Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improves return of physiological function in frail patients undergoing one- to two-level TLIFs: an observational retrospective cohort study.


Journal

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society
ISSN: 1878-1632
Titre abrégé: Spine J
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130732

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2022
Historique:
received: 17 12 2021
revised: 14 03 2022
accepted: 09 04 2022
pubmed: 22 4 2022
medline: 24 8 2022
entrez: 21 4 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce early post-operative pain, complications, and length of stay (LOS) in open one- to two-level TLIF. The benefit of ERAS in specifically frail patients undergoing TLIF has not been demonstrated. Frailty is clinically defined as a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose patients undergoing surgery to poor outcomes. This study primarily evaluated the benefit of an ERAS protocol in frail patients undergoing one- or two-level open TLIF compared to frail patients without ERAS. Secondarily, we assessed whether outcomes in frail patients with ERAS approximated those seen in nonfrail patients with ERAS. Retrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status. Consecutive patients that underwent one- or two-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from August, 2015 to July, 2021 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018. Primary outcome measure was return of postoperative physiological function defined as the summation of first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, and first day to void. Additional outcome measures included LOS, daily average pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and reoperation. A retrospective analysis of frail patients > 65 years of age undergoing one- to two-level open TLIF post-ERAS were compared to propensity matched frail pre-ERAS patients. Frailty was assessed using the Fried phenotype classification (score >1). Patient demographics, LOS, first-day-to-ambulate (A1), first-day-to-bowel movement (B1), first-day-to-void (V1) were collected. Return of physiological function was defined as A1+B1+V1. Primary analysis was a comparison of frail patients pre-ERAS versus post-ERAS to determine effect of ERAS on return of physiologic function with frailty. Secondary analysis was a comparison of post-ERAS frail versus post-ERAS nonfrail patients to determine if return of physiologic function in frail patients with ERAS approximates that of nonfrail patients. In the primary analysis, 32 frail patients were included with mean age ± standard deviation of 72.8±4.4 years, mean BMI 28.8±5.5, 65.6% were male, 15 pre-ERAS and 17 post-ERAS. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. After ERAS implementation, return of physiological function improved by a mean 3.2 days overall (post-ERAS 3.4 vs. pre-ERAS 6.7 days) (p<.0001), indicating a positive effect of ERAS in frail patients. Additionally, length of stay improved by 1 day (4.8±1.6 vs. 3.8±1.9 days, p<.0001). Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as well as average daily pain scores were similar between groups. Secondarily, 26 nonfrail patients post ERAS were used as a comparison group with the 17 post-ERAS frail cohort. Mean age of this cohort was 73.4±4.6 years, mean BMI 27.4±4.9, and 61.9% were male. Return of physiologic function was similar between cohorts (post-ERAS nonfrail 3.5 vs. post-ERAS frail 3.4 days) (p=.938), indicating the benefit with ERAS in frail patients approximates that of nonfrail patients. ERAS significantly improves return of physiologic function and length of stay in patients with frailty after one- to two-level TLIF, and approximates improved outcomes seen in non-frail patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND CONTEXT
The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multimodal approach which has been shown to facilitate recovery of physiological function, and reduce early post-operative pain, complications, and length of stay (LOS) in open one- to two-level TLIF. The benefit of ERAS in specifically frail patients undergoing TLIF has not been demonstrated. Frailty is clinically defined as a syndrome of physiological decline that can predispose patients undergoing surgery to poor outcomes.
PURPOSE
This study primarily evaluated the benefit of an ERAS protocol in frail patients undergoing one- or two-level open TLIF compared to frail patients without ERAS. Secondarily, we assessed whether outcomes in frail patients with ERAS approximated those seen in nonfrail patients with ERAS.
STUDY DESIGN
Retrospective consecutive patient cohort with controls propensity-matched for age, body mass index, sex, and smoking status.
PATIENT SAMPLE
Consecutive patients that underwent one- or two-level open TLIF for degenerative disease from August, 2015 to July, 2021 by a single surgeon. ERAS was implemented in December 2018.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Primary outcome measure was return of postoperative physiological function defined as the summation of first day to ambulate, first day to bowel movement, and first day to void. Additional outcome measures included LOS, daily average pain scores, opioid use, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and reoperation.
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of frail patients > 65 years of age undergoing one- to two-level open TLIF post-ERAS were compared to propensity matched frail pre-ERAS patients. Frailty was assessed using the Fried phenotype classification (score >1). Patient demographics, LOS, first-day-to-ambulate (A1), first-day-to-bowel movement (B1), first-day-to-void (V1) were collected. Return of physiological function was defined as A1+B1+V1. Primary analysis was a comparison of frail patients pre-ERAS versus post-ERAS to determine effect of ERAS on return of physiologic function with frailty. Secondary analysis was a comparison of post-ERAS frail versus post-ERAS nonfrail patients to determine if return of physiologic function in frail patients with ERAS approximates that of nonfrail patients.
RESULTS
In the primary analysis, 32 frail patients were included with mean age ± standard deviation of 72.8±4.4 years, mean BMI 28.8±5.5, 65.6% were male, 15 pre-ERAS and 17 post-ERAS. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. After ERAS implementation, return of physiological function improved by a mean 3.2 days overall (post-ERAS 3.4 vs. pre-ERAS 6.7 days) (p<.0001), indicating a positive effect of ERAS in frail patients. Additionally, length of stay improved by 1 day (4.8±1.6 vs. 3.8±1.9 days, p<.0001). Total daily intravenous morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as well as average daily pain scores were similar between groups. Secondarily, 26 nonfrail patients post ERAS were used as a comparison group with the 17 post-ERAS frail cohort. Mean age of this cohort was 73.4±4.6 years, mean BMI 27.4±4.9, and 61.9% were male. Return of physiologic function was similar between cohorts (post-ERAS nonfrail 3.5 vs. post-ERAS frail 3.4 days) (p=.938), indicating the benefit with ERAS in frail patients approximates that of nonfrail patients.
CONCLUSIONS
ERAS significantly improves return of physiologic function and length of stay in patients with frailty after one- to two-level TLIF, and approximates improved outcomes seen in non-frail patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35447326
pii: S1529-9430(22)00148-6
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.04.007
pmc: PMC9534035
mid: NIHMS1830206
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1513-1522

