Opioid-free anesthesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective matched cohort study

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.

Pushing the Limits of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-From Preoperative to Intraoperative to Postoperative Management

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery ushered in a new era of spine surgery by minimizing the undue iatrogenic injury, recovery time, and blood loss, among other complications, of traditional open procedures. Over time, technological advancements have further refined the care of the operative minimally invasive spine patient. Moreover, pre-, and postoperative care have also undergone significant change by way of artificial intelligence risk stratification, advanced imaging for surgical planning and patient selection, postoperative recovery pathways, and digital health solutions. Despite these advancements, challenges persist necessitating ongoing research and collaboration to further optimize patient care in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in sacral tumour surgery and comprehensive description of a multidisciplinary program: a prospective study in a specialized hospital in China

PURPOSE

There were fewer data to guide the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) theory into sacral tumour surgery. In the present study, we were aiming to describe a multidisciplinary program of ERAS and evaluate the availability in sacral tumour surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients with sacral tumour between March 2021 and September 2021 at a single centre. We proposed a multidisciplinary program of ERAS for pre-admission, preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and post-discharge clinical care which positively influenced outcomes of patients with sacral tumour. All patients were prospectively assigned into two groups, ERAS group in which patients received ERAS protocols (n = 63), No-ERAS group in which patients had conventional clinical pathways (n = 62). Patient data were collected which included demographics, preoperative preparation, detailed information of surgical procedure, 60-day reoperation rate, 60-day readmission, postoperative length of stay (PLOS), time to first ambulation and flatus after surgery, time to removal of last drainage tube, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score at first ambulation and discharge. Complications referred to ones that occurred within 60 days after surgery. The above parameters were compared between ERAS group and No-ERAS group.

RESULTS

Time to first ambulation after surgery in ERAS group (mean 20.9 h) was significantly shorter than that in No-ERAS group (mean 104.3 ho). Meanwhile, time to first flatus after surgery in ERAS group (mean 26.7 h) was also significantly shorter than that in No-ERAS group (mean 37.3 h). Patients in ERAS group had statistically shorter PLOS (10.7 days) as compared to that in No-ERAS group (13.8 days). In ERAS group, 19 of 63 patients (30.2%) were discharged within seven days after surgery as compared to seven of 62 patients (11.3%) in No-ERAS group. VAS score at first ambulation in ERAS group was not obviously higher than that in No-ERAS group though the time of first ambulation in ERAS group was statistically earlier than one in No-ERAS group. Furthermore, VAS score at discharge in ERAS group was significantly lower than that in No-ERAS group. The rate of postoperative incision necrosis was 6.3% (4/63) in ERAS group and 8.1% (5/62) in No-ERAS group and all of these nine patients underwent reoperation before discharge. The difference was not statistically significant in the wound complication of incision necrosis and 60-day reoperation rate. Only one readmission occurred in No-ERAS group due to the surgical site infection and also there was no significant difference of 60-day readmission rate between these two groups. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference of complications of femoral artery thrombosis and rectal rupture between ERAS group and No-ERAS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed ERAS pathway for sacral tumour surgery and early walking facilitate safe and prompt discharge. ERAS protocols of sacral tumour surgery could decrease PLOS without significantly increasing postoperative complications, 60-day readmission rate and 60-day reoperation rate. The application of ERAS pathway in the field of sacral tumour surgery should have personalized feature with regard to resection type.

Association Between Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function With Postoperative Pain, Narcotics Consumption, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Lumbar Microdiscectomy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine association between preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) scores with postoperative pain, narcotics consumption, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following single-level lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent single-level lumbar microdiscectomy were identified from May 2017-May 2020. Patients were grouped by their preoperative PROMIS-PF scores: mild disability (score≥40), moderate disability (score 30-39.9), and severe disability (score<30). Preoperative PROMIS-PF subgroups were tested for association with inpatient postoperative pain, total inpatient narcotics consumption, time to narcotic use cessation as well as improvements in postoperative PROMIS-PF, ODI, VAS-Leg Pain, VAS-Back Pain, SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) at 2-, 6-, 12-weeks, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were included. Patients with greater disability reported higher inpatient maximum Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (P = .023) and total inpatient narcotics consumption (P = .008) but no difference in time to narcotic cessation after surgery (P = .373). However, patients with greater preoperative disability also demonstrated greater improvement from baseline in PROMIS-PF, ODI, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS at 2-week follow-up (P < .05). These higher improvements from baseline for patients with greater preoperative disability were sustained for PROMIS-PF, ODI, and VAS-Leg Pain at 2-year follow-up (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with greater preoperative disability, as measured by PROMIS-PF, had increased inpatient postoperative pain and narcotics consumption, but also higher improvement from baseline in long-term PROMs. This data can be utilized for patient counseling and setting expectations.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Spine Pathways and the Role of Perioperative Checklists

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. ERAS pathways have been shown to help reduce complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, pain scores, and ultimately surgical costs, while improving patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in multiple surgical subspecialties [1-6]. Numerous specialties have implemented ERAS programs across the globe, providing a foundation for spine surgeons to begin the process themselves. Over the last few years, a significant number of papers have been addressing ERAS pathways for spinal surgery [7-19]. The majority have addressed the lumbar spine [9, 20-26]. The number of cervical ERAS pathways has been limited [27-29]. Many spine programs have begun the implementation of ERAS pathways, incorporating principles and interventions to various spine surgical procedures. Although differences in implementation across programs exist, there are a few common elements that promote a successful enhanced recovery approach [11, 16, 23, 25, 30-33]. All spinal ERAS pathways have three major elements, which are preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. Within these phases some common elements include preoperative and intraoperative surgical checklists. Intraoperative checklist in addition to the "surgical time out" has been integrated into the workflow of most hospitals doing surgeries and have become a standard of care. The surgical checklist is designed to help reduce surgical errors and prevent wrong site/patient surgeries. Several surgical checklists have been developed throughout the years. Despite these safety protocols wrong site/level and other surgical errors continue to occur. Many cases of wrong level spine surgery (WLSS) still occur even when intraoperative imaging is performed [34, 35]. One survey reported that about 50% of spine surgeons have performed at least one WLSS during their career [36, 37]. Another survey reported that 36% of spine surgeons had performed at least one WLSS that was not recognized intraoperatively [38]. On a similar account, about 30% of spine surgery fellows have experienced wrong-site surgery [39]. From raw incidence rates, WLSS may seem rare, but these surveys show that the experience of WLSS is rather common among spine surgeons. WLSS is not yet a "never event." This may be due to poor quality of the intraoperative images, hindering subsequent level identification [34, 35, 38, 40]. Errors in interpretation of the imaging may also occur, including inconsistency in numbering vertebrae, inconsistency in landmark usage for level counting, and problems with numbering vertebrae due to lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) and other anatomical variants [34, 38, 41-43]. This chapter will describe a framework for the development and implementation of ERAS pathway for patients undergoing spine surgery. In addition, we will propose preoperative imaging guidelines and a comprehensive spine surgical checklist to incorporate into the perioperative phase to help reduce further surgical errors and WLSS.

Monitored Anesthesia Care in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery-A Retrospective Case Series Study

Background and Objectives: Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) has emerged as a treatment modality for spinal radiculopathy. It is essential to secure the airway and guarantee spontaneous respiration without endotracheal intubation during MISS in a prone position. Materials and Methods: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of MAC with dexmedetomidine during MISS, we retrospectively reviewed clinical cases. A retrospective review of medical records was conducted between September 2015 and June 2016. A total of 17 patients undergoing MISS were included. Vital signs were analyzed every 15 min. The depth of sedation was assessed using the bispectral index (BIS) and the frequency of rescue sedatives. Adverse events during anesthesia, including bradycardia, hypotension, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea, and vomiting, were evaluated. Results: All cases were completed without the occurrence of airway-related complications. None of the patients needed conversion to general anesthesia. The median maintenance dosage of dexmedetomidine for adequate sedation was 0.40 (IQR 0.40-0.60) mcg/kg/hr with a median loading dose of 0.70 (IQR 0.67-0.82) mcg/kg. The mean BIS during the main procedure was 76.46 ± 10.75. Rescue sedatives were administered in four cases (23.6%) with a mean of 1.5 mg intravenous midazolam. After dexmedetomidine administration, hypotension and bradycardia developed in six (35.3%) and three (17.6%) of the seventeen patients, respectively. Conclusions: MAC using dexmedetomidine is a feasible anesthetic method for MISS in a prone position. Hypotension and bradycardia should be monitored carefully during dexmedetomidine administration.

