Relationship Between Comorbidity Burden and Short-Term Outcomes Across 4680 Consecutive Spinal Fusions.

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative management requires the identification and optimization of modifiable medical comorbidities, though few studies isolate comorbid status from related patient-level variables. This study evaluates Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)-an easily derived measure of aggregate medical comorbidity-to predict outcomes from spinal fusion surgery. Coarsened exact matching is employed to control for key patient characteristics and isolate CCI. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 4680 consecutive patients undergoing single-level, posterior-only lumbar fusion at a single academic center. Logistic regression evaluated the univariate relationship between CCI and patient outcomes. Coarsened exact matching generated exact demographic matches between patients with high comorbid status (CCI >6) or no medical comorbidities (matched n = 524). Patients were matched 1:1 on factors associated with surgical outcomes, and outcomes were compared between matched cohorts. Primary outcomes included surgical complications, discharge status, 30- and 90-day risk of readmission, emergency department (ED) visits, reoperation, and mortality. RESULTS: Univariate regression of increasing CCI was significantly associated with non-home discharge, as well as 30- and 90-day readmission, ED visits, and mortality (all P < 0.05). Subsequent isolation of comorbidity between otherwise exact-matched cohorts found comorbid status did not affect readmissions, reoperations, or mortality; high CCI score was significantly associated with non-home discharge (OR = 2.50, P < 0.001) and 30-day (OR = 2.44, P = 0.02) and 90-day (OR = 2.29, P = 0.008) ED evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity, measured by CCI, did not increase the risk of readmission, reoperation, or mortality. Single-level, posterior lumbar fusions may be safe in appropriately selected patients regardless of comorbid status. Future studies should determine whether CCI can guide discharge planning and postoperative optimization.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery on Patients Undergoing Elective Spine Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an elective spine surgery population. BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and opioid utilization greatly contribute to patient satisfaction and societal healthcare costs. ERAS protocols are multimodal, patient-centered care pathways shown to reduce postoperative opioid use, reduced LOS, and improved ambulation; however, prospective ERAS data are limited in spine surgery. METHODS: This single-center, institutional review board-approved, prospective RCT-enrolled adult patients undergoing elective spine surgery between March 2019 and October 2020. Primary outcomes were perioperative and 1-month postoperative opioid use. Patients were randomized to ERAS (n=142) or standard-of-care (SOC; n=142) based on power analyses to detect a difference in postoperative opioid use. RESULTS: Opioid use during hospitalization and the first postoperative month was not significantly different between groups (ERAS 112.2 vs SOC 117.6 morphine milligram equivalent, P =0.76; ERAS 38.7% vs SOC 39.4%, P =1.00, respectively). However, patients randomized to ERAS were less likely to use opioids at 6 months postoperatively (ERAS 11.4% vs SOC 20.6%, P =0.046) and more likely to be discharged to home after surgery (ERAS 91.5% vs SOC 81.0%, P =0.015). CONCLUSION: Here, we present a novel ERAS prospective RCT in the elective spine surgery population. Although we do not detect a difference in the primary outcome of short-term opioid use, we observe significantly reduced opioid use at 6-month follow-up as well as an increased likelihood of home disposition after surgery in the ERAS group.

Postoperative Outcomes and Resource Utilization Following Open vs Endoscopic Far Lateral Lumbar Discectomy.

BACKGROUND: Operative approaches for far lateral disc herniation (FLDH) repair may be classified as open or minimally invasive. The present study aims to compare postoperative outcomes and resource utilization between patients undergoing open and endoscopic (one such minimally invasive approach) FLDH surgeries. METHODS: A total of 144 consecutive adult patients undergoing FLDH repair at a single, university health system over an 8-year period (2013-2020) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: "open" (n = 92) and "endoscopic" (n = 52). Logistic regression was performed to evaluate the impact of procedural type on postoperative outcomes, and resource utilization metrics were compared between cohorts using χ 2 test (for categorical variables) or t test (for continuous variables). Primary postsurgical outcomes included readmissions, reoperations, emergency department visits, and neurosurgery outpatient office visits within 90 days of the index operation. Primary resource utilization outcomes included total direct cost of the procedure and length of stay. Secondary measures included discharge disposition, operative length, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS: No differences were observed in adverse postoperative events. Patients undergoing open FLDH surgery were more likely to attend outpatient visits within 30 days (P = 0.016). Although direct operating room cost was lower (P < 0.001) for open procedures, length of hospital stay was longer (P < 0.001). Patients undergoing open surgery also demonstrated less favorable discharge dispositions, longer operative length, and greater duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While both procedure types represent viable options for FLDH, endoscopic surgeries appear to achieve comparable clinical outcomes with decreased perioperative resource utilization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study suggests that endoscopic FLDH repairs do not lead to inferior outcomes but may decrease utilization of perioperative resources.

