Can the Full-Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy in Day Surgery Mode Achieve Better Outcomes Following Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol? A Retrospective Comparative Study

The Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery in High and Low/Middle-income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

In this review article, we explore the implementation and outcomes of enhanced recovery after spine surgery (spine ERAS) across different World Bank country-income levels. A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases for articles on the implementation of spine ERAS in both adult and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, ERAS elements, and outcomes were analyzed and meta-analyses were performed for length of stay (LOS) and cost outcomes. The number of spine ERAS studies from low-middle-income countries (LMICs) increased since 2017, when the first spine ERAS implementation study was published. LMICs were more likely than high-income countries (HICs) to conduct studies on patients aged ≥18 years (odds ratio [OR], 6.00; 95% CI, 1.58-42.80), with sample sizes 51 to 100 (OR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.21-22.90), and randomized controlled trials (OR, 7.25; 95% CI, 1.77-53.50). Preoperative optimization was more frequently implemented in LMICs than in HICs (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.06-4.41), and operation time was more often studied in LMICs (OR 3.78; 95% CI, 1.77-8.35). Implementation of spine ERAS resulted in reductions in LOS in both LMIC (-2.06; 95% CI, -2.47 to -1.64 d) and HIC (-0.99; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.70 d) hospitals. However, spine ERAS implementation did result in a significant reduction in costs. This review highlights the global landscape of ERAS implementation in spine surgery, demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing LOS across diverse settings. Further research with standardized reporting of ERAS elements and outcomes is warranted to explore the impact of spine ERAS on cost-effectiveness and other patient-centered outcomes.

Transforming Outcomes of Spine Surgery-Exploring the Power of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of 15 198 Patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to optimize patient outcomes by reducing the surgical stress response, expediting recovery, and reducing care costs. We aimed to evaluate the impact of implementing ERAS protocols on the perioperative surgical outcomes and financial implications associated with spine surgeries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of peer-reviewed studies directly comparing outcome differences between spine surgeries performed with and without utilization of ERAS pathways was conducted along Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Of 676 unique articles identified, 59 with 15 198 aggregate patients (7748 ERAS; 7450 non-ERAS) were included. ERAS-treated patients had shorter operative times (mean difference [MD]: 10.2 mins; P < .01), shorter hospitalizations (MD: 1.41 days, P < .01), fewer perioperative complications (relative risk [RR] = 0.64, P < .01), lower postoperative opioid use (MD of morphine equivalent dose: 164.36 mg; P < .01), and more rapid mobilization/time to first out-of-bed ambulation (MD: 0.92 days; P < .01). Spine surgeries employing ERAS were also associated with lower total costs (MD: $1140.26/patient; P < .01), especially in the United States (MD: $2869.11/patient, P < .01) and lower postoperative visual analog pain scores (MD = 0.56, P < .01), without any change in odds of 30-day readmission (RR: 0.80, P = .13) or reoperation (RR: 0.88, P = .60). Subanalyses based on the region of spine showed significantly lower length of stay in both cervical and lumbar surgeries implementing ERAS. Type of procedure showed a significantly lesser time-to-initiate mobilization in fusion surgeries using ERAS protocols compared with decompression.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indicates that current literature supports ERAS implementation as a means of reducing care costs and safely accelerating hospital discharge for patients undergoing spine surgery.

Does Immediate Postoperative Early Ambulation Affect Clinical Results of Full-Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy? A Historical Control Study of Daytime Operation with a 8-Hour Hospital Stay versus Inpatient Operation

OBJECTIVE

Full-endoscopic lumbar discectomy (FELD) is a popular operation for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) and day surgery mode is increasingly popular. However, only a few studies have reported about day surgery patients undergoing Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD). This retrospective study was to evaluate and analyze the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing FELD for LDH as day surgery versus inpatient surgery.

METHODS

From January 2020 to January 2022, a retrospective analysis of LDH patients treated with FELD either in day surgery unit (within 8-h hospital stay) or inpatient unit was carried out. All these patients were followed-up for at least 12 months, and were categorized into a FELD-I (inpatient surgery) group or a FELD-D (day surgery) group, according to where the surgical procedures were performed. We assessed and compared the postoperative stand and walk time, postoperative hospitalization stays, time of return to work, modified MacNab criteria, willingness to recommend surgery, complications, revision rate, as well as the visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index score (ODI). Student t-test was used for continuous variables and chi-square test or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical variables.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference in demographic data and baseline characteristics between two groups. And no significant differences were found in MacNab criteria between two groups. Postoperative VAS and ODI scores at one-day postoperation and final follow-up both improved significantly in both groups, as compared to the preoperative data (p < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups on the pre, postoperative, or the last follow-up score for VAS and ODI (p > 0.05). The postoperative first ambulation time and postoperative hospital stays was much longer in FELD-I group than FELD-D group (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in the perioperative complications, revision rate as well as satisfaction rate between two groups (p > 0.05). The overall time of return to work of young patients (<60 years-old) in the FELD-D group was significantly shorter than that in the FELD-I group (p = 0.001). Patients in the FELD-D group were more likely to recommend this kind of surgical model.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that FELD-D can be effectively performed as day surgery (within 8 h hospital stay). Early ambulation after FELD-D did not affect the clinical outcomes and the revision rates. Day surgery patients are more likely to recommend this surgery mode to other patients and younger patients may be able to return to work earlier.