Bertrand Debono1, Pascal Sabatier2, Guillaume Boniface2, Philippe Bousquet2, Jean-Paul Lescure2, Valérie Garnaud3, Olivier Hamel2, Guillaume Lonjon4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Neuroscience Pole, Ramsay-Clinique des Cèdres, 31700, Cornebarrieu, France. bdebono@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Neuroscience Pole, Ramsay-Clinique des Cèdres, 31700, Cornebarrieu, France. 3. Medical Information Department, Ramsay-Clinique des Cèdres, Cornebarrieu, France. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery-Orthosud, Clinique st jean.Groupement SANTECITE., Montpellier, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; Enhanced recovery after surgery; Fast track surgery; Propensity score
Authors: Ryan Khanna; Robert B Kim; Sandi K Lam; George R Cybulski; Zachary A Smith; Nader S Dahdaleh Journal: Clin Spine Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: Zarina S Ali; Tracy S Ma; Ali K Ozturk; Neil R Malhotra; James M Schuster; Paul J Marcotte; M Sean Grady; William C Welch Journal: Clin Neurol Neurosurg Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 1.876
Authors: E L Jones; T W Wainwright; J D Foster; J R A Smith; R G Middleton; N K Francis Journal: Ann R Coll Surg Engl Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 1.891
Authors: Tim Adamson; Saniya S Godil; Melissa Mehrlich; Stephen Mendenhall; Anthony L Asher; Matthew J McGirt Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2016-02-05