Multimodal Analgesia and Opioid-Free Anesthesia in Spinal Surgery: A Literature Review

PURPOSES

To determine if opioid-free anesthesia, opioid-sparing anesthesia, or multimodal analgesia improved outcomes in patients undergoing spinal fusion.

DESIGN

A literature review was performed by searching PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library.

METHODS

MeSH terms included "opioid free" AND "spine surgery," with alternative terms used including: regional anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, opioid-free anesthesia, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), spinal surgery, spinal fusion, ACDF, cervical fusion, lumbar fusion, etc. Seven studies were deemed appropriate for inclusion with a combined sample size of n = 2,102.

FINDINGS

All of the seven included articles evaluated total opioid administration and found a reduction in total opioid administered in the research groups versus control groups. Six of the seven included articles evaluated postoperative pain scores with mixed results. Various additional benefits of opioid-free, opioid-sparing, or multimodal analgesia included: decreased hospital length of stay (LOS), decreased post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) LOS, decreased post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and decreased post-operative opioid use through 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing spine surgery, opioid-free, opioid-sparing, and multimodal analgesia will be less likely to experience the adverse effects of opioid analgesics and ultimately lead to better patient outcomes and reduced hospital stays.

Exploring elderly patients' experiences and concerns about early mobilization implemented in postoperative care following lumbar spinal surgery: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Given its apparent benefits, early mobilization is becoming increasingly important in spinal surgery. However, the time point at which patients first get out of bed for mobilization after spinal surgery varies widely. Beginning in January 2022, we conducted a study of early mobilization (mobilization within 4 h postoperatively) following multi-segment lumbar decompression and fusion surgery in elderly patients. The study goal was to better understand elderly patients' perceptions of early mobilization and ultimately contribute to the improvement of elderly patients' perioperative experiences and quality of life.

METHODS

We employed a qualitative descriptive study design involving face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Forty-five consecutive patients were invited, among whom 24 were enrolled and completed the qualitative investigation from February to June 2022. Of these 24 patients, 10 underwent early mobilization (mobilization within 4 h postoperatively) and 14 underwent mobilization at ≥ 24 h postoperatively. Three researchers conducted a 15-question interview the day before each patient's discharge. The interviews were audio-recorded, and content analysis was used to assess the data.

RESULTS

Six themes regarding the patients' experiences and concerns about early mobilization were identified: worries, benefits, daily routines, pain, education, and support. The study results revealed the obstacles in early mobilization practice and highlighted the importance of perioperative education on early mobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear and explicit guidance on early mobilization and a multidisciplinary mobilization protocol that incorporates a comprehensive pain management plan are essential for effective patient education. These measures may have positive effects on reducing patients' stress and anxiety regarding postoperative early mobilization.

Opioid Free Total Intravenous Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine-Esketamine-Lidocaine for Patients Undergoing Lumpectomy

Background

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of the opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) technique with dexmedetomidine, esketamine, and lidocaine among patients diagnosed with benign breast mass and scheduled for lumpectomy.

Methods

We enrolled 80 female patients who were aged from 18 to 60 years, graded with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, diagnosed with benign breast mass, and scheduled for lumpectomy. These patients were randomly treated with OFA or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine and sufentanil-remifentanil were administered in OFA and OBA group, respectively. We mainly compared the analgesic efficacy of OFA and OBA technique, as well as intraoperative hemodynamics, the quality of recovery, and satisfaction score of patients.

Results

There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 2, 12, and 24 h after extubation. However, the time to first rescue analgesic was prolonged in OFA group than that in OFB group (6.18 ± 1.00 min vs. 7.40 ± 0.92 min, P = 0.000). Further, mean arterial pressure and heart rate at T0 (entering operating room), T1 (before anesthesia induction), T2 (immediately after intubation), T3, T4, and T5 (1, 5, and 10 min after surgical incision, respectively) were significantly higher in OFA group than that in OBA group. Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was lower in OFA group. Consistently, fewer patients in OFA group consumed atropine (8% vs. 32%, P = 0.019) and ephedrine (5% vs. 38%, P = 0.001) compared to OBA group. Furthermore, patients in OFA group had a longer awakening time (7.14 ± 2.63 min vs. 4.54 ± 1.14 min, P = 0.000) and recovery time of orientation (11.76 ± 3.15 min vs. 6.92 ± 1.19 min, P = 0.000). Fewer patients in the OFA group experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (11% vs. 51%, P = 0.000) and consumed ondansetron (5% vs. 35%, P = 0.003) compared to OBA group. And patients in OFA group had a higher satisfaction score than those in OBA group (9 (8 - 9) vs. 7 (7 - 8), P = 0.000).

Conclusion

For patients undergoing lumpectomy, OFA technique with dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine showed a better postoperative analgesic efficacy, a more stable hemodynamics, and a lower incidence of PONV. However, such advantage of OFA technique should be weighed against a longer awakening time and recovery time of orientation in clinical practice.

A multidisciplinary opioid-reduction pathway for robotic prostatectomy: outcomes at year one

BACKGROUND

Opioid use has come under increasing scrutiny, driven in part by the opioid crisis and growing concerns that up to 6% of opioid-naïve patients may become chronic opioid users. This has resulted in a revaluation of perioperative practice. For this reason, we implemented a multidisciplinary pathway to reduce perioperative opioid usage through education and standardization of practice.

METHODS

A single-centre retrospective evaluation was performed after 1 year, comparing the outcomes to those of the 2 years prior to pathway implementation. Comparisons were made between pre- vs. post pathway change by 2:1 propensity matching between cohorts. Univariate linear regression models were created using demographic variables with those that were p < 0.15 included in the final model and using post-operative opioid use (in oral morphine equivalents, OME) as the primary outcome.

RESULTS

We found that intraoperative opioid use was significantly decreased 38.2 mg (28.3) vs. 18.0 mg (40.4) oral morphine equivalents (OME), p < .001, as was post-operative opioid use for the duration of the hospitalization, 46.3 mg (49.5) vs. 35.49 mg (43.7) OME, p = 0.002. In subgroup analysis of those that received some intraoperative opioids (n = 152) and those that received no opioids (n = 34), we found that both groups required fewer opioids in the post-operative period 47.0 mg (47.7) vs. 32.4 mg (40.6) OME, p = 0.001, + intraoperative opioids, 62.4 mg (62.9) vs. 35.8 mg (27.7) OME, p = 0.13, - intraoperative opioids. Time to discharge from the PACU was reduced in both groups 215 min (199) vs. 167 min (122), p < 0.003, + intraoperative opioids and 253 min (270) vs. 167 min (105), p = 0.028, - intraoperative opioids. The duration of time until meeting discharge criteria from PACU was 221 min (205) vs. 170 min (120), p = 0.001. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was significantly reduced 1.4 days (1.3) vs. 1.2 days (0.8), p = 0.005. Both sub-groups demonstrated reduced hospital LOS 1.5 days (1.4) vs. 1.2 days (0.8), p = 0.0047, + intraoperative opioids and 1.7 days (1.6) vs. 1.3 days (0.9), p = 0.0583, - intraoperative opioids. Average pain scores during PACU admission and post-PACU until discharge were not statistically different between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings underscore the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary approach to reduce opioids. Furthermore, it demonstrates improved patient outcomes as measured by both shorter PACU and almost 50% reduction in perioperative opioid use whilst maintaining similar analgesia as indicated by patient-reported pain scores.

