Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
Enhanced recovery after surgery
Fast track surgery
Propensity score
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
22
05
2018
accepted:
02
05
2020
revised:
21
03
2020
pubmed:
16
5
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
16
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), still emerging for the spine, proposes a multimodal approach of perioperative care involving the optimization of every procedural step, with the patient in a proactive position regarding his/her management. We aimed to demonstrate a reduction in the length of hospital stay for ACDF without increasing the risk for patients by comparing 2 groups before and after ERAS implementation using propensity score (PS)-matched analysis. We selected 2 periods of 1 year, before (n = 268 patients) and after ERAS implementation (n = 271 patients). Data were collected on patient demographics, operative and perioperative details, 90-day readmissions and morbidity. ERAS-trained nurses were involved to support patients at each pre/per/postoperative step with the help of a mobile app. A satisfaction survey was included. PS analyses were used for dealing with confounding bias in this retrospective observational study. After PS matching, the outcomes of 202 well-balanced pairs of patients were compared (conventional vs ERAS). LOS was reduced from 2.96 ± 1.35 to 1.40 ± 0.6 days (Student, p < 0.001). All 90-day surgical morbidity was similar between the 2 groups, including 30-day readmission (0.5% vs 0%; p = 1), 30- to 90-day readmission (0.5% vs 0.0%; p = 1), 90-day reoperation (0% vs 1%; p = 0.49), major complications (3.0% vs 3.5%; p = 1) and minor complications (2.0% vs 3.5%; p = 0.54). There was no significant difference concerning the satisfaction survey. The introduction of ERAS for ACDF in our institution has resulted in a significant decrease in LOS, without causing an increase in postoperative complications and has maintained patients' satisfaction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32409887
doi: 10.1007/s00586-020-06445-0
pii: 10.1007/s00586-020-06445-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
560-567Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/78.5.606
doi: 10.1093/bja/78.5.606
pubmed: 9175983
Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248:189–198. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817f2c1a
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817f2c1a
pubmed: 18650627
Jones EL, Wainwright TW, Foster JD et al (2014) A systematic review of patient reported outcomes and patient experience in enhanced recovery after orthopaedic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 96:89–94. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588414X13824511649571
doi: 10.1308/003588414X13824511649571
pubmed: 24780662
pmcid: 4474266
Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC (2017) Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg 152:292–298. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
pubmed: 28097305
Wainwright TW, Immins T, Middleton RG (2016) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and its applicability for major spine surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 30:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpa.2015.11.001
doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2015.11.001
pubmed: 27036606
Ali ZS, Ma TS, Ozturk AK et al (2017) Pre-optimization of spinal surgery patients: development of a neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 164:142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.003
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.12.003
pubmed: 29232645
Adamson T, Godil SS, Mehrlich M et al (2016) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting compared with the inpatient hospital setting: analysis of 1000 consecutive cases. J Neurosurg Spine 24:878–884. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.8.SPINE14284
doi: 10.3171/2015.8.SPINE14284
pubmed: 26849708
Lied B, Sundseth J, Helseth E (2008) Immediate (0–6 h), early (6–72 h) and late (%3e72 h) complications after anterior cervical discectomy with fusion for cervical disc degeneration; discharge six hours after operation is feasible. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 150:111–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-007-1472-y (discussion 118)
doi: 10.1007/s00701-007-1472-y
Khanna R, Kim RB, Lam SK et al (2018) Comparing short-term complications of inpatient versus outpatient single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: an analysis of 6940 patients using the ACS-NSQIP database. Clin Spine Surg 31:43. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000499
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000499
pubmed: 28079682
McClelland S, Passias PG, Errico TJ et al (2017) Inpatient versus outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a perioperative complication analysis of 259,414 patients from the healthcare cost and utilization project databases. Int J Spine Surg 11:11. https://doi.org/10.14444/4011
doi: 10.14444/4011
pubmed: 28765795
pmcid: 5537979
Mullins J, Pojskić M, Boop FA, Arnautović KI (2018) Retrospective single-surgeon study of 1123 consecutive cases of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparison of clinical outcome parameters, complication rates, and costs between outpatient and inpatient surgery groups, with a literature review. J Neurosurg Spine 28:630–641. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.10.SPINE17938
doi: 10.3171/2017.10.SPINE17938
pubmed: 29600910
