The financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an academic gynecologic oncology practice

How can we reduce healthcare costs by using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery more effectively in different groups of gynaecological patients? A single-centre experience

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme implementation on treatment costs at a university-type centre, using the DRG scheme.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients' data in a group of 604 individuals enroled in the study. We evaluated three groups of patients according to the ERAS clinical protocol (CP): (1) CP oncogynaecology, (2) CP simple hysterectomy, (3) CP laparoscopy. The study aimed to evaluate the impact on the length of stay (LOS), savings in bed-days, and the reduction in direct treatment costs. Three parameters-antibiotic consumption, blood derivative consumption and laboratory test costs-were chosen to compare direct treatment costs. The statistical significance of the difference in the observed parameters was tested by a two-sample unpaired t test with unequal variances at the 0.05 significance level.

RESULTS

We analysed data from 604 patients. In all three groups, the length of stay (LOS) was significantly reduced. The most significant reduction was observed in the CP oncogynaecology group, where the LOS was reduced from 11.1 days to 6.8 days (2022) and 7.6 days (2023) compared to 2019 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, there was a notable reduction in inpatient bed-days, which resulted in the capacity being made available to admit additional patients. A statistically significant reduction in direct costs was observed in the group of CP hysterectomy (antibiotic use) and in the CP laparoscopy (laboratory test costs).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the ERAS principles resulted in a number of significant positive economic impacts-reduction in the LOS and a corresponding increase in bed capacity for new patients. Additionally, direct treatment costs, including those related to antibiotic use or laboratory testing were reduced. The Czech Republic's acute healthcare system, like the majority of European healthcare systems, is financed by the DRG system. This flat-rate payment per patient encourages hospital management to seek cost-reduction strategies. The results of our study indicate that fast-track protocols represent a potential viable approach to reducing the cost of treatment while simultaneously meeting the recommendations of evidence-based medicine.

Cost impact analysis of enhanced recovery after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery

OBJECTIVE

The implementation of a peri-operative care program based on enhanced recovery after surgery principles for minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery led to an improvement in same day discharge from 29% to 75% at our center. This study aimed to determine the program's economic impact.

METHODS

Our initial enhanced recovery quality improvement program enrolled consecutive patients undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy at a single center during a 12-month period and compared them to a pre-intervention cohort. The primary outcome was overall costs. The secondary outcomes were surgical and post-operative visit costs. The surgical visit costs included pre-operative and operating room, post-operative stay, pharmacy, and interventions costs. The 30-day post-operative visit costs included clinic and emergency room, and readmission costs. The costs for every visit were collected from the case-cost department and expressed in 2020 Canadian dollars (CAD).

RESULTS

A total of 96 and 101 patients were included in the pre- and post-intervention groups, respectively. The median total cost per patient for post-intervention was $7252 compared with $8381 pre-intervention (p=0.02), resulting in a $1129 cost reduction per patient. The total cost for the program implementation was $134 per patient for a total cost of $13 106. The median post-operative stay cost was $816 post-intervention compared with $1278 pre-intervention (p<0.05). Statistically significant savings for the post-intervention group were also found for operative visit, operating room costs, and pharmacy (p<0.05). On multivariate analysis, surgical approach was the only factor associated with operating room costs, whereas both surgical approach and group (pre- vs post-intervention) impacted the total and post-operative stay costs (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In addition to increasing the same day discharge rate after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery, an enhanced recovery-based peri-operative care program led to significant reductions in cost.

ERAS implementation in an urban patient population undergoing gynecologic surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols improve outcomes. We investigated ERAS implementation in a population with comorbid conditions, inadequate insurance, and barriers to healthcare undergoing gynecologic surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate ERAS implementation in publicly insured/uninsured patients undergoing gynecologic surgery on hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day hospital readmission rates, opioid administration, and pain scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were obtained pre- and post-ERAS implementation. Patients undergoing gynecologic surgery with private insurance, public insurance, and uninsured were included (N = 589). LOS, readmission <30 days, opioid administration, and pain scores were assessed.

RESULTS

Implementation of ERAS led to shorter LOS 1.75 vs. 1.49 days (p = 0.008). Average pain scores decreased from 3.07 pre-ERAS vs. 2.47 post-ERAS (p = <0.001). Opioid use decreased for ERAS patients (67.22 vs. 33.18, p = <0.001). Hospital readmission rates were unchanged from 8.2% pre-ERAS vs. 10.3% post-ERAS (p = 0.392).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS decreased pain scores and opioid use without increasing LOS or readmissions.

Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for women with gynaecological cancers

BACKGROUND

Gynaecological cancers account for 15% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women worldwide. In recent years, increasing evidence demonstrates that traditional approaches in perioperative care practice may be unnecessary or even harmful. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme has therefore been gradually introduced to replace traditional approaches in perioperative care. There is an emerging body of evidence outside of gynaecological cancer which has identified that perioperative ERAS programmes decrease length of postoperative hospital stay and reduce medical expenditure without increasing complication rates, mortality, and readmission rates. However, evidence-based decisions on perioperative care practice for major surgery in gynaecological cancer are limited. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes in gynaecological cancer care on length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, bowel functions, quality of life, participant satisfaction, and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for the literature published from inception until October 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and four Chinese databases including the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Weipu Database. We also searched four trial registration platforms and grey literature databases for ongoing and unpublished trials, and handsearched the reference lists of included trials and accessible reviews for relevant references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ERAS programmes for perioperative care in women with gynaecological cancer to traditional care strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed methodological quality for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for RCTs. Using Review Manager 5.4, we pooled the data and calculated the measures of treatment effect with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to reflect the summary estimates and uncertainty.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with 747 participants. All studies compared ERAS programmes with traditional care strategies for women with gynaecological cancer. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies since the included RCTs had moderate to high risk of bias in domains including randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, and measurement of outcomes. ERAS programmes may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay (MD -1.71 days, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.84; I2 = 86%; 6 studies, 638 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may result in no difference in overall complication rates (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05; I2 = 42%; 5 studies, 537 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low regarding the effect of ERAS programmes on all-cause mortality within 30 days of discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.68; 1 study, 99 participants). ERAS programmes may reduce readmission rates within 30 days of operation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 385 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may reduce the time to first flatus (MD -0.82 days, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.63; I2 = 35%; 4 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the time to first defaecation (MD -0.96 days, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.44; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report the effects of ERAS programmes on quality of life. The evidence on the effects of ERAS programmes on participant satisfaction was very uncertain due to the limited number of studies. The adoption of ERAS strategies may not increase medical expenditure, though the evidence was of very low certainty (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.25; I2 = 54%; 2 studies, 167 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that ERAS programmes may shorten length of postoperative hospital stay, reduce readmissions, and facilitate postoperative bowel function recovery without compromising participant safety. Further well-conducted studies are required in order to validate the certainty of these findings.

Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in Gynecologic Oncology: A Review

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgical quality improvement program that started in colorectal surgery and has now expanded to numerous specialties, including gynecologic oncology. ERAS guidelines comprise multidisciplinary, evidence-based recommendations in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative period; these interventions broadly encompass patient education, anesthetic choice, multimodal pain control, avoidance of unnecessary drains, maintenance of nutrition, and prevention of emesis. Implementation of ERAS has been shown to be associated with improved clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, complications, readmissions) and cost. Marx and colleagues first demonstrated the feasibility of ERAS in gynecologic oncology in 2003; since then, over 30 comparative studies and 4 guidelines have been published encompassing major gynecologic surgery, cytoreductive surgery, and vulvar/vaginal surgery. Implementation of ERAS in gynecologic oncology has been demonstrated to provide improvements in length of stay, complications, cost, opioid use, and patient satisfaction. Increased compliance with ERAS guidelines has been associated with greater improvement in outcomes.

Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol compliance on patients' outcome in benign hysterectomy and establishment of a predictive nomogram model

