Reduction of Postoperative Opioid Use After Elective Spine and Peripheral Nerve Surgery Using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program

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.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery on Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an elective spine surgery population.

BACKGROUND

Surgical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and opioid utilization greatly contribute to patient satisfaction and societal healthcare costs. ERAS protocols are multimodal, patient-centered care pathways shown to reduce postoperative opioid use, reduced LOS, and improved ambulation; however, prospective ERAS data are limited in spine surgery.

METHODS

This single-center, institutional review board-approved, prospective RCT-enrolled adult patients undergoing elective spine surgery between March 2019 and October 2020. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-month postoperative opioid use. Patients were randomized to ERAS (n=142) or standard-of-care (SOC; n=142) based on power analyses to detect a difference in postoperative opioid use.

RESULTS

Opioid use during hospitalization and the first postoperative month was not significantly different between groups (ERAS 112.2 vs SOC 117.6 morphine milligram equivalent, P =0.76; ERAS 38.7% vs SOC 39.4%, P =1.00, respectively). However, patients randomized to ERAS were less likely to use opioids at 6 months postoperatively (ERAS 11.4% vs SOC 20.6%, P =0.046) and more likely to be discharged to home after surgery (ERAS 91.5% vs SOC 81.0%, P =0.015).

CONCLUSION

Here, we present a novel ERAS prospective RCT in the elective spine surgery population. Although we do not detect a difference in the primary outcome of short-term opioid use, we observe significantly reduced opioid use at 6-month follow-up as well as an increased likelihood of home disposition after surgery in the ERAS group.

A standardized anesthetic/analgetic regimen compared to standard anesthetic/analgetic regimen for patients with high-risk factors undergoing open lumbar spine surgery: a prospective comparative single-center study

The objective of the study is to improve the results of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery who are at high risk for anesthesia and/or surgical complications. Two independent groups were compared: the study group (SG, n = 40) (standardized neuroanesthetic protocol with multimodal analgesia) and the control group (CG, n = 40) (intravenous anesthesia based on propofol and fentanyl). The data were collected using prospective observation of early and long-term results of lumbar fusion. After 24 months, the level of functional state and quality of life were studied. Patients in the SG did not have statistically significant changes in intraoperative hemodynamics; the best indicators of cognitive functions were noted. The effectiveness of the SG compared with the CG was confirmed by a statistically significantly lower amount of perioperative opioid drugs required (p = 0.01) and a minimal level of incisional pain (p < 0.05). An intergroup comparison of the adverse effects of anesthesia revealed a significantly lower number in the SG (n = 4) compared to the CG (n = 16) (p = 0.004). The number of postoperative surgical complications was comparable (p = 0.72). Intergroup comparison showed improved ODI, SF-36, and the Macnab scale at 24 months after surgery in the SG compared to the CG (p < 0.05). Long-term clinical results correlated with the level of incisional pain in the first three postoperative days. Our standardized neuroanesthetic protocol ensured effective treatment of postoperative incisional pain, significantly decreased the perioperative use of opioids, reduced adverse anesthesia events, and improved long-term clinical results in patients with high risk factors for anesthetic complications who undergoing open lumbar spine surgery.

Association of inpatient opioid consumption on postoperative outcomes after open posterior spinal fusion for adult spine deformity

INTRODUCTION

Opioids are the most commonly used analgesic in the postoperative setting. However, few studies have analyzed the impact of high inpatient opioid use on outcomes following surgery, with no current studies assessing its effect on patients undergoing spinal fusion for an adult spinal deformity (ASD). Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for high inpatient opioid use, as well as to determine the impact of high opioid use on outcomes such as adverse events (AEs), hospital length of stay (LOS), cost of hospital admission, discharge disposition, and readmission rates in patients undergoing spinal fusion for ASD.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Premier healthcare database from the years 2016 and 2017. All adult patients > 40 years old who underwent thoracic or thoracolumbar fusion for ASD were identified using the ICD-10-CM diagnostic and procedural coding system. Patients were then categorized into three cohorts based on inpatient opioid use: Low MME (morphine milligram equivalents), Medium MME, and High MME. Patient demographics, comorbidities, treating hospital characteristics, intraoperative variables, postoperative AEs, LOS, discharge disposition, and total cost of hospital admission were assessed in the analysis. Multivariate regression analysis was done to determine independent predictors of high inpatient MME, prolonged LOS, and increased hospital cost.