"July Effect" in Spinal Fusions: A Coarsened Exact-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Few neurosurgical studies examine the July Effect within elective spinal procedures, and none uses an exact-matched protocol to rigorously account for confounders. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the July Effect in single-level spinal fusions, after coarsened exact matching of the patient cohort on key patient characteristics (including race and comorbid status) known to independently affect neurosurgical outcomes. METHODS: Two thousand three hundred thirty-eight adult patients who underwent single-level, posterior-only lumbar fusion at a single, multicenter university hospital system were retrospectively enrolled. Primary outcomes included readmissions, emergency department visits, reoperation, surgical complications, and mortality within 30 days of surgery. Logistic regression was used to analyze month as an ordinal variable. Subsequently, outcomes were compared between patients with surgery at the beginning vs end of the academic year (ie, July vs April-June), before and after coarsened exact matching on key characteristics. After exact matching, 99 exactly matched pairs of patients (total n = 198) were included for analysis. RESULTS: Among all patients, operative month was not associated with adverse postoperative events within 30 days of the index operation. Furthermore, patients with surgeries in July had no significant difference in adverse outcomes. Similarly, between exact-matched cohorts, patients in July were observed to have noninferior adverse postoperative events. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence suggestive of a July Effect after single-level, posterior approach spinal fusions in our cohort. These findings align with the previous literature to imply that teaching hospitals provide adequate patient care throughout the academic year, regardless of how long individual resident physician assistants have been in their particular role.

Household income is associated with return to surgery following discectomy for far lateral disc herniation.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have demonstrated that household income is independently predictive of postsurgical morbidity and mortality, but few studies have elucidated this relationship in a purely spine surgery population. This study aims to correlate household income with adverse events after discectomy for far lateral disc herniation (FLDH). METHODS: All adult patients (N.=144) who underwent FLDH surgery at a single, multihospital, 1659-bed university health system (2013-2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between household income and adverse postsurgical events, including unplanned hospital readmissions, ED visits, and reoperations. RESULTS: Mean age of the population was 61.72±11.55 years. Mean household income was $78,283±26,996; 69 (47.9%) were female; and 126 (87.5%) were non-Hispanic white. Ninety-two patients underwent open and fifty-two underwent endoscopic FLDH surgery. Each additional dollar decrease in household income was significantly associated with increased risk of reoperation of any kind within 90-days, but not 30-days, after the index admission. However, household income did not predict risk of readmission or ED visit within either 30-days or 30-90-days postsurgery. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that household income may predict reoperation following FLDH surgery. Additional research is warranted into the relationship between household income and adverse neurosurgical outcomes.

Understanding the Natural History of Postoperative Pain and Patient-Reported Opioid Consumption After Elective Spine and Nerve Surgeries With an Automated Text Messaging System.

BACKGROUND: There is a gap in understanding how to ensure opioid stewardship while managing postoperative neurosurgical pain. OBJECTIVE: To describe self-reported opioid consumption and pain intensity after common neurosurgery procedures gathered using an automated text messaging system. METHODS: A prospective, observational study was performed at a large, urban academic health system in Pennsylvania. Adult patients (≥ 18 years), who underwent surgeries between October 2019 and May 2020, were consented. Data on postoperative pain intensity and patient-reported opioid consumption were collected prospectively for 3 months. We analyzed the association between the quantity of opioids prescribed and consumed. RESULTS: A total of 517 patients were enrolled. The median pain intensity at discharge was 5 out of a maximum of pain score of 10 and was highest after thoracolumbar fusion (median: 6, interquartile range [IQR]: 4-7). During the follow-up period, patients were prescribed a median of 40 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone equivalent pills (IQR: 28-40) and reported taking a median of 28 tablet equivalents (IQR: 17-40). Responders who were opioid-naive vs opioid-tolerant took a similar median number of opioid pills postoperatively (28 [IQR: 17-40] vs 27.5 [17.5-40], respectively). There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the quantity of opioids prescribed and used during the 3-month follow-up (Pearson R = 0.85, 95% CI [0.80-0.89], P < .001). The correlation was stronger among patients who were discharged to a higher level of care. CONCLUSION: Using real-time, patient-centered pain assessment and opioid consumption data will allow for the development of evidence-based opioid prescribing guidelines after spinal and nerve surgery.