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to improve clinical outcomes after surgery. Considering the importance of patient experience for patients with benign surgery, this study evaluated whether improved compliance with ERAS protocol modified for gynecological surgery which recommended by the ERAS Society is associated with better clinical outcomes and patient experience, and to determine the influence of compliance with each ERAS element on patients' outcome after benign hysterectomy.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was performed on the women who underwent hysterectomy between 2019 and 2020. A total of 475 women greater 18 years old were classified into three groups according to their per cent compliance with ERAS protocols: Group I: < 60% (148 cases); Group II:≥60 and < 80% (160 cases); Group III: ≥80% (167 cases). Primary outcome was the 30-day postoperative complications. Second outcomes included QoR-15 questionnaire scores, patient satisfaction on a scale from 1 to 7, and length of stay after operation. After multivariable binary logistic regression analyse, a nomogram model was established to predict the incidence of having a postoperative complication with individual ERAS element compliance.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 585 patients, and 475 completed the follow-up assessment. Patients with compliance over 80% had a significant reduction in postoperative complications (20.4% vs 41.2% vs 38.1%, P < 0.001) and length of stay after surgery (4 vs 5 vs 4, P < 0.001). Increased compliance was also associated with higher patient satisfaction and QoR-15 scores (P < 0.001),. Among the five dimensions of the QoR-15, physical comfort (P < 0.05), physical independence (P < 0.05), and pain dimension (P < 0.05) were better in the higher compliance groups. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) (P < 0.001), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis (P < 0.001), early mobilization (P = 0.031), early oral nutrition (P = 0.012), and early removal of urinary drainage (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with less complications. Having a postoperative complication was better predicted by the proposed nomogram model with high AUC value (0.906) and sensitivity (0.948) in the cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved compliance with the ERAS protocol was associated with improved recovery and better patient experience undergoing hysterectomy. MIS, PONV prophylaxis, early mobilization, early oral intake, and early removal of urinary drainage were of concern in reducing postoperative complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800019178 . Registered on 30/10/2018.

Effects of nursing care in fast-track surgery on postoperative pain, psychological state, and patient satisfaction with nursing for glioma

BACKGROUND

The brain is the most complex organ in the human body. Treatment for a glioma always involves a multi-disciplinary team. Nursing care in fast-track surgery or enhanced recovery after surgery is such kind of work implemented by an interdisciplinary team to provide services to patients to improve their outcomes.

AIM

To explore the effects of nursing care in fast-track surgery on postoperative pain, psychological state, and patient satisfaction with nursing for glioma.

METHODS

From June 2018 to June 2020, 138 patients who underwent operation for glioma at Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Chongqing University were selected. They were categorized into groups according to different nursing care that they received. Of them, 69 patients receiving nursing care in fast-track surgery were included in an experimental group, and 69 patients receiving conventional postoperative nursing were included in a control group. Visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative pain in the two groups immediately after the operation and at 3 d after the operation. Self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression scale (SDS) were used to evaluate the psychological status of patients immediately after operation and on the 3^rd postoperative day. A self-made satisfaction scale for patient satisfaction with nursing was used to evaluate and compare patient satisfaction with nursing between the two groups.

RESULTS

Time to excretion, time to out-of-bed activities, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in duration of operative time or intraoperative bleeding between the two groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative pain score between the two groups (P > 0.05). The pain score was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group at 3 d after the operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative SAS or SDS score between the two groups (P > 0.05). SAS and SDS scores were significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group at 3 d after operation (P < 0.05). The rate of patient satisfaction with nursing was 94.2% in the observation group, which was significantly higher than that (81.2%) of the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Nursing care in fast-track surgery can relieve postoperative pain, anxiety, and depression, and improve patient satisfaction with nursing in patients with glioma, which is worthy of clinical application.

Outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecologic oncology - A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefit of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) on length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and cost in gynecologic oncology.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for all peer-reviewed cohort studies and controlled trials on ERAS involving gynecologic oncology patients. Abstracts, commentaries, non-controlled studies, and studies without specific data on gynecologic oncology patients were excluded. Meta-analysis was performed on the primary endpoint of LOS. Subgroup analyses were performed based on risk of bias of the studies included, number of ERAS elements, and ERAS compliance. Secondary endpoints were readmission rate, complications, and cost.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies (6703 patients) were included: 5 randomized controlled trials, and 26 cohort studies. Meta-analysis of 27 studies (6345 patients) demonstrated a decrease in LOS of 1.6 days (95% confidence interval, CI 1.2-2.1) with ERAS implementation. Meta-analysis of 21 studies (4974 patients) demonstrated a 32% reduction in complications (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.83) and a 20% reduction in readmission (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99) for ERAS patients. There was no difference in 30-day postoperative mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.6) for ERAS patients compared to controls. No difference in the odds of complications or reduction in LOS was observed based on number of included ERAS elements or reported compliance with ERAS interventions. The mean cost savings for ERAS patients was $2129 USD (95% CI $712 - $3544).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols decrease LOS, complications, and cost without increasing rates of readmission or mortality in gynecologic oncology surgery. This evidence supports implementation of ERAS as standard of care in gynecologic oncology.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in gynecology oncology