Perioperative opioid-minimization approach as a useful protocol in the management of patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome-hypermobility type, craniocervical instability and severe chronic pain who are to undergo occipito-cervical fixation

Patients suffering from connective tissue disorders like Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type/joint hypermobility syndrome (EDS-HT/JHS) may be affected by craniocervical instability (CCI). These patients experience myalgic encephalomyelitis, chronic fatigue, depression, extreme occipital-cervical pain, and severe widespread pain that is difficult to relieve with opioids. This complex and painful condition can be explained by the development of chronic neuroinflammation, opioid-induced hyperalgesia, and central sensitization. Given the challenges in treating such severe physical pain, we evaluated all the analgesic methods previously used in the perioperative setting, and updated information was presented. It covers important physiopathological aspects for the perioperative care of patients with EDS-HT/JHS and CCI undergoing occipital-cervical/thoracic fixation/fusion. Moreover, a change of paradigm from the current opioid-based management of anesthesia/analgesia in these patients to the perioperative opioid minimization strategies used by the authors was analyzed and proposed as follow-up considerations from our previous case series. These strategies are based on total-intravenous opioid-free anesthesia, multimodal analgesia, and a postoperative combination of anti-hyperalgesic coadjuvants (lidocaine, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine) with an opioid-sparing effect.

Ambulatory Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review of Perioperative Protocols, Patient Selection Criteria, and Outcomes

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

The primary purpose was to propose patient selection criteria and perioperative best practices that can serve as a starting point for an ambulatory lumbar fusion program. The secondary purpose was to review patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ambulatory lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

As healthcare costs rise, there is an increasing emphasis on cost saving strategies (i.e. outpatient/ambulatory surgeries). Lumbar fusion procedures remain a largely inpatient surgery. Early studies have shown that fusion procedures can be safely preformed in an outpatient setting but no review has summarized these findings and best practices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. The following data were collected: (1) study design; (2) number of participants; (3) patient population; (4) procedure types; (5) procedure setting; (6) inclusion criteria; (7) protocols; (8) adverse events; (9) PROs; and (10) associations between patient/surgical factors, setting, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 20 publications. The following selection criteria for ambulatory lumbar fusion were identified: age below 70, minimal comorbidities, low/normal body mass index, no tobacco use, and no opioid use. The perioperative protocol can include a multimodal analgesic regimen. The patient should be observed for at least three hours after surgery. The patient should not be discharged without an alertness check and a neurological examination. Patients experienced significant improvements in PROs after ambulatory lumbar fusion; similarly, when compared to an inpatient group, ambulatory lumbar fusion patients experienced a comparable or superior improvement in PROs.

CONCLUSION

There are two critical issues surrounding ambulatory lumbar fusion: (1) Who is the ideal patient, and (2) What needs to be done to enable expedited discharge? We believe this review will provide a foundation to assist surgeons in making decisions regarding the performance of lumbar fusion on an ambulatory basis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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.

Esketamine-based opioid-free anaesthesia alleviates postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Although opioids are commonly prescribed in clinical anaesthesia, the significant side effects attributed to their overuse are raising increasing concerns. One way to reduce perioperative opioid consumption is to apply opioid-reduced anaesthesia (ORA) and even opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA), which involves regional techniques, neuraxial anaesthesia, nonopioid analgesics or combined use. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the application of OFA by using esketamine in intraoperative analgesia could minimize the side effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as other short-term side effects related to anaesthesia.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicentre trial. A total of 278 patients were enrolled; participants were nonsmoking female patients aged 18-50 years and scheduled for laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy, ASA at I-III, with no serious physical or mental diseases. Both groups received usual perioperative care except for the analgesic medication of either esketamine or sufentanil. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV 3 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included recovery status, pain, sedation level and overall recovery, delirium and cognition, anxiety and depression and total consumption of analgesic agents.

DISCUSSION

This trial may show that the synergy of esketamine and propofol anaesthesia reduces PONV as well as other short-term adverse events, thereby providing a better safety and satisfaction profile of ERAS for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100047169. Registered on June 9, 2021.

Opioid sparing effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine in orthopaedic surgery: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha-2 receptor agonist without any effect on the GABA receptor. It provides an excellent sedative and analgesic profile with few side effects. We report our experience with dexmedetomidine use during orthopaedic surgery under locoregional anaesthesia to ensure adequate sedation and optimal postoperative pain control.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we included 128 patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery between January 2019 and December 2021. All patients received the same local anaesthetic dose of 20 ml of ropivacaine 0.375% + mepivacaine 0.5% for axillary and supraclavicular block and 35 ml of ropivacaine 0.375% + mepivacaine 0.5% for triple nerve block (femoral, obturator and sciatic nerve). The cohort was divided into two groups based on sedation drugs used during surgery (dexmedetomidine, or group D, vs midazolam, or group M). All patients received postoperative 24-h analgesia consisting of 60 mg of ketorolac, 200 mg of tramadol and 4 mg of ondansetron. The primary outcome measured how many patients in the two groups required an analgesic rescue dose of pethidine and the time to first pethidine administration. To reduce confounding, we included patients in two groups with non-statistically different demo-anamnestic parameters and who received the same dose of intraoperative local anaesthetic and postoperative analgesia.

RESULTS

The number of patients in group D who did not require a rescue dose of analgesia was significantly greater than in group M (49 vs 11, p < 0.001). Time-to-first postoperative opioid administration did not show a fundamental difference between the two groups under examination (523.75 ± 131.55 min vs 564 ± 117.84 min). Total opioid consumption was higher in the M group than in the D group (3529.8 ± 30.36 μg vs 1864.8 ± 31.59 μg, p 0.075), with a mean opioid consumption significantly higher in the M group than in the D group (26.26 ± 42.8 μg vs 69.21 ± 46.1 μg, p < 0.001): D group received 62.06% less opioid than M group.

CONCLUSIONS

The continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine during orthopaedic surgery performed under locoregional anaesthesia has been shown to increase the analgesic effect of local anaesthetics and reduce the consumption of major opioids in the postoperative period. Dexmedetomidine offers a unique ability to supply sedation and analgesia without respiratory depression, having a wide safety margin and an excellent sedative capacity. It does not increase the rate of postoperative complications.

Is esketamine-based opioid-free anesthesia more superior for postoperative analgesia in obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing bariatric surgery? A study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) can certainly prevent nausea and vomiting after bariatric surgery (BS), but its postoperative analgesic effect is still controversial. Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a prominent feature of morbid obesity in BS and accounts for a very high proportion, which significantly increases the difficulty of patients' airway management. Those patients will be more representative and highlight the advantages of OFA. It is not clear whether esketamine can play a more prominent role in OFA for postoperative analgesia. Therefore, this study aims to explore the postoperative analgesic effect of esketamine-based OFA on BS patients with OSA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind study is planned to recruit 48 participants to undergo BS from May 2022 to April 2023. Patients will be randomly assigned to the OFA group and opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at different times postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include analgesic intake, the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), Leiden Surgical Rating Scale (L-SRS), postoperative agitation and chills, PACU stay time, EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D), length of hospital stay, intraoperative awareness, and hemodynamically unstable treatments.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study may explain the analgesic effect of esketamine-based OFA on patients undergoing BS combined with OSA, and provide evidence and insight for perioperative pain management.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study is initiated by the Ethics Committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University [YXLL-KY-2022(035)]. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conferences.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

[https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05386979], identifier [NCT05386979].

Standard opioid-containing versus opioid-sparing anesthesia on early postoperative recovery after video-assisted thoracic surgery: A propensity-weighted analysis

PURPOSE

Opioids have several adverse effects. At present, there are no large clinical studies on the effects of opioid-sparing anesthesia on early postoperative recovery after thoracoscopic surgery. This study was to investigate the effects of opioid-sparing anesthesia on early postoperative recovery after thoracoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Adult patients who underwent video-assisted thoracic surgery from 1 January 2019 to 28 February 2021 were enrolled by reviewing the electronic medical records. Participants were divided into opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA group) and opioid-containing anesthesia (STD group) based on intraoperative opioid usage. The propensity-score analysis was to compare the early postoperative recovery of two groups. The outcome measurements included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during an entire hospital stay, need for rescue antiemetic medication, postoperative-pain episodes within 48 h after surgery, need for rescue analgesia 48 h postoperatively, duration of postoperative hospital stay, length of PACU stay, postoperative fever, postoperative shivering, postoperative atrial fibrillation, postoperative pulmonary infection, postoperative hypoalbuminemia, postoperative hypoxemia, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative urine output.

