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

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.

Morphological changes after open lumbar microdiscectomy at 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

It is known that a possible decrease in disc height (DH) and foraminal size after open lumbar microdiscectomy (OLM) may cause pain in the long term. However, there is still insufficient information about the short- or long-term pathoanatomical and morphological effects of microdiscectomy. For example, the exact temporal course of the change in DH is not well known.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine morphological changes in DH and foramen dimensions after OLM.

METHODS

In patients who underwent OLM for single-level lumbar disc herniation, MRI scans were obtained before surgery, and at an average of two years after surgery. In addition to DH measurements, foraminal area (FA), foraminal height (FH), superior foraminal width (SFW), and inferior foraminal width (IFW), were measured bilaterally.

RESULTS

A postoperative increase in DH was observed at all vertebral levels, with an average of 5.5%. The mean right FHs were 15.3 mm and 15.7 mm before and after surgery, respectively (p= 0.062), while the left FHs were 14.8 mm and 15.8 mm before and after surgery (p= 0.271). The mean right SFW was 5.4 mm before surgery and 5.7 mm after surgery, while the mean right IFW ranged from 3.6 mm to 3.9 mm. The mean left SFW was 4.8 mm before surgery and 5.2 mm after surgery, while the mean left IFW ranged from 3.5 mm to 3.9 mm. Before surgery, the FAs were, on average, 77.1 mm2 and 75.6 mm2 on the right and left sides, respectively. At the 2-year follow-up, the mean FAs were 84.0 mm2 and 80.2 mm2 on the right and left sides, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to prevalent belief, in patients who underwent single-level unilateral OLM, we observed that there may be an increase rather than a decrease in DH or foramen size at the 2-year follow-up. Our findings need to be confirmed by studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups.

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.