RESULTS

Of 1673 patients included, 417 (24.9%) were classified as Low MME, 840 (50.2%) as Medium MME, and 416 (24.9%) as High MME. Age significantly decreased with increasing MME (Low: 71.0% 65 + years vs Medium: 62.0% 65 + years vs High: 47.4% 65 + years, p < 0.001), while the proportions of patients presenting with three or more comorbidities were similar across the cohorts (Low: 20.1% with 3 + comorbidities vs Medium: 18.0% with 3 + comorbidities vs High: 24.3% with 3 + comorbidities, p = 0.070). With respect to postoperative outcomes, the proportion of patients who experienced any AE (Low: 60.2% vs Medium: 68.8% vs High: 70.9%, p = 0.002), extended LOS (Low: 6.7% vs Medium: 20.7% vs High: 45.4%, p < 0.001), or non-routine discharge (Low: 66.6% vs Medium: 73.5% vs High: 80.1%, p = 0.003) each increased along with total MME. In addition, rates of 30-day readmission were greatest among the High MME cohort (Low: 8.4% vs Medium: 7.9% vs High: 12.5%, p = 0.022). On multivariate analysis, medium and high MME were associated with prolonged LOS [Medium: OR 4.41, CI (2.90, 6.97); High: OR 13.99, CI (8.99, 22.51), p < 0.001] and increased hospital cost [Medium: OR 1.69, CI (1.21, 2.39), p = 0.002; High: OR 1.66, CI (1.12, 2.46), p = 0.011]. Preadmission long-term opioid use [OR 1.71, CI (1.07, 2.7), p = 0.022], a prior opioid-related disorder [OR 11.32, CI (5.92, 23.49), p < 0.001], and chronic pulmonary disease [OR 1.39, CI (1.06, 1.82), p = 0.018] were each associated with a high inpatient MME on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that increasing inpatient MME consumption was associated with extended LOS and increased hospital cost in patients undergoing spinal fusion for ASD. Further studies identifying risk factors for increased MME consumption may provide better risk stratification for postoperative opioid use and healthcare resource utilization.

Impact of Affective Disorders on Inpatient Opioid Consumption and Hospital Outcomes Following Open Posterior Spinal Fusion for Adult Spine Deformity

OBJECTIVE

Affective disorders (ADs) are common and have a profound impact on surgical recovery, though few have studied the impact of ADs on inpatient narcotic consumption. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ADs on inpatient narcotic consumption and healthcare resource utilization in patients undergoing spinal fusion for adult spinal deformity.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the 2016-2017 Premier Healthcare Database. Adults who underwent adult spinal deformity surgery were identified using International Classification of Disease, Tenth Revision, codes. Patients were grouped based on comorbid diagnosis of an AD. Demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative variables, complications, length of stay, admission costs, and nonroutine discharge rates were assessed. Increased inpatient opioid use was categorized by morphine milligram equivalents consumption greater than the 75th percentile. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify predictors of increased healthcare recourse utilization.

RESULTS

Of the 1831 study patients, 674 (36.8%) had an AD. A smaller proportion of patients in the AD cohort were 65+ years of age (P = 0.001), while a greater proportion of patients in the AD cohort identified as non-Hispanic White (P < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients in the AD cohort had increased morphine milligram equivalents consumption (P < 0.001). The AD cohort also had a longer mean length of stay (P < 0.001). A greater proportion of patients in the AD cohort had nonroutine discharges (P = 0.039) and unplanned 30-day readmission (P = 0.041). On multivariate analysis, AD was significantly associated with increased cost (odds ratio: 1.61, P < 0.001) and nonroutine discharge (odds ratio: 1.36, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

ADs may be associated with increased inpatient opioid consumption and healthcare resource utilization.

