Ana Licina1, Andrew Silvers2, Harry Laughlin3, Jeremy Russell4, Crispin Wan3,5. 1. Austin Health, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia. analicina@hotmail.com. 2. Monash Health, Clayton, Australia, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 3. Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS) has shown promising improvements in clinical and economical outcomes. We have proposed an ERSS pathway based on available evidence. We aimed to delineate the clinical efficacy of individual pathway components in ERSS through a systematic narrative review. METHODS: We included systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies, and observational studies in adults and pediatric patients evaluating any one of the 22 pre-defined components. Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). Following databases (1990 onwards) were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two authors screened the citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was provided. We constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each component of the pathway, where appropriate information was available. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analyses. GRADE system was used to classify confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of the pathway. RESULTS: We identified 5423 relevant studies excluding duplicates as relating to the 22 pre-defined components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. We included 664 studies in the systematic review. We identified specific evidence within the context of spinal surgery for 14/22 proposed components. Evidence was summarized in EP tables where suitable. We performed thematic synthesis without EP for 6/22 elements. We identified appropriate societal guidelines for the remainder of the components. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the following components with high quality of evidence as per GRADE system: pre-emptive analgesia, peri-operative blood conservation (antifibrinolytic use), surgical site preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. There was moderate level of evidence for implementation of prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery, multimodal perioperative analgesia, intravenous lignocaine and ketamine use as well as early mobilization. This review allows for the first formalized evidence-based unified protocol in the field of ERSS. Further studies validating the multimodal ERSS framework are essential to guide the future evolution of care in patients undergoing spinal surgery.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS) has shown promising improvements in clinical and economical outcomes. We have proposed an ERSS pathway based on available evidence. We aimed to delineate the clinical efficacy of individual pathway components in ERSS through a systematic narrative review. METHODS: We included systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies, and observational studies in adults and pediatric patients evaluating any one of the 22 pre-defined components. Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). Following databases (1990 onwards) were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two authors screened the citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was provided. We constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each component of the pathway, where appropriate information was available. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analyses. GRADE system was used to classify confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of the pathway. RESULTS: We identified 5423 relevant studies excluding duplicates as relating to the 22 pre-defined components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. We included 664 studies in the systematic review. We identified specific evidence within the context of spinal surgery for 14/22 proposed components. Evidence was summarized in EP tables where suitable. We performed thematic synthesis without EP for 6/22 elements. We identified appropriate societal guidelines for the remainder of the components. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the following components with high quality of evidence as per GRADE system: pre-emptive analgesia, peri-operative blood conservation (antifibrinolytic use), surgical site preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. There was moderate level of evidence for implementation of prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery, multimodal perioperative analgesia, intravenous lignocaine and ketamine use as well as early mobilization. This review allows for the first formalized evidence-based unified protocol in the field of ERSS. Further studies validating the multimodal ERSS framework are essential to guide the future evolution of care in patients undergoing spinal surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Enhanced recovery after spinal surgery (ERSS); Perioperative outcomes; Perioperative pathway; Systematic review;
Authors: Kathirvel Subramaniam; Vimal Akhouri; Paul A Glazer; Jacob Rachlin; Lisa Kunze; Mary Cronin; Don Desilva; Christine P Asdourian; Richard A Steinbrook Journal: Pain Med Date: 2011-06-13 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Richard E Bowen; Steven Gardner; Anthony A Scaduto; Michael Eagan; Jason Beckstead Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Wallis T Muhly; Wudbhav N Sankar; Kelly Ryan; Annette Norton; Lynne G Maxwell; Theresa DiMaggio; Sharon Farrell; Rachel Hughes; Alex Gornitzky; Ron Keren; John J McCloskey; John M Flynn Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kamal Maheshwari; Rafi Avitsian; Daniel I Sessler; Natalya Makarova; Marianne Tanios; Syed Raza; David Traul; Shobana Rajan; Mariel Manlapaz; Sandra Machado; Ajit Krishnaney; Andre Machado; Richard Rosenquist; Andrea Kurz Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Howard Young Park; William Sheppard; Ryan Smith; Jiayang Xiao; Jonathan Gatto; Richard Bowen; Anthony Scaduto; Langston Holly; Daniel Lu; Duncan McBride; Arya Nick Shamie; Don Young Park Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-06