Helseth Ø, Lied B, Halvorsen CM et al (2015) Outpatient cervical and lumbar spine surgery is feasible and safe: a consecutive single center series of 1449 patients. Neurosurgery 76:728–737. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000746 (discussion 737–738)
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000746
pubmed: 25853437
McGirt MJ, Godil SS, Asher AL et al (2015) Quality analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the outpatient versus inpatient setting: analysis of 7288 patients from the NSQIP database. Neurosurg Focus 39:E9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.9.FOCUS15335
doi: 10.3171/2015.9.FOCUS15335
pubmed: 26621423
Indicateurs par spécialité|Stats ATIH. https://www.scansante.fr/applications/action-gdr-chirurgie-ambulatoire-spec . Accessed 3 Jan 2017
Wang MY (2010) Early complications related to anterior cervical surgery. World Neurosurg 74:272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2010.06.026
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2010.06.026
pubmed: 21492557
Arshi A, Wang C, Park HY et al (2017) Ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with a higher risk of revision surgery and perioperative complications: an analysis of a large nationwide database. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.11.012
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.11.012
pubmed: 29155340
pmcid: 6291305
Bovonratwet P, Webb ML, Ondeck NT et al (2018) Discrepancies in the definition of “outpatient” surgeries and their effect on study outcomes related to ACDF and lumbar discectomy procedures: a retrospective analysis of 45,204 cases. Clin Spine Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000615
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000615
pubmed: 29351096
Verrier J-F, Paget C, Perlier F, Demesmay F (2016) How to introduce a program of enhanced recovery after surgery? The experience of the CAPIO group. J Visc Surg 153:S33–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.10.001
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.10.001
pubmed: 27863944
Lonjon G, Boutron I, Trinquart L et al (2014) Comparison of treatment effect estimates from prospective nonrandomized studies with propensity score analysis and randomized controlled trials of surgical procedures. Ann Surg 259:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000256
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000256
pubmed: 24096758
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46:399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
doi: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786
Debono B, Bousquet P, Sabatier P et al (2016) Postoperative monitoring with a mobile application after ambulatory lumbar discectomy: an effective tool for spine surgeons. Eur Spine J 25:3536–3542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4680-4
doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4680-4
pubmed: 27349754
Rampersaud YR, Moro ERP, Neary MA et al (2006) Intraoperative adverse events and related postoperative complications in spine surgery: implications for enhancing patient safety founded on evidence-based protocols. Spine 31:1503–1510. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000220652.39970.c2
doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000220652.39970.c2
pubmed: 16741462
Kehlet H, Thienpont E (2013) Fast-track knee arthroplasty—status and future challenges. Knee 20(Suppl 1):S29–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(13)70006-1
doi: 10.1016/S0968-0160(13)70006-1
pubmed: 24034592
Wang MY, Chang P-Y, Grossman J (2017) Development of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach for lumbar spinal fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 26:411–418. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16375
doi: 10.3171/2016.9.SPINE16375
Venkata HK, van Dellen JR (2016) A perspective on the use of an enhanced recovery program in open, non-instrumented day surgery for degenerative lumbar and cervical spinal conditions. J Neurosurg Sci 62(3):245–254. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0390-5616.16.03695-X
doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.16.03695-X
pubmed: 27078237
Fu MC, Gruskay JA, Samuel AM et al (2017) Outpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with fewer short-term complications in one- and two-level cases: a propensity-adjusted analysis. Spine 42:1044–1049. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001988
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001988
pubmed: 28697092
Debono B, Sabatier P, Garnault V et al (2017) Outpatient lumbar microdiscectomy in France: from an economic imperative to a clinical standard—an observational study of 201 cases. World Neurosurg 106:891–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.065
doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.065
pubmed: 28735120
Kehlet H, Delaney CP, Hill AG (2015) Perioperative medicine—the second round will need a change of tactics. Br J Anaesth 115:13–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev098
doi: 10.1093/bja/aev098
pubmed: 25908052
Bradywood A, Farrokhi F, Williams B et al (2017) Reduction of inpatient hospital length of stay in lumbar fusion patients with implementation of an evidence-based clinical care pathway. Spine 42:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001703
doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001703
pubmed: 27213939
Debono B, Corniola MV, Pietton R et al (2019) Benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery for fusion in degenerative spine surgery: impact on outcome, length of stay, and patient satisfaction. Neurosurg Focus 46:E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.1.FOCUS18669
doi: 10.3171/2019.1.FOCUS18669
pubmed: 30933923