Zhong-En Li1,2,3, Shi-Bao Lu4,5, Chao Kong1,2,3, Wen-Zhi Sun1,2,3, Peng Wang1,2,3, Si-Tao Zhang1,2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 2. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, China. 3. Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. xuanwuspine@sina.com. 5. National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Diseases, Beijing, China. xuanwuspine@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is an evidence-based improvement over non-ERAS traditional care. The aim of the present study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an ERAS program in patients over 70 years undergoing lumbar arthrodesis by comparison with non-ERAS traditional care. METHODS: During January 2018 to December 2018, patients enrolled received non-ERAS traditional care, while the ERAS program was implemented from January to December 2019. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical data and postoperative recovery parameters were collected from all patients. Postoperative pain scores were evaluated by visual analog scales (VAS). The clinical outcomes were length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications and postoperative pain scores. Compliance results were also collected. RESULT: A total of 127 patients were enrolled, including 67 patients in the non-ERAS traditional care group and 60 patients in the ERAS group. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities of the two groups showed no significant differences. The LOS of patients treated with ERAS program (13.6 ± 4.0 days) was significantly less than that of patients treated with non-ERAS traditional care (15.6 ± 3.9 days) (p = 0.034). Complication rate was 8.3% in the ERAS group versus 20.9% in the non-ERAS traditional care group (p = 0.048). VAS (back) in the ERAS group was significantly lower on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD2. Postoperative recovery parameters were improved in the ERAS group. The overall compliance with the ERAS program was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, ERAS program is safer and more effective for elderly patients over 70 undergoing lumbar arthrodesis than non-ERAS traditional care.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is an evidence-based improvement over non-ERAS traditional care. The aim of the present study was to analyze the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of an ERAS program in patients over 70 years undergoing lumbar arthrodesis by comparison with non-ERAS traditional care. METHODS: During January 2018 to December 2018, patients enrolled received non-ERAS traditional care, while the ERAS program was implemented from January to December 2019. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical data and postoperative recovery parameters were collected from all patients. Postoperative pain scores were evaluated by visual analog scales (VAS). The clinical outcomes were length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications and postoperative pain scores. Compliance results were also collected. RESULT: A total of 127 patients were enrolled, including 67 patients in the non-ERAS traditional care group and 60 patients in the ERAS group. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities of the two groups showed no significant differences. The LOS of patients treated with ERAS program (13.6 ± 4.0 days) was significantly less than that of patients treated with non-ERAS traditional care (15.6 ± 3.9 days) (p = 0.034). Complication rate was 8.3% in the ERAS group versus 20.9% in the non-ERAS traditional care group (p = 0.048). VAS (back) in the ERAS group was significantly lower on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD2. Postoperative recovery parameters were improved in the ERAS group. The overall compliance with the ERAS program was 94%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, ERAS program is safer and more effective for elderly patients over 70 undergoing lumbar arthrodesis than non-ERAS traditional care.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complication; Elderly patients; Enhanced recovery after surgery; Length of stay; Lumbar arthrodesis
Authors: Ellen M Soffin; Douglas S Wetmore; Lauren A Barber; Avani S Vaishnav; James D Beckman; Todd J Albert; Catherine H Gang; Sheeraz A Qureshi Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.047
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: Zachary Tempel; Ramesh Grandhi; Matthew Maserati; David Panczykowski; Juan Ochoa; James Russavage; David Okonkwo Journal: J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 1.268
Authors: Hesham Mostafa Zakaria; Michael Bazydlo; Lonni Schultz; Muwaffak Abdulhak; David R Nerenz; Victor Chang; Jason M Schwalb Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654