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.

Post-operative neurosurgery outcomes by race/ethnicity among enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) participants

OBJECTIVE

Prior work reveals that Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs decrease opioid use, improve mobilization, and shorten length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing spine surgery. The impact of ERAS on outcomes by race/ethnicity is unknown. This study examined outcomes by race/ethnicity among neurosurgical patients enrolled in an ERAS program.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgeries at a multi-hospital university health system from April 2017 to November 2020 were enrolled in an ERAS program that involves preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases focused on improving outcomes through measures such as specialty consultations for co-morbidities, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and wound care education. The following outcomes for ERAS patients were compared by race/ethnicity: length of stay, discharge disposition, complications, readmission, pain level at discharge, and post-operative health rating. We estimated the association between race/ethnicity and the outcomes using linear and logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, insurance, BMI, comorbid conditions, and surgery type.

RESULTS

Among participants (n = 3449), 2874 (83.3%) were White and 575 (16.7%) were Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). BIPOC patients had significantly longer mean length of stay compared to White patients (3.8 vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.005) and were significantly more likely to be discharged to a rehab or subacute nursing facility compared to White patients (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 3.01 (2.26-4.01), p < 0.001). The complication rate did not significantly differ between BIPOC and White patients (13.7% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.29). BIPOC patients were not significantly more likely to be readmitted within 30 days compared to White patients in the adjusted model (adjusted odds ratio (95% CI): 1.30 (0.91-1.86), p = 0.15) CONCLUSION: BIPOC as compared to White ERAS participants in ERAS undergoing neurosurgical procedures had significantly longer hospital stays and were significantly less likely to be discharged home. ERAS protocols present an opportunity to provide consistent high quality post-operative care, however while there is evidence that it improves care in aggregate, our results suggest significant disparities in outcomes by patient race/ethnicity despite enrollment in ERAS. Future inquiry must identify contributors to these disparities in the recovery pathway.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in spine surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are a set of interventions which are carried out in the preoperative and perioperative period. They are aimed to decrease the harmful effects of surgery on the body and help the patient recover better post-surgery. The effectiveness of ERAS has been well established in various other surgical specialities. Earlier spine surgery was thought to be very complex for application of ERAS protocols. However, this has changed over the last decade with (ERAS) protocols gaining widespread popularity in spine surgery. Initial studies involving ERAS in spine surgery were limited to lumbar spine. However, over the years the horizon of ERAS has expanded to include anterior cervical surgeries, spine deformity, spinal tumors and spine surgery in the elderly. ERAS has been shown to reduce the length of hospital stay, overall hospital costs, opioid consumption in perioperative and postoperative period and to lower complication rates in spine surgery. In this narrative review, we discuss various aspects of ERAS in spine surgery including the benefits of ERAS in spine surgery, the various components of preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative measures of ERAS protocol.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Fusion Surgery Reduces Length of Hospital Stay and Inpatient Narcotic Use

Background

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has the potential to improve outcomes, hasten patient recovery, and reduce costs. ERAS has been applied to spine surgery for several years, but data are limited around the impact of ERAS on minimally invasive spine surgery, specifically. The authors report their experience implementing a multimodal ERAS protocol for patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

The ERAS protocol was implemented at The Valley Hospital Hospital in Ridgewood, New Jersey in January 2020. Following implementation, all patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by a single surgeon were studied. The authors analyze the impact of the protocol on length of stay (LOS), disposition post discharge, and opioid consumption postoperatively in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Results

Sixteen patients were enrolled in the protocol and compared with 17 historical controls. LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS cohort (1.6 vs. 2.4 days, P = 0.022). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to disposition; the majority of patients were discharged to home without need for in-home medical services. Patients in the ERAS cohort consumed significantly fewer opioid analgesics postoperatively in the inpatient setting (51 mg morphine milligram equivalents vs. 320 mg morphine milligram equivalents, P = 0.00016). On average, patients in the ERAS cohort were prescribed fewer opioids analgesics post discharge.