RESULTS

A total of 1,975 patients were identified. No significant difference was observed in patient characteristics between the OSA and STD groups after adjusting for propensity score-based inverse probability treatment weighting. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the OSA group than in the STD group (14.7% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.041). The rescue antiemetic use rate was lower in the OSA group than in the STD group (7.5% vs.12.2%; p = 0.002). PACU duration was longer in the OSA group than in the STD group (70.8 ± 29.0 min vs. 67.3 ± 22.7 min; p = 0.016). The incidence of postoperative fever was higher in the STD group than that in the OSA group (11.0% vs.7.7%; p = 0.032). There were no differences between the groups in terms of other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that opioid-sparing anesthesia has a lower incidence of postoperative complications than opioid-based anesthetic techniques.

Knowing the Enemy Is Halfway towards Victory: A Scoping Review on Opioid-Induced Hyperalgesia

Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is a paradoxical effect of opioids that is not consensually recognized in clinical settings. We conducted a revision of clinical and preclinical studies and discuss them side by side to provide an updated and renewed view on OIH. We critically analyze data on the human manifestations of OIH in the context of chronic and post-operative pain. We also discuss how, in the context of cancer pain, though there are no direct evidence of OIH, several inherent conditions to the tumor and chemotherapy provide a substrate for the development of OIH. The review of the clinical data, namely in what concerns the strategies to counter OIH, emphasizes how much OIH rely mechanistically on the existence of µ-opioid receptor (MOR) signaling through opposite, inhibitory/antinociceptive and excitatory/pronociceptive, pathways. The rationale for the maladaptive excitatory signaling of opioids is provided by the emerging growing information on the functional role of alternative splicing and heteromerization of MOR. The crossroads between opioids and neuroinflammation also play a major role in OIH. The latest pre-clinical data in this field brings new insights to new and promising therapeutic targets to address OIH. In conclusion, although OIH remains insufficiently recognized in clinical practice, the appropriate diagnosis can turn it into a treatable pain disorder. Therefore, in times of scarce alternatives to opioids to treat pain, mainly unmanageable chronic pain, increased knowledge and recognition of OIH, likely represent the first steps towards safer and efficient use of opioids as analgesics.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine for Hemodynamic Stability and Enhanced Recovery in Facial Aesthetic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing facial rejuvenation surgery are at unique risk of perioperative complications from the anesthetic utilized during the procedure. The ideal anesthetic agent is one that is safe to use in the outpatient population, has analgesic, sedative, and anesthetic properties, yet does not cause respiratory depression or hemodynamic irregularities.

OBJECTIVES

A retrospective analysis of a large outpatient facelift cohort was performed to determine if dexmedetomidine, an α 2-adrenergic receptor agonist, meets the criteria of an ideal adjunct for propofol in a total intravenous anesthesia protocol.

METHODS

The charts of 791 patients who underwent rhytidectomy with total intravenous anesthesia were reviewed and data of patients' operative risk factors, perioperative management including medications administered, perioperative vital signs, and postoperative adverse events were recorded. Statistical univariate analyses were performed on the data.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction and maintenance of blood pressure from onset of anesthesia until discharge from the postanesthetic recovery unit. The utilization of opioids and anxiolytics was significantly less than previously reported for other anesthetic types. The postoperative nausea/vomiting rate was 0.8% (6 patients). There were no postoperative admissions for inpatient management. Forty-three (5.3%) patients required a conversion to general endotracheal anesthesia and statistically significant risk factors include increased BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists Class II or higher, preoperative hypertension, and multiple procedures performed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in a large cohort of outpatients undergoing facelift. Dexmedetomidine meets the requirements for an ideal adjunct anesthetic within a total intravenous anesthesia protocol.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Opioid-Sparing Techniques in Orthopedic Anesthesia-One Step to Opioid-Free Anesthesia?

Opioid-free anesthesia is a multimodal anesthesia aimed at avoiding the negative impact of intraoperative opioid on patient's postoperative outcomes. It is based on the physiology of pathways involved in intraoperative nociception. It has been shown to be feasible but the literature is still scarce on the clinically meaningful benefits as well as on the side effects and/or complications that might be associated with it. Moreover, most studies involved abdominal and/or bariatric surgery. Procedure-specific studies are lacking, especially in orthopedics.

Opioid-free total intravenous anesthesia for thyroid and parathyroid surgery: Protocol for a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

Background

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may improve postoperative outcomes by reducing opioid-related adverse effects. This study aims to evaluate the effects of OFA on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative pain, and 30-day outcomes after thyroid and parathyroid surgery.

Methods

This two-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial will include 400 adult patients scheduled for thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Patients will be randomly assigned, 1:1 and stratified by sex and site, to an OFA group (esketamine, lidocaine, and dexmedetomidine) or a control group (opioid-based anesthesia with sufentanil). All patients will receive propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia and PONV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and ondansetron. The primary outcome is the incidence of PONV (defined as experiencing any event of nausea, retching, or vomiting) during the first 48 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes include the severity of PONV, antiemetic rescue therapy, pain scores at rest and while coughing, need for rescue analgesia, perioperative adverse effects related to anesthetics or analgesics (hypotension, bradycardia, hypertension, tachycardia, desaturation, dizziness, headache, hallucination, and nightmare), time to extubation, length of post-anesthesia care unit stay, length of postoperative hospital stay, patient satisfaction, and a composite of 30-day major adverse events (myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, cerebrovascular accident, coma, acute renal failure, pulmonary embolism, sepsis, septic shock, deep neck space infection, reintubation, reoperation, blood transfusion, failure to wean off ventilator, and death). Analyses will be performed in the modified intention-to-treat population.

Discussion

We hypothesize that our OFA regimen reduces PONV after thyroid and parathyroid surgery. We will also investigate whether OFA leads to improvements in postoperative pain and major adverse events. Our results will offer evidence for optimizing anesthesia regimens in patients who undergo thyroid and parathyroid surgical procedures.

Clinical trial registration

http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR2200059656.

The Effect of Opioid-Free Anesthesia on the Quality of Recovery After Gynecological Laparoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an emerging technique that eliminates intraoperative use of opioids and is associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption and reduced adverse postoperative events. The present study investigated the effect of OFA on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.

Patients and Methods

Seventy-five adult patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopy were randomly assigned to the OFA group with dexmedetomidine and lidocaine or the remifentanil-based anesthesia (RA) group with remifentanil. Patients, surgeons, and medical staff members providing postoperative care and assessing outcomes were blinded to group allocation. The anesthesiologist performing general anesthesia could not be blinded due to the different drug administration protocols by groups. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery measured using the Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain score, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, and stress hormones levels.

Results

The patients in both groups had comparable baseline characteristics. The QoR-40 score on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in the OFA group than in the RA group (155.9 ± 21.2 in the RA group vs 166.9 ± 17.8 in the OFA group; mean difference: −11.0, 95% confidence interval: −20.0, −2.0; p = 0.018). The visual analog scale score at 30 min after surgery was significantly lower in the OFA group than in the RA group (6.3 ± 2.3 in the RA group vs 4.1 ± 2.1 in the OFA group; p < 0.001). The incidences of nausea and shivering in the post-anesthetic care unit were also significantly lower in the OFA group (p = 0.014 and 0.025; respectively). Epinephrine levels were significantly lower in the OFA group (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

OFA significantly improved the quality of recovery in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy.

Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have led to improvements in outcomes in several surgical fields, through multimodal optimization of patient pathways, reductions in complications, improved patient experiences and reductions in the length of stay. However, their use has not been uniformly recognized in all orthopedic fields, and there is still no consensus on the best implementation process. Here, we evaluated pre-, peri-, and post-operative key elements and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols, measurements, and associated outcomes in patients undergoing different orthopedic surgical procedures. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was conducted to identify clinical studies, from 2012 to 2022. Out of the 1154 studies retrieved, 174 (25 on spine surgery, 4 on thorax surgery, 2 on elbow surgery and 143 on hip and/or knee surgery) were considered eligible for this review. Results showed that ERAS protocols improve the recovery from orthopedic surgery, decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates. Comparative studies between ERAS and non-ERAS protocols also showed improvement in patient pain scores, satisfaction, and range of motion. Although ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery are safe and effective, future studies focusing on specific ERAS elements, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, are mandatory to optimize the protocols.

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.

SRS-22r question 11 is a valid opioid screen and stratifies opioid consumption

PURPOSE

To validate the Scoliosis Research Society-22r (SRS-22r) question 11 (Q11) response as a measure to assess and quantify opioid consumption.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis of a prospective study regarding opioid use during ASD surgery was performed. Data were collected at enrollment and 2-year follow-up including the SRS-22r and a standardized data collection form (CRF) for self-reported opioid consumption. Responses to Q11 of the SS-22r were compared with responses to the opioid consumption CRF (as measured by morphine equivalent dose (MED)). Inter-rater agreement was calculated. Sensitivity and specificity for the Q11 (+) responses were calculated using MED reports as the "true" value.

RESULTS

Cohen's kappa indicated almost perfect agreement between the MED CRF and Q11 (k = 0.878, p < 0.001). Mean daily MED consumption for patients reporting "Daily Narcotic" use was 62.0 (Median: 38.7, SD 87.5) mg; for patients reporting "Narcotics weekly or less", mean daily MED consumption was 21.6 (15.0, 29.0) mg. The positive Q11 responses were 96% sensitive and 92% specific for opioid users.

CONCLUSION

SRS-22r Q11 exhibits almost perfect agreement with an independent questionnaire designed to assess opioid consumption in this cohort. "Daily narcotic" users report nearly three times the mean daily MED of "Weekly or less" users (62.0 ± 87.5 mg vs 21.6 ± 29 mg, p = 0.037). Q11 exhibited excellent sensitivity and specificity for determining opioid users and non-users. Given the need for opioid research in ASD, Q11 may be useful to use existing registries and observational cohorts to design more definitive studies regarding opioid consumption.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Neurosurgeons Relate Heterogeneous Practices Regarding Activity and Return to Work After Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Given the paucity of relevant data, the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Workforce Committee launched a survey of neurosurgeons to assess patterns in activity restriction recommendations following spine surgery; the ultimate goal was to optimize and potentially standardize these recommendations. The aim of this initial study was to determine current practices in activity restrictions and return to work guidelines following common spinal procedures.

METHODS

The survey included questions regarding general demographics and practice data, postoperative bracing/orthosis utilization, and guidelines for postoperative return to different levels of activity/types of work following specific spine surgery interventions. A spectrum of typical spine surgeries was assessed, including microdiscectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and lumbar fusion, both open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS) approaches.

RESULTS

There was significant interprocedure and intraprocedure variation in the neurosurgeons' recommendations for postoperative activity and return to work recommendations after various spinal surgery procedures. Comparisons of the different surgical procedures evaluated revealed significant differences in cervical collar use (more often used following ≥2-level ACDF than single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), return to both sedentary and light physical work (greater restriction with ≥2-level ACDF than with single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), and return to a light exercise regimen (sooner following MIS versus open lumbar fusion; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrated little consistency regarding return to work recommendations, general activity restrictions, and orthosis utilization following common spinal surgical procedures. Addressing this issue also has significant implications for the societal and personal costs of spine surgery.

Analysis of Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Open Versus Robotic Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive, robotic gastrectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and quicker functional recovery. However, the degree to which the robotic approach influences postoperative pain and opioid use after gastrectomy is unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether the robotic approach to gastrectomy reduces postoperative opioid use compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy (November 2018 to September 2021) were identified retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, short-term surgical outcomes, oral morphine equivalent (OME) use, and pain scores were collected. Both groups were managed through an enhanced recovery program in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients, 50 underwent open and 31 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Compared with open gastrectomy patients, robotic gastrectomy patients had longer surgery time (360 vs. 288 min), less blood loss (50 vs. 138 mL), and shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days) (all medians, P < 0.001). Robotic gastrectomy patients used lower OMEs on postoperative days 0-4 (all P < 0.05) and in total for days 0-4 (total mean dose 65.0 vs. 169.5 mg; P < 0.001) than did open gastrectomy patients. The robotic gastrectomy patients were prescribed a lower mean OME dose than the open gastrectomy patients (19.0 vs. 29.0 mg, respectively; P = 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that robotic approach was associated with lower opioid use (odds ratio 3.70; 95% CI 1.01-14.3; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy reduces opioid use in the early postoperative period and is associated with fewer OME discharge prescriptions and shorter hospital stay.

Effects of an opioid stewardship program on opioid consumption and related outcomes after multilevel lumbar spine fusion: a pre- and postimplementation analysis of 268 patients

OBJECTIVE

Opioid stewardship programs combine clinical, regulatory, and educational interventions to minimize inappropriate opioid use and prescribing for orthopedic and spine surgery. Most evaluations of stewardship programs quantify effects on prescriber behavior, whereas patient-relevant outcomes have been relatively neglected. The authors evaluated the impact of an opioid stewardship program on perioperative opioid consumption, prescribing, and related clinical outcomes after multilevel lumbar fusion.

METHODS

The study was based on a retrospective, quasi-experimental, pretest-posttest design in 268 adult patients who underwent multilevel lumbar fusion in 2016 (preimplementation, n = 141) or 2019 (postimplementation, n = 127). The primary outcome was in-hospital opioid consumption (morphine equivalent dose [MED], mg). Secondary outcomes included numeric rating scale pain scores (0-10), length of stay (LOS), incidence of opioid-induced side effects (gastrointestinal, nausea/vomiting, respiratory, sedation, cognitive), and preoperative and discharge prescribing. Outcomes were measured continuously during the hospital admission. Differences in outcomes between the epochs were assessed in bivariable (Wilcoxon signed-rank or Fisher's exact tests) and multivariable (Wald's chi-square test) analyses.

RESULTS

In bivariable analyses, there were significant decreases in preoperative opioid use (46% vs 28% of patients, p = 0.002), preoperative opioid prescribing (MED 30 mg [IQR 20-60 mg] vs 20 mg [IQR 11-39 mg], p = 0.003), in-hospital opioid consumption (MED 329 mg [IQR 188-575 mg] vs 199 mg [100-372 mg], p < 0.001), the incidence of any opioid-related side effect (62% vs 50%, p = 0.03), and discharge opioid prescribing (MED 90 mg [IQR 60-135 mg] vs 60 mg [IQR 45-80 mg], p < 0.0001) between 2016 and 2019. There were no significant differences in postanesthesia care unit pain scores (4 [IQR 3-6] vs 5 [IQR 3-6], p = 0.33), nursing floor pain scores (4 [IQR 3-5] vs 4 [IQR 3-5], p = 0.93), or total LOS (118 hours [IQR 81-173 hours] vs 103 hours [IQR 81-132 hours], p = 0.21). On multivariable analysis, the opioid stewardship program was significantly associated with decreased discharge prescribing (Wald's chi square = 9.45, effect size -52.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] -86 to -19.0, p = 0.002). The number of lumbar levels fused had the strongest effect on total opioid consumption during the hospital stay (Wald's chi square = 16.53, effect size = 539, 95% CI 279.1 to 799, p < 0.001), followed by preoperative opioid use (Wald's chi square = 44.04, effect size = 5, 95% CI 4 to 7, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant decrease in perioperative opioid prescribing, consumption, and opioid-related side effects was found after implementation of an opioid stewardship program. These gains were achieved without adverse effects on pain scores or LOS. These results suggest the major impact of opioid stewardship programs for spine surgery may be on changing prescriber behavior.

Intrathecal morphine in combination with bupivacaine as pre-emptive analgesia in posterior lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intrathecal morphine (ITM) in combination with bupivacaine as pre-emptive analgesia in patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion surgery. This is in comparison with traditional opioid analgesics such as intravenous (IV) morphine.

Methods

Two groups were identified retrospectively. The first (ITM group) included patients who had general anaesthesia (GA) with low-dose spinal anaesthesia prior to induction using 1–4 mls of 0.25% bupivacaine and 0.2 mg ITM. 1 ml of 0.25% bupivacaine was administered per hour of predicted surgery time, up to a maximum of 4 ml. The insertion level for the spinal anaesthetic corresponded to the spinal level of the iliac crest line and the level at which the spinal cord terminated. The control group had GA without any spinal anaesthesia. Patients were instead administered opioid analgesia in the form of IV morphine or diamorphine. The primary outcome was the consumption of opioids administered intraoperatively and in recovery, and over the first 48 h following discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). Total opioid dose was measured, and a morphine equivalent dose was calculated. Secondary outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores in recovery and at day two postoperatively, and the length of stay in hospital.