Subventions

Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001427
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Références

Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Jan;164:142-153
pubmed: 29232645
Spine J. 2022 Mar;22(3):399-410
pubmed: 34687905
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Apr 1;46(4):E11
pubmed: 30933912
Neurosurgery. 2009 May;64(5):955-63; discussion 963-4
pubmed: 19404155
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2018 Mar;28(3):581-585
pubmed: 29466256
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Apr 1;46(4):E4
pubmed: 30933921
Orthopade. 2014 Dec;43(12):1062-4, 1066-9
pubmed: 25387654
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2021 Nov 28;20(8):745-751
pubmed: 34472606
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001 Mar;56(3):M146-56
pubmed: 11253156
Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2018 Mar;96(3):155-161
pubmed: 29233580
Eur Spine J. 2021 Dec;30(12):3755-3762
pubmed: 34398335
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017 Sep;27(9):863-870
pubmed: 28795911
J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2021 Nov;64(6):995-1003
pubmed: 34614555
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Dec;22(3):383-92
pubmed: 25550024
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Apr 1;46(4):E9
pubmed: 30933926
Eur Spine J. 2013 Sep;22(9):2089-96
pubmed: 23681498
Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020 Sep;196:106003
pubmed: 32559705
Postgrad Med J. 2007 Jan;83(975):16-20
pubmed: 17267673
Am Surg. 2021 Jul;87(7):1054-1061
pubmed: 33295194
Br J Anaesth. 1997 May;78(5):606-17
pubmed: 9175983
Eur Spine J. 2016 May;25(5):1575-1580
pubmed: 26126415
Spine J. 2022 Feb;22(2):286-295
pubmed: 34500077
JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2016 Jun 08;6(2):e22
pubmed: 30237931
Colorectal Dis. 2018 Jan;20(1):16-25
pubmed: 28649755
J Spine Surg. 2019 Mar;5(1):116-123
pubmed: 31032446
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Nov;97(48):e13195
pubmed: 30508899
N Engl J Med. 1977 Oct 20;297(16):845-50
pubmed: 904659
Age Ageing. 2010 Jul;39(4):412-23
pubmed: 20392703
Spine Deform. 2016 Jul;4(4):288-295
pubmed: 27927519
J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005 Aug;18(4):337-46
pubmed: 16021015
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Apr 01;13(7):
pubmed: 33915867
Neurosurgery. 2001 Mar;48(3):569-74; discussion 574-5
pubmed: 11270547
Age Ageing. 2008 Mar;37(2):129-31
pubmed: 18349007
J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Apr;26(4):411-418
pubmed: 28009223
Neurospine. 2020 Mar;17(1):228-236
pubmed: 32252173
Surg Neurol Int. 2014 Apr 16;5(Suppl 3):S66-73
pubmed: 24843814
Neurosurgery. 2021 Feb 16;88(3):648-657
pubmed: 33469652
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Mar 1;47(5):396-404
pubmed: 34669672
J Neurosurg Sci. 2018 Jun;62(3):245-254
pubmed: 27078237
J Spine Surg. 2015 Dec;1(1):2-18
pubmed: 27683674
Orthop Clin North Am. 2002 Apr;33(2):359-66
pubmed: 12389281
Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Aug 1;34(7):E377-E381
pubmed: 34121072
Neurosurg Focus. 2019 Apr 1;46(4):E18
pubmed: 30933919
Age Ageing. 2005 Sep;34(5):432-4
pubmed: 16107450
Ann Surg. 2016 Jun;263(6):1039-41
pubmed: 27167560
World Neurosurg. 2019 Sep;129:e317-e323
pubmed: 31132490
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021 Jul 15;46(14):939-943
pubmed: 34160372

Auteurs

Ken Porche (K)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA. Electronic address: ken.porche@neurosurgery.ufl.edu.

Sandra Yan (S)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Basma Mohamed (B)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1600 SW Archer Road, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608.

Cynthia Garvan (C)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1600 SW Archer Road, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608.

Ronny Samra (R)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608.

Kaitlyn Melnick (K)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Sasha Vaziri (S)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Christoph Seubert (C)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1600 SW Archer Road, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608.

Matthew Decker (M)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Adam Polifka (A)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Daniel J Hoh (DJ)

1600 SW Archer Rd, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA 32608; 1505 SW Archer Rd, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH