Eight had preexisting ASD. Mean follow-up was 92 months (median 87 months). Fifteen had ASD (29%) during follow-up at a mean 45 months (Median 35 months). Nine had a solid fusion (17%), 2 of which also had ASD. Mean time to fusion was 65 months (median 71 months). Differences in improvement of ODI (P = 0.005) and VAS leg pain (P = 0.002) were significant favoring patients without ASD. The multivariate analysis revealed four variables associated with ASD: prior ASD (OR 11.3, P = 0.005), neurological deficit (OR 8.5, P = 0.018), revision OR (OR 8.5, P = 0.018), and multilevel degeneration (OR 0.184, P = 0.026). No variable was associated with fusion.

CONCLUSION

Dynesys was associated with a high rate of ASD over long-term follow-up despite maintaining a low fusion rate. Prior ASD was the strongest predictor of progressive ASD.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Clinical outcome in lumbar decompression surgery for spinal canal stenosis in the aged population: a prospective Swiss multicenter cohort study

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective, multicenter cohort study including 8 medical centers in the metropolitan area of the Canton Zurich, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether outcome and quality of life might improve after decompression surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) even in patients older than 80 years and to compare data with a younger patient population from our own patient collective.

SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar decompression surgery without fusion has been shown to improve quality of life in lumbar spinal canal stenosis. In the population older than 80 years, treatment recommendations for DLSS show conflicting results.

METHODS

Eight centers in the metropolitan area of Zurich, Switzerland agreed on the classification of DLSS, surgical principles, and follow-up protocols. Patients were followed from baseline, at 6 months, and 12 months. Baseline characteristics were analyzed with 5 different questionnaires "Spinal Stenosis Measure, Feeling Thermometer, Numeric Rating Scale, 5D-3L, and Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire." In addition, our study population was compared with a younger control group. Furthermore, we calculated the minimal clinically important differences.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients with an average age of 82.5 ± 2.5 years reached the 12-month follow-up. Spinal Stenosis Measure scores, the Feeling Thermometer, the Numeric Rating Scale, and the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire showed significant improvements at the 6-month and 12-month follow-ups (P < 0.001). One EQ-5D-3Lsubgroup "anxiety/depression" showed no significant improvement (P = 0.109) at 12-month follow-up. The minimal clinically important difference for the "Symptom Severity scale" in the Spinal Stenosis Measure was achieved with improvement of 70% in the older patient population.

CONCLUSION

Patients 80 years or older can expect a clinically meaningful improvement after lumbar decompression for symptomatic DLSS. Our patient population showed significant positive development in quality of life in the short- and long-term follow-ups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.