Results

For the ITM group, the median total amount of IV morphine equivalent administered intraoperatively and in recovery, was 0 mg versus 17 mg. The median total amount morphine equivalent, administered over the first 48 h following discharge from PACU was 20 mg versus 80 mg. Both are in comparison with the control group. The median length of stay was over 1 day less and the median VAS for pain in recovery was 6 points lower. No evidence was found for a difference in the worst VAS for pain at day two postoperatively.

Conclusion

ITM in combination with bupivacaine results in a significantly decreased use of perioperative opioids. In addition, length of hospital stay is reduced and so too is patient perceived pain intensity.

Trial registration The study was approved by the ethics committee at The Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital as a service improvement project (Approval no. 1617_004).

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.

Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Effect of MIS-TLF Surgery in the Treatment of Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Orthopaedic Spine

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has already had a significant impact on surgical treatment (spine). Because they are less invasive, minimally invasive treatments are often preferred over open spine surgery. MIS and open spine surgery in terms of posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), lumbar disc herniation (LDH), and cervical disc herniation (CDH) were all observational studies based on randomized controlled trials. Seventeen RCTs and six observational studies were conducted. Chemotherapy had no effect on the long-term alleviation of the neck or arm pain in patients with CDH. In LDH, MIS was superior in terms of pain relief, rehospitalization rates, and improvement in quality of life. At the expense of increased perioperative endoscopic, readmission, and revision rates, MIS achieved a significant reduction in 2-year expenditures, fewer medical problems, and improved Oswestry score ratings. There is no evidence to support the use of MIS over open surgery for lumbar or cervical process disc herniation. In comparison, MIS-TLIF has several advantages, in addition to lower revision/readmission rates. However, MIS significantly increases the surgeon's radiation exposure, regardless of the patient's sign. However, the effect on patients is unknown. These findings could help patients make better decisions when comparing open spine surgery to minimally invasive spine surgery, especially given how much advertising is out there for MIS.

Adoption of enhanced surgical recovery (ESR) protocol for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery decreases in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption

PURPOSE

Retrospective observational cohort study of primary adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery during the transitional period prior to and after the implementation of Enhanced Surgical Recovery (ESR) at a single center. We sought to determine if ESR reduces in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption for ASD surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated patients undergoing primary ASD surgery in the transition period prior to (N = 29) and after (N = 56) adoption of ESR, comparing in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption. Regression analysis was used to control for confounders including age, number of surgical levels, surgical approach, staged vs same-day surgery, insurance type and pre-op opioid use.

RESULTS

Mean age of the cohort was 53 years with 57 (60%) females. Regression analysis showed that pre-operative opioid use and number of levels fused were associated with higher in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption, while use of ESR was associated with lower in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption. Secondary analysis showed that patients on ESR ambulated earlier (0.6 days vs 1.1, p = 0.028) and had their urinary catheter removed earlier (2.7 days vs 3.9, p = 0.006) compared to non-ESR patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ESR was associated with a significantly decreased in-hospital and 90-day post-operative opioid consumption and earlier mobilization with earlier urinary catheter removal in patients undergoing primary ASD surgery. These results demonstrate ESR's potential to improve outcomes in ASD perioperative care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Enhanced Recovery Components for Posterior Lumbar Spine Fusion: Harnessing National Data to Compare Protocols

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the most commonly used components of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) combinations and their relative effectiveness.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Data is lacking on use and effectiveness of various ERAS combinations which are increasingly used in spine surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Posterior lumbar fusion cases were extracted from the Premier Healthcare claims database (2006-2016). Seven commonly included components in spine ERAS protocols were identified: (1) multimodal analgesia, (2) tranexamic acid, (3) antiemetics on the day of surgery, (4) early physical therapy, (5) no urinary catheter, (6) no patient-controlled analgesia, and (7) no wound drains. Outcomes were: length of stay, "any complication," blood transfusion, and hospitalization cost. Mixed-effects models measured associations between the most common ERAS combinations and outcomes, separately for 2006-2012 and 2013-2016. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.

RESULTS

Among 97,419 (74%; 2006-2012) and 34,932 (26%; 2013-2016) cases ERAS component variations decreased over time. The most commonly used combinations included multimodal analgesia, antiemetics, early physical therapy, avoidance of a urinary catheter, patient-controlled analgesia and drains (10% n=9401 and 19% n=6635 in 2006-2012 and 2013-2016, respectively), and did not include tranexamic acid. Multivariable models revealed minor differences between ERAS combinations in terms of length of stay and costs. The most pronounced beneficial effects in 2006-2012 were seen for the second most commonly (compared with less often) used ERAS combination(s) in terms of blood transfusion (OR: 0.65; CI: 0.59-0.71) and "any complication" (OR: 0.73; CI: 0.66-0.80), both P<0.05. In 2013-2016 the third most commonly used ERAS combination showed the strongest effect: blood transfusion OR: 0.63; CI: 0.50-0.78, P<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS component variations decreased over time; maximum benefits were particularly seen in terms of transfusion and complication risk reduction. These findings may inform future ERAS utilization and clinical trials comparing various ERAS protocols.

Early Opioid Consumption Patterns After Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This is a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to record daily opioid use and pain levels after 1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Data to inform opioid prescription guidelines following ACDF or CDA is lacking. Understanding postoperative opioid consumption behaviors is critical to provide appropriate postdischarge prescriptions.

METHODS

Patients undergoing 1-level or 2-level primary ACDF or CDA were consecutively enrolled at 2 participating institutions between March 2018 and March 2019. Patients with opioid dependence (defined as daily use ≥6 mo before surgery) were excluded. Starting postoperative day 1, daily opioid use and numeric pain rating scale pain levels were collected through a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, automated text-messaging system. To facilitate clinical applications, opioid use was converted from oral morphine equivalents into "pills" (oxycodone 5 mg equivalents). After 6 weeks or upon patient-reported cessation of opioid use, final survey questions were asked. Refill data were verified from the state prescription registry. Risk factors for patients in top quartile of consumption were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 57 patients, 48 completed the daily queries (84.2%). Mean age of the patient sample was 50.2±10.9 years. Thirty-two patients (66.7%) underwent ACDF and 16 CDA (33.3%); 64.6% one level; 35.4% two levels. Median postdischarge use was 6.7 pills (range: 0-160). Cumulative opioid use did not vary between the 1-level and 2-level groups (median pill consumption, 10 interquartile range: 1.3-31.3 vs. 4 interquartile range: 0-18, respectively, P=0.085). Thirteen patients (27.1%) did not use any opioids after discharge. Of those patients that took opioids after discharge, half ceased opioids by postoperative day 8. Preoperative intermittent opioid use was associated with the top quartile of opioid consumption (9.1% vs. 50%, P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

Given that most patients use few opioids, patients could be offered the option of a 12 oxycodone 5 mg (90 oral morphine equivalents) discharge prescription, accompanied by education on appropriate opioid use and disposal.

Combined opioid free and loco-regional anaesthesia enhances the quality of recovery in sleeve gastrectomy done under ERAS protocol: a randomized controlled trial

Background

It is debatable whether opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) is better suited than multimodal analgesia (MMA) to achieve the goals of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

Methods

In all patients, anaesthesia was conducted with an i.v. induction with propofol (2 mg. kg-1), myorelaxation with cisatracurium (0.15 mg.kg-1), in addition to an ultrasound-guided bilateral oblique subcostal transverse abdominis plane block. In addition, patients in the OFA group (n = 51) received i.v. dexmedetomidine 0.1 μg.kg-1 and ketamine (0.5 mg. kg-1) at induction, then dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg. kg-1.h-1, ketamine 0.5 mg.kg-1.h-1, and lidocaine 1 mg. kg-1.h-1 for maintenance, while patients in the MMA group (n = 52) had only i.v. fentanyl (1 μg. kg-1) at induction. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery assessed by QoR-40, at the 6th and the 24th postoperative hour. Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, time to ambulate, time to tolerate oral fluid, and time to readiness for discharge.

Results

At the 6th hour, the QoR-40 was higher in the OFA than in the MMA group (respective median [IQR] values: 180 [173–195] vs. 185 [173–191], p < 0.0001), but no longer difference was found at the 24th hour (median values = 191 in both groups). OFA also significantly reduced postoperative pain and morphine consumption (20 mg [1–21] vs. 10 mg [1–11], p = 0.005), as well as time to oral fluid tolerance (238 [151–346] vs. 175 min [98–275], p = 0.022), and readiness for discharge (505 [439–626] vs. 444 min [356–529], p = 0.001), but did not influence time to ambulate.