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a pathway designed to achieve early recovery for patients undergoing major surgery. The ERAS pathway included three important components preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative program. Pre-habilitation and re-habilitation are of paramount importance to improve patients' care. The ERAS is based on evidence-based medicine. Accumulating evidence highlighted that adopting ERAS resulted in lower complication rate, and shorter length of hospital stay in comparison to standard protocols of care. The adoption of the ERAS resulted in a significant improvement of patients' outcomes and a reduction of the overall cost of care. In the present review, we summarized current evidence on ERAS, focusing on the steps useful for its adoption into clinical practice.

Thirty-day outcomes after gynecologic oncology surgery: A single-center experience of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program implemented in a Gynecologic Oncology population undergoing a laparotomy at a Canadian tertiary care center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospectively collected data, using the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program dataset (ACS NSQIP), was used to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes of gynecologic oncology patients undergoing a laparotomy before and after the 2018 implementation of an ERAS program in a Canadian regional cancer center. Patient demographics, surgical variables and postoperative outcomes of 187 patients undergoing surgery in 2019 were compared with those of 441 patients undergoing surgery between January 2016 and December 2017. Student's t, Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square tests, as well as multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to evaluate baseline characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Length of stay was significantly shortened in the study population after introducing the ERAS protocol, from a mean of 4.7 (SD = 3.8) days to a mean of 3.8 (SD = 3.2) days (P = .0001). The overall complication rate decreased from 24.3% to 16% (P = .02). Significant decreases in the rates of postoperative infections (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.99) and cardiovascular complications (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.79) were noted, without a significant increase in readmission rate (adjusted OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing an ERAS program for gynecologic oncology patients undergoing laparotomy was effective in shortening length of stay and the overall complication rate without a significant increase in readmission. Advocacy for broader implementation of ERAS among gynecologic oncology services and ongoing discussion on challenges and opportunities in the implementation process are warranted to improve patient outcomes and experiences.

Niraparib maintenance in frontline management of ovarian cancer: a cost effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVES

Niraparib maintenance after frontline chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer extends progression free survival. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of niraparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis models compared the cost of observation versus niraparib maintenance following chemotherapy for five groups: all newly diagnosed ovarian cancer patients (overall), those with homologous recombination deficiency, those harboring BRCA mutations (BRCA), homologous recombination deficiency patients without BRCA mutations (homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA), and non-homologous recombination deficiency patients. Drug costs were estimated using average wholesale prices. Progression free survival was estimated from published data and used to estimate projected overall survival. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios per quality adjusted life year were calculated. Sensitivity analyses varying the cost of niraparib were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at US$100 000 per quality adjusted life year saved.

RESULTS

For the overall group, the cost of observation was US$5.8 billion versus $20.5 billion for niraparib maintenance, with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of $72 829. For the homologous recombination deficiency group, the observation cost was $3.0 billion versus $14.8 billion for niraparib maintenance (incremental cost effectiveness ratio $56 329). Incremental cost effectiveness ratios for the BRCA, homologous recombination deficiency non-BRCA, and non-homologous recombination deficiency groups were $58 348, $50 914, and $88 741, respectively. For the overall and homologous recombination deficiency groups, niraparib remained cost effective if projected overall survival was 2.2 and 1.5 times progression free survival, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, maintenance therapy with niraparib was cost effective. Cost effectiveness was improved when analyzing those patients with homologous recombination deficiency and BRCA mutations. Efforts should continue to optimize poly-ADP-ribose polymerase utilization strategies.

Dual antibiotic prevention bundle is associated with decreased surgical site infections