Conclusions

ERAS application to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was safe and effective, significantly reducing LOS and inpatient opioid consumption. These data reflect the importance of uniformly applying a multimodal ERAS protocol to accelerate recovery and reduce narcotic use.

Postoperative Pain Management in Enhanced Recovery Pathways

Postoperative pain is a common but often inadequately treated condition. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) are increasingly being utilized to standardize perioperative care and improve outcomes. ERPs employ multimodal postoperative pain management strategies that minimize opioid use and promote recovery. While traditional opioid medications continue to play an important role in the treatment of postoperative pain, ERPs also rely on a wide range of non-opioid pharmacologic therapies as well as regional anesthesia techniques to manage pain in the postoperative setting. The evidence for the use of these interventions continues to evolve rapidly given the increasing focus on enhanced postoperative recovery. This article reviews the current evidence and knowledge gaps pertaining to commonly utilized modalities for postoperative pain management in ERPs.

How Much Benefit Can Patients Acquire from Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols with Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Purpose

We aimed to explore the role of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients who underwent percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF).

Patients and Methods

We performed a retrospective, observational, cohort study on 91 patients who underwent PELIF for degenerative disc disease. The primary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospital cost.

Results

Forty-six patients comprised the ERAS group, and 45 patients comprised the pre-ERAS group (control group). The groups had comparable demographic characteristics. Good compliance with the ERAS pathway was observed in the ERAS group. Patients in the ERAS group used significantly fewer morphine equivalents compared with the pre-ERAS group (25.0 vs 33.3, respectively; p = 0.017). Hospital LOS did not decrease significantly in the ERAS group compared with the pre-ERAS group (3.1days vs 3.4 days, respectively; p = 0.096). Likewise, there was no significant difference in hospital cost between the pre-ERAS group and the ERAS group ($10,598.60 vs $10,384.50, respectively; p = 0.468).

Conclusion

In the present study, the benefit of ERAS in the context of PELIF was limited. Although a multidisciplinary ERAS protocol can improve analgesia and decrease opioid consumption, no significant reduction in hospital LOS and cost was observed.

The impact of adherence to a guideline for minimizing opioid use for treatment of pain in an urban emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The opioid epidemic has significantly evolved over the last three decades. The initiation and continuation of prescription opioids for pain control were one of the primary contributors, across different medical settings. The emergency department (ED) is typically the first place patients go to for management of acute pain, and often where opioid naïve patients first become exposed to opioids. In 2018, the ED of University Hospital located in Newark, NJ implemented a pain guideline to ensure that patients are not unnecessarily exposed to opioids. The goal of our study was to determine whether provider adherence was successful in reducing opioid administration.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of pharmacy records of patients treated for pain in the ED within the time frame January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. We analyzed the change in our practice by comparing the amount of opioid and non-opioid medications administered and the number of patients administered each type, as well as the change in our utilization of specific medications. The t-test or the χ² test were used as applicable.

RESULTS

There were decreases in the mean number of opioid doses administered in 2017 (1273) compared to 2019 (498; p = 0.027). There was an increase in non-opioid analgesics administered, (mean 2017: 1817, mean 2019: 2432.5, p = 0.018). There was also an increase in the proportion of patients given non-opioid analgesics (mean 2017: 22%, mean 2019: 28%, p < 0.0001). There were increases in administrations of acetaminophen (40% to 52%) and ibuprofen (30% to 35.1%), and decreases in administrations of hydromorphone (2.5% to 0.03%), morphine (11.5% to 5.6%), oxycodone (10.6% to 5.3%), and tramadol (5.7% to 1.9%) (all p < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

A guideline that emphasizes the use of non-opioid analgesics first line treatment for acute pain can be effective for reducing opioid administration in the ED. Through the use of our guideline, we reduced the number of patients who have received opioid analgesics and, at the same time, increased non-opioid analgesic administration. Future studies should explore readmission rates, duration of pain relief in patients managed with non-opioid versus opioid analgesics, and perception of relief through the use of satisfaction scores.