The impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on opioid consumption and postoperative pain levels in elective spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols were developed to counteract the adverse effects of the surgical stress response, aiming for quicker postoperative recovery. Initially applied in abdominal surgeries, ERAS principles have extended to orthopedic spine surgery, but research in this area is still in its infancy. The current study investigated the impact of ERAS on postoperative pain and opioid consumption in elective spine surgeries. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing elective spine surgery from May 2019 to July 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups: those enrolled in the ERAS pathway and those adhering to traditional surgical protocols. Data on demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while opioid utilization was quantified in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). NRS and MME were averaged for each patient across all days under observation. Differences in outcomes between groups (ERAS vs. treatment as usual) were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson's or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. RESULTS: The median of patient's mean daily NRS scores for postoperative pain were not statistically significantly different between groups (median = 5.55 (ERAS) and 5.28 (non-ERAS), p=.2). Additionally, the median of patients' mean daily levels of MME were similar between groups (median = 17.24 (ERAS) and 16.44 (non-ERAS), p=.3) ERAS patients experienced notably shorter LOS (median=2 days) than their non-ERAS counterparts (median=3 days, p=.001). The effect of ERAS was moderated by whether the patient had ACDF surgery. ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had ACDF surgery had 1.64 lower average NRS (p=.006). ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had a different surgery had 0.72 higher average NRS (p=.02) but had almost half the length of stay, on average (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study underscores the dynamic nature of ERAS protocols within the realm of spine surgery. While ERAS demonstrates advantages such as reduced LOS and improved patient-reported outcomes, it requires careful implementation and customization to address the specific demands of each surgical discipline. The potential to expedite recovery, optimize resource utilization, and enhance patient satisfaction cannot be overstated. However, the fine balance between achieving these benefits and ensuring comprehensive patient care, especially in the context of postoperative pain management, must be maintained. As ERAS continues to evolve and find its place in diverse surgical domains, it is crucial for healthcare providers to remain attentive to patient needs, adapting ERAS protocols to suit individual patient populations and surgical contexts.

Lumbar surgical drains do not increase the risk of infections in patients undergoing spine surgery.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize if the use of surgical drains or length of drain placement following spine surgery increases the risk of post-operative infection. METHODS: Records of patients undergoing elective spinal surgery at a tertiary care center were collected between May 5, 2016 and August 16, 2018. Pre-operative baseline characteristics were recorded including patient's demographics and comorbidities. Intraoperative procedure information was documented related to procedure type, blood loss, and antibiotics used. Following surgery, patients were then further subdivided into two groups: patients who were discharged with a spinal surgical site drain and patients who did not receive a drain. Post-operative surgical variables included length of stay (LOS), drain length, number of antibiotics given, and type of post-operative infection. Univariate and multivariate statistical analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 671 patients were included in the current study, 386 (57.5%) with and 285 (42.5%) without the drain. The overall infection rate was 5.7% with 6.22% among patients with the drain compared to 4.91% in patients without drain. The univariate analysis identified the following variables to be significantly associated with the infection: total number of surgical levels, spinal region, blood loss, redosing of antibiotics, length of stay, length of drain placement, and number of antibiotics (P < 0.05). However, the multivariate analysis none of the predictors was significant. CONCLUSIONS: The current study shows that the placement of drain does not increase rate of infection, irrespective of levels, length of surgery, or approach.