Conclusion

While regional anaesthesia achieved most of the intraoperative analgesia, avoiding intraoperative opioids with the help of this OFA protocol was able to improve several sensible parameters of postoperative functional recovery, thus improving our knowledge on the OFA effects.

Clinical trial number

Registration number NCT04285255.

Benefits of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program (ERAS) in Short-segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care that aims to reduce physiological and psychological stress, improve the quality of rehabilitation and speed up the recovery of patients. Our study aims to investigate the benefits of perioperative use of ERAS for short-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

We selected two 1-year periods: the first from before the establishment of the multidisciplinary ERAS team in January 2017 (pre-ERAS year 2016) and the second period when ERAS was applied widely in our hospital (ERAS year 2019). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of patients who had undergone short-level PLIF during these 2 periods. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and off-bed time.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included; 95 patients in the pre-ERAS group were compared with 112 patients in the ERAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline demographic. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS, bed-off time and earlier drainage tube and catheter removal time. The rate of postoperative complications differed significantly between the pre-ERAS and ERAS groups. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, financial cost and opioid consumption than patients in the pre-ERAS group. The VAS and ODI scores, similar at baseline, were significantly lower in the ERAS group at postoperative day 3 (POD 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of our ERAS protocol for patients undergoing short-level posterior lumbar fusion are evident in terms of reduced hospital stay and time to get out of bed, reduced incidence of postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, opioid use and hospital costs, and improved early postoperative pain and dysfunction.

Enhanced recovery after lumbar fusion surgery: Benefits of using Game Ready©

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate how the Game Ready© cryotherapy system impacts postoperative analgesia following lumbar fusion. The secondary aim was to study the effect of cryotherapy on blood loss, transfusion rate and recovery after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 60 patients divided into two consecutive sets. The first set of 30 patients underwent the current anesthesia protocol at our facility (control group) while the second set of 30 underwent the same protocol but the patient wore the Game Ready© cryotherapy belt immediately postoperative (GR group).

RESULTS

VAS for pain at H6 did not differ between groups [5.2±1.7 vs. 5.2±1.8 (p=0.94)]; however, there was a significant decrease in pain at H24 and H48 in the GR group relative to the control group (p=0.04; p=0.01; p=0.01). Consumption of morphine over the first 24 and 48hours was 50% less in the GR group than in the control group (p=0.01 and p<0.0001). Discharge occurred significantly earlier in the GR group (3.9±1.0 days) than the control group (5.1±0.9 days) (p<0.001). The estimated blood loss was greater in the control group than the GR group (574.7ml±339.2 vs. 305.9ml±229.6; p=0.0003).

CONCLUSION

Use of a cryotherapy device in the context of spine surgery is effective at controlling postoperative pain. It also decreases the consumption of analgesics, limits blood loss, reduces the need for transfusions, and contributes to enhanced recovery after surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Development and Initial Internal Validation of a Novel Classification System for Perioperative Expectations Following Minimally Invasive Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective consecutive clinical cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to develop and provide an initial internal validation of a novel classification system that can help surgeons and patients better understand their postoperative course following the particular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and approach that is utilized.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgeons and patients are often attracted to the option of minimally invasive spine surgery because of the perceived improvement in recovery time and postsurgical pain. A classification system based on the impact of the surgery and surgical approach(es) on postoperative recovery can be particularly helpful.

METHODS

Six hundred thirty-one patients who underwent MIS lumbar/thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine were included. Perioperative outcomes-operative time, estimated blood loss, postsurgical length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications, postoperative day zero narcotic requirement [in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)], and need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).

RESULTS

Postoperative LOS and postoperative narcotic use were deemed most clinically relevant, thus selected as primary outcomes. Type of surgery was significantly associated with all outcomes (P<0.0001), except intraoperative complications. Number of levels for fusion was significantly associated with operative time, in-hospital complications, 24 hours oral MME, and the need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.0001). Number of surgical approaches for lumbar fusion was significantly associated with operative time, 24 hours oral MME, need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.001). Based on these parameters, the following classification system ("Qureshi-Louie classification" for MIS degenerative lumbar surgery) was devised: (1) Decompression-only; (2) Fusion-1 and 2 levels, 1 approach; (3) Fusion-1 level, 2 approaches; (4) Fusion-2 levels, 2 approaches; (5) Fusion-3+ levels, 2 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel classification system and initial internal validation to describe the perioperative expectations following various MIS surgeries in the degenerative lumbar spine. This initial description serves as the basis for ongoing external validation.

Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Adults Undergoing Elective Posterior Thoracolumbar Fusion Surgery: Outcomes Compared with a Traditional Care Pathway

INTRODUCTION

Spine fusion surgery is an increasingly popular procedure, but the patient experience is variable and the cost is high. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways can provide a standardized plan for spine fusion cases, improving quality of care and reducing costs. We report an early attempt at the implementation of such a pathway and compare it to a historical cohort.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing elective posterior thoracolumbar spine fusion in 2019 and 2020 were included in the study. The ERAS protocol implementation started in January 2020. The study cohort was all cases performed in 2020-after implementation of ERAS-while the historical cohort was cases from 2019. Demographic and clinical data were collected and compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were included in the study. The study cohort (ERAS) included 42 patients, while the comparison group (pre-ERAS) included 51 patients. Demographic and preoperative clinical data were similar between the two groups. However, postoperative clinical data showed that ERAS resulted in less reliance on analgesics, earlier mobilization, and a reduced length of stay. Complication and readmission rates were unchanged.

CONCLUSION

ERAS can reduce costs while maintaining or improving clinical outcomes for spinal fusion surgery.

Neurosurgery perception of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are widespread in several fields, particularly general surgery, and attempt to deliver surgical care at a lower cost while also improving patient outcomes. However, few institutions have implemented ERAS protocols in neurosurgery. As such, a survey of neurosurgeons on the current state of ERAS in neurosurgery was conducted to provide insight on scaling the practice nationally. A 15-question survey was designed to assess the implementation of andsatisfaction with ERAS protocols at individual institutions. A total of 39 responses were collected from 38 unique institutions. 58.9%(N = 23) reported implementation of neurosurgical ERAS protocols. 52.1% (N = 12) of the responses were neurosurgeons at academic institutions withneurosurgical residency programs. Most neurosurgeons used ERAS protocolsfor spine cases (N = 23), with only 17.3% (N = 4) employing ERAS protocolsfor cranial cases. 69.5% (N = 16) of survey participants reported that thedesign and implementation of ERAS was a multidisciplinary effort acrossmany departments, including neurosurgery, anesthesia, and pharmacy.Decreased costs and intensive care unit (ICU) admission were reported tobe unanticipated benefits of ERAS implementation. Unanticipated challenges to implementation of new protocols included difficulties withelectronic medical record (EMR) integration, agreement of protocoldetails amongst stakeholders, uniform implementation of protocols by allneurosurgeons, and lack of adaptability by multidisciplinary staff. Meandepartment satisfaction with ERAS protocol implementation was 4.00 +/- 0.81 (N = 22) on a 5-point Likert scale.

How Many Steps Per Day During the Early Postoperative Period are Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes of Disability, Pain, and Opioid Use After Lumbar Spine Surgery?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether early postoperative walking is associated with "best outcome" and no opioid use at 1 year after lumbar spine surgery and establish a threshold for steps/day to inform clinical practice.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis from randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Two academic medical centers in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

We enrolled 248 participants undergoing surgery for a degenerative lumbar spine condition (N=248). A total of 212 participants (mean age, 62.8±11.4y, 53.3% female) had valid walking data at baseline.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back and leg pain (Brief Pain Inventory), and opioid use (yes vs no) were assessed at baseline and 1 year after surgery. "Best outcome" was defined as Oswestry Disability Index ≤20, back pain ≤2, and leg pain ≤2. Steps/day (walking) was assessed with an accelerometer worn for at least 3 days and 10 h/d at 6 weeks after spine surgery, which was considered as study baseline. Separate multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the association between steps/day at 6 weeks and "best outcome" and no opioid use at 1-year. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified a steps/day threshold for achieving outcomes.