Short-Term Impact of Bracing in Multi-Level Posterior Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice in postoperative bracing after posterior lumbar spine fusion (PLF) is inconsistent between providers. This paper attempts to assess the effect of bracing on short-term outcomes related to safety, quality of care, and direct costs. METHODS: Retrospective cohort analysis of consecutive patients undergoing multilevel PLF with or without bracing (2013-2017) was undertaken (n = 980). Patient demographics and comorbidities were analyzed. Outcomes assessed included length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), surgical-site infection (SSI), total cost, readmission within 30 days, and emergency department (ED) evaluation within 30 days. RESULTS: Amongst the study population, 936 were braced and 44 were not braced. There was no difference between the braced and unbraced cohorts regarding LOS (P = .106), discharge disposition (P = .898), 30-day readmission (P = .434), and 30-day ED evaluation (P = 1.000). There was also no difference in total cost (P = .230) or QALY gain (P = .740). The results indicate a significantly lower likelihood of SSI in the braced population (1.50% versus 6.82%, odds ratio = 0.208, 95% confidence interval = 0.057-0.751, P = .037). There was no difference in relevant comorbidities (P = .259-1.000), although the braced cohort was older than the unbraced cohort (63 versus 56 y, P = .003). CONCLUSION: Bracing following multilevel posterior lumbar fixation does not alter short-term postoperative course or reduce the risk for early adverse events. Cost analysis show no difference in direct costs between the 2 treatment approaches. Short-term data suggest that removal of bracing from the postoperative regimen for PLF will not result in increased adverse outcomes.

Outcomes Following Discectomy for Far Lateral Disc Herniation Are Not Predicted by Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

Introduction Previous studies have demonstrated that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes, but few studies have examined OSA in a purely spine surgery population. This study investigates the association of the STOP-Bang questionnaire, a screening tool for undiagnosed OSA, with adverse events following discectomy for far lateral disc herniation (FLDH). Methods All adult patients (n = 144) who underwent FLDH surgery at a single, multihospital, academic medical center (2013-2020) were retrospectively enrolled. Univariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the relationship between risk of OSA (low- or high-risk) according to STOP-Bang score and postsurgical outcomes, including unplanned hospital readmissions, ED visits, and reoperations. Results Ninety-two patients underwent open FLDH surgery, while 52 underwent endoscopic procedures. High risk of OSA according to STOP-Bang score did not predict risk of readmission, ED visit, outpatient office visit, or reoperation of any kind within either 30 days or 30-90 days of surgery. High risk of OSA also did not predict risk of reoperation of any kind or repeat neurosurgical intervention within 30 days or 90 days of the index admission (either during the same admission or after discharge). Conclusion The STOP-Bang questionnaire is not a reliable tool for predicting post-operative morbidity and mortality for FLDH patients undergoing discectomy. Additional studies are needed to assess the impact of OSA on morbidity and mortality in other spine surgery populations.

Charlson Comorbidity Index score predicts adverse post-operative outcomes after far lateral lumbar discectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score has been shown to predict 10-year all-cause mortality and post-neurosurgical complications but has never been examined in a far lateral disc herniation (FLDH) population. This study aims to correlate CCI score with adverse outcomes following FLDH repair. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients (n = 144) undergoing discectomy for FLDH at a single, multihospital academic medical system (2013-2020) were retrospectively analyzed. CCI scores were determined for all patients. Univariate logistic regression was used to determine the ability of CCI score to predict adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Mean age of the population was 61.72 ± 11.55 years, 69 (47.9%) were female, and 126 (87.5%) were non-Hispanic white. Patients underwent either open (n = 92) or endoscopic (n = 52) FLDH repair. Average CCI score among the patient population was 2.87 ± 2.42. Each additional point in CCI score was significantly associated with higher rates of readmission (p = 0.022, p = 0.014) in the 30-day and 30-90-day post-surgery window, respectively, and emergency department visits (p = 0.011) within 30-days. CCI score also predicted risk of reoperation of any kind (p = 0.013) within 30 days of the index operation. In addition, CCI score was predictive of risk of reoperation of any kind (p = 0.008, p < 0.001; respectively) and repeat neurosurgical intervention (p = 0.027, p = 0.027) within 30-days and 90-days of the index admission (either during the same admission or after discharge). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that CCI score is a useful metric to predict of numerous adverse postoperative outcomes following discectomy for FLDH.

Predicting patient outcomes after far lateral lumbar discectomy.

INTRODUCTION: The LACE+ (Length of Stay, Acuity of Admission, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) Score, Emergency Department (ED) visits within the previous 6 months) index has never been tested in a purely spine surgery population. This study assesses the ability of LACE + to predict adverse patient outcomes following discectomy for far lateral disc herniation (FLDH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained for patients (n = 144) who underwent far lateral lumbar discectomy at a single, multi-hospital academic medical center (2013-2020). LACE + scores were calculated for all patients with complete information (n = 100). The influence of confounding variables was assessed and controlled with stepwise regression. Logistic regression was used to test the ability of LACE + to predict risk of unplanned hospital readmission, ED visits, outpatient office visits, and reoperation after surgery. RESULTS: Mean age of the population was 61.72 ± 11.55 years, 69 (47.9 %) were female, and 126 (87.5 %) were non-Hispanic white. Patients underwent either open (n = 92) or endoscopic (n = 52) surgery. Each point increase in LACE + score significantly predicted, in the 30-day (30D) and 30-90-day (30-90D) post-discharge window, higher risk of readmission (p = 0.005, p = 0.009; respectively) and ED visits (p = 0.045). Increasing LACE + also predicted, in the 30D and 90-day (90D) post-discharge window, risk of reoperation (p = 0.022, p = 0.016; respectively), and repeat neurosurgical intervention (p = 0.026, p = 0.026; respectively). Increasing LACE + score also predicted risk of reoperation (p = 0.011) within 30 days of initial surgery. CONCLUSIONS: LACE + may be suitable for characterizing risk of adverse perioperative events for patients undergoing far lateral discectomy.

Assessing variability in surgical decision making among attending neurosurgeons at an academic center.

OBJECTIVE: Although it is known that intersurgeon variability in offering elective surgery can have major consequences for patient morbidity and healthcare spending, data addressing variability within neurosurgery are scarce. The authors performed a prospective peer review study of randomly selected neurosurgery cases in order to assess the extent of consensus regarding the decision to offer elective surgery among attending neurosurgeons across one large academic institution. METHODS: All consecutive patients who had undergone standard inpatient surgical interventions of 1 of 4 types (craniotomy for tumor [CFT], nonacute redo CFT, first-time spine surgery with/without instrumentation, and nonacute redo spine surgery with/without instrumentation) during the period 2015-2017 were retrospectively enrolled (n = 9156 patient surgeries, n = 80 randomly selected individual cases, n = 20 index cases of each type randomly selected for review). The selected cases were scored by attending neurosurgeons using a need for surgery (NFS) score based on clinical data (patient demographics, preoperative notes, radiology reports, and operative notes; n = 616 independent case reviews). Attending neurosurgeon reviewers were blinded as to performing provider and surgical outcome. Aggregate NFS scores across various categories were measured. The authors employed a repeated-measures mixed ANOVA model with autoregressive variance structure to compute omnibus statistical tests across the various surgery types. Interrater reliability (IRR) was measured using Cohen's kappa based on binary NFS scores. RESULTS: Overall, the authors found that most of the neurosurgical procedures studied were rated as "indicated" by blinded attending neurosurgeons (mean NFS = 88.3, all p values < 0.001) with greater agreement among neurosurgeon raters than expected by chance (IRR = 81.78%, p = 0.016). Redo surgery had lower NFS scores and IRR scores than first-time surgery, both for craniotomy and spine surgery (ANOVA, all p values < 0.01). Spine surgeries with fusion had lower NFS scores than spine surgeries without fusion procedures (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was general agreement among neurosurgeons in terms of indication for surgery; however, revision surgery of all types and spine surgery with fusion procedures had the lowest amount of decision consensus. These results should guide efforts aimed at reducing unnecessary variability in surgical practice with the goal of effective allocation of healthcare resources to advance the value paradigm in neurosurgery.

Enhanced recovery after elective spinal and peripheral nerve surgery: pilot study from a single institution.

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols address pre-, peri-, and postoperative factors of a patient's surgical journey. The authors sought to assess the effects of a novel ERAS protocol on clinical outcomes for patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgery.METHODSThe authors conducted a prospective cohort analysis comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgery after implementation of the ERAS protocol compared to a historical control cohort in a tertiary care academic medical center. Patients in the historical cohort (September-December 2016) underwent traditional surgical care. Patients in the intervention group (April-June 2017) were enrolled in a unique ERAS protocol created by the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. Primary objectives were as follows: opioid and nonopioid pain medication consumption, need for opioid use at 1 month postoperatively, and patient-reported pain scores. Secondary objectives were as follows: mobilization and ambulation status, Foley catheter use, need for straight catheterization, length of stay, need for ICU admission, discharge status, and readmission within 30 days.RESULTSA total of 201 patients underwent surgical care via an ERAS protocol and were compared to a total