BACKGROUND

Gynecologic oncology surgery is associated with a wide variation in surgical site infection risk. The optimal method for infection prevention in this heterogeneous population remains uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study was performed to compare surgical site infection rates for patients undergoing hysterectomy over a 1-year period surrounding the implementation of an institutional infection prevention bundle. The bundle comprised pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative interventions including a dual-agent antibiotic surgical prophylaxis with cefazolin and metronidazole. Cohorts consisted of patients undergoing surgery during the 6 months prior to this intervention (pre-bundle) versus those undergoing surgery during the 6 months following the intervention (post-bundle). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, readmission rates, compliance measures, and infection microbiology. Data were compared with pre-specified one-sided exact test, Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, or Kruskal-Wallis test as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 358 patients were included (178 PRE, 180 POST). Median age was 58 (range 23-90) years. The post-bundle cohort had a 58% reduction in surgical site infection rate, 3.3% POST vs 7.9% PRE (-4.5%, 95% CI -9.3% to -0.2%, p=0.049) as well as reductions in organ space infection, 0.6% POST vs 4.5% PRE (-3.9%, 95% CI -7.2% to -0.7%, p=0.019), and readmission rates, 2.2% POST vs 6.7% PRE (-4.5%, 95% CI -8.7% to -0.2%, p=0.04). Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria were all prevalent in surgical site infection cultures. There were no monomicrobial infections in post-cohort cultures (0% POST vs 58% PRE, p=0.04). No infections contained methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a dual antibiotic infection prevention bundle was associated with a 58% reduction in surgical site infection rate after hysterectomy in a surgically diverse gynecologic oncology practice.

Critical analysis of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patient's undergoing urologic oncology surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented across a variety of disciplines to improve outcomes. Herein we describe the impact of ERAS on quality of life (QOL) and cost for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Clinictrials.gov, and Cochrane Review databases for studies published between 1946 and 2020 was conducted. Articles were reviewed and assigned a risk of bias by two authors and were included if they addressed ERAS and either QOL or cost-effectiveness for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded a total of 682 studies after removing duplicates, of which 10 (1.5%) were included in the review. Nine articles addressed radical cystectomy, while one addressed ERAS and QOL for laparoscopic nephrectomy. Six publications assessed the impact of ERAS on QOL domains. Questionnaires used for assessment of QOL varied across studies, and timing of administration was heterogeneous. Overall, ERAS improved patient QOL during early phases of recovery within the realms of bowel function, physical/social/cognitive functioning, sleep and pain control. Costs were assessed in 4 retrospective studies including 3 conducted in the United States and one from China all addressing radical cystectomy. Studies demonstrated either decreased costs associated with ERAS as a result of decreased length of stay or no change in cost based on ERAS implementation.

CONCLUSION

While limited studies are published on the subject, ERAS implementation for radical cystectomy and laparoscopic nephrectomy improved patient-reported QOL during early phases of recovery. For radical cystectomy, there was a decreased or neutral overall financial cost associated with ERAS. Further studies assessing QOL and cost-effectiveness over the entire global period of care in a variety of urologic oncology surgeries are warranted.

Enhanced recovery after spine surgery-a multinational survey assessing surgeons' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is the object of numerous publications in various surgical fields. Still, its value in spine surgery is not as recognized as it is in other surgical domains. Our aim was to report neurosurgeons' opinions about ERAS in spine surgery.

METHODS

From December 2019 to January 2020, members of the European Association of Neurosurgical Societies were asked to complete an online questionnaire regarding ERAS in spine surgery.

RESULTS

N = 234 participants responded to the survey (60% spine neurosurgeons; 22.6% working in private practice). Thirty-two percent reported to have more than 20 years of experience, followed by surgeons having between 5 and 10 (27.4%), 10-15 (17.9%), 15-20 (12%), and 0-5 years (10.7%). Gender distribution (12% vs 27% female gender, p = 0.04), private practice activity (28% vs 14%, p = 0.01), familiarity with the ERAS concept (57.4% vs 27%, p < 0.0001), and its implementation in the daily clinical practice (47.5% vs 18.3%, p < 0.0001) were statistically different between spine and general neurosurgeons. 54.7% of the surgeons were unfamiliar with ERAS in spine surgery. 63.7% considered ERAS as a progress; 36% declared to implement ERAS in their daily clinical practice. 1.7% reported ERAS as a decrease in the quality of management. 6.8% considered ERAS as not having an impact on patient care; 27.8% had no opinion. There were no differences in opinion on ERAS and its implementation between surgeons working in private and public hospitals. 69.5% of the spine surgeons considered ERAS having a positive impact on patient management, versus 55% of non-spine surgeons (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts are necessary to promote minimal invasive pre-, intra-, and postoperative workflow to improve patient management and reduce complications or side effects particularly adapted to spinal surgery. Specificities of spine patients, in terms of chronic pain, pre- and postoperative pain management, and psychological issues have to be considered.