RESULTS

Each additional 1000 steps/d at 6 weeks after spine surgery was associated with 41% higher odds of achieving "best outcome" (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.74) and 38% higher odds of no opioid use (95% CI, 1.09-1.76) at 1 year. Walking ≥3500 steps/d was associated with 3.75 times the odds (95% CI, 1.56-9.02) of achieving "best outcome" and 2.37 times the odds (95% CI, 1.07-5.24) of not using opioids.

CONCLUSIONS

Walking early after surgery may optimize patient-reported outcomes after lumbar spine surgery. A 3500 steps/d threshold may serve as an initial recommendation during early postoperative counseling.

Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Elective Lumbar Spine Fusion by Posterior Approach: A Retrospective, Comparative Study

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective, comparative.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to design an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for elective lumbar spine fusion by posterior approach, and to compare the results after ERAS implementation in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine fusion with conventional perioperative care.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite wide adoption in other surgical disciplines, ERAS has only been recently implemented in spine surgery. The integrated multidisciplinary approach of ERAS aims to reduce surgical stress to achieve better outcomes.

METHODS

Hospital records of adult patients who underwent one- to three-level elective lumbar spine fusion by posterior approach at a single center were retrospectively studied. An ERAS protocol was designed based on the prevalent hospital practices, local resources and supportive evidence from literature. The ERAS protocol was implemented at our institute in December 2016-dividing patients into pre-ERAS and post-ERAS groups. The outcome measures for comparison were: length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, 60-day readmission rate, 60-day reoperation rate, and patient-reported outcome measures (visual analogue scale [VAS] and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] score) at stipulated time intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 812 patients were included - 496 in the pre-ERAS group and 316 in the post-ERAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline demographic, clinical, and surgery-related variables. Patients in the post-ERAS group had a significantly shorter LOS (2.94 vs. 3.68 days). The rate of postoperative complications (13.5% vs. 11.7%), 60-day readmission (1.8% vs. 2.2%), and 60-day reoperation (1.2% vs. 1.3%) did not differ significantly between the pre-ERAS and post-ERAS groups. The VAS and ODI scores, similar at baseline, were significantly lower in the post-ERAS group (VAS: 49.8 ± 12.0 vs. 44 ± 10.8, ODI: 31.6 ± 14.2 vs. 28 ± 12.8) at 4 weeks after surgery. This difference however was not significant at intermediate-term follow-up (6 months and 12 months).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol is feasible for elective lumbar spine fusion, and leads to shorter LOS and improved early pain and functional outcome scores.Level of Evidence: 3.

Adoption of Enhanced Surgical Recovery (ESR) Protocol for Lumbar Fusion Decreases In-Hospital Postoperative Opioid Consumption

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to evaluate the impact of ESR on in-hospital and 90-day postoperative opioid consumption, length of stay, urinary catheter removal and postoperative ambulation after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions.

METHODS

We evaluated patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery at a single, multi-surgeon center in the transition period prior to (N = 174) and after (N = 116) adoption of ESR, comparing in-hospital and 90-day postoperative opioid consumption. Regression analysis was used to control for confounders. Secondary analysis was preformed to evaluate the association between ESR and length of stay, urinary catheter removal and ambulation after surgery.

RESULTS

Mean age study participants was 52.6 years with 62 (47%) females. Demographic characteristics were similar between the Pre-ESR and ESR groups. ESR patients had better 3-month pain scores, ambulated earlier, had urinary catheters removed earlier and decreased in-hospital opioid consumption compared to Pre-ESR patients. There was no difference in 90-day opioid consumption between the 2 groups. Regression analysis showed that ESR was strongly associated with in-hospital opioid consumption, accounting for 30% of the variability in Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME). In-hospital opioid consumption was also associated with preoperative pain scores, number of surgical levels, and insurance type (private vs government). Pre-op pain sores were associated with 90-day opioid consumption. Secondary analysis showed that ESR was associated with a shorter length of stay and earlier ambulation.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed ESR has the potential to improve recovery after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions with reduced in-hospital opioid consumption and improved postoperative pain scores.

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

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have previously been shown to be feasible and safe in elective spinal procedures. As publications on ERAS pathways have recently emerged in elective neurosurgery, long-term outcomes are limited. We report on our 18-month experience with an ERAS pathway in elective spinal surgery.

METHODS

A historical cohort of 149 consecutive patients was identified as the control group, and 1,141 patients were prospectively enrolled in an ERAS protocol. The primary outcome was the need for opioid use one month postoperation. Secondary outcomes were opioid and nonopioid consumption on postoperative day (POD) 1, opioid use at three and six months postoperation, inpatient pain scores, patient satisfaction scores, postoperative Foley catheter use, mobilization/ambulation on POD0-1, length of stay, complications, and intensive care unit admissions.

RESULTS

There was significant reduction in use of opioids at one, three, and six months postoperation (38.6% vs 70.5%, P < 0.001, 36.5% vs 70.9%, P < 0.001, and 23.6% vs 51.9%, P = 0.008) respectively. Both groups had similar surgical procedures and demographics. PCA use was nearly eliminated in the ERAS group (1.4% vs 61.6%, P < 0.001). ERAS patients mobilized faster on POD0 compared with control (63.5% vs 20.7%, P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the ERAS group required postoperative catheterization (40.7% vs 32.7%, P < 0.001). The ERAS group also had decreased length of stay (3.4 vs 3.9 days, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols for all elective spine and peripheral nerve procedures are both possible and effective. This standardized approach to patient care decreases opioid usage, eliminates the use of PCAs, mobilizes patients faster, and reduces length of stay.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway for Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Decreases Length of Stay and Opioid Consumption

BACKGROUND

Opioid requirements in the perioperative period in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusion surgery remain problematic. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques have been developed, there still remain substantial challenges to reducing length of hospital stay (LOS) because of postoperative opioid requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in patients undergoing a 1-level MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) at our institution.

METHODS

We implemented an ERAS pathway in patients undergoing an elective single-level MIS TLIF for degenerative changes at a single institution. Consecutive patients were enrolled over a 20-mo period and compared with a pre-ERAS group prior to the implementation of the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes included reduction in morphine milligram equivalent units (MME), pain scores, postoperative urinary retention (POUR), and incidence of postoperative delirium. Patients were compared using the chi-square and Welch's 2-sample t-tests.

RESULTS

A total of 299 patients were evaluated in this study: 87 in the ERAS group and 212 in the pre-ERAS group. In the ERAS group, there was a significant reduction in LOS (3.13 ± 1.53 vs 3.71 ± 2.07 d, P = .019), total admission MME (252.74 ± 317.38 vs 455.91 ± 498.78 MME, P = .001), and the number of patients with POUR (48.3% vs 65.6%, P = .008). There were no differences in pain scores.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest ERAS MIS fusion cohort published to date evaluating a single cohort of patients in a generalizable manner. This ERAS pathway has shown a substantial decrease in LOS and opioid requirements in the immediate perioperative and postoperative period. There is further work to be done to evaluate patients undergoing other complex spine surgical interventions.

Current state of benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgeries: A systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Recent years have been characterized by a great technological and clinical development in spine surgery. In particular, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs, started to gain interest also in this surgical field. Here we tried to analyse the current state of art of ERAS technique in spine surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A systematic review of the literature has been performed in order to find all the possible inclusions. Using the PRISMA guidelines, a search of the PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, Embase, Medline databases was conducted to identify all full-text articles in the English-language literature describing the use of ERAS programs or techniques for spine surgery in adult patients.

RESULTS

Out of the 827 studies found, only 21 met the inclusion criteria has been retained to be included in the present study. The most frequently benefits of ERAS protocols were shorter hospitalisations (n=15), and decreased complication rates (n=8) lower postoperative pain scores (n=4). These benefits were seen in the 3 main categories considered: lumbar spine surgeries, surgeries for correction of scoliosis or deformity, and surgeries of the cervical spine.

CONCLUSION

There are an arising amount of data showing that the use of ERAS programs could be helpful in reducing the days of hospitalizations and the number of complications for certain spinal procedures and in a highly selected group of patients. Despite the large interest on the topic; there is an important lack of high level of scientific evidences. Because of that, there is the need to encourage the design and creation of new randomized clinical trials that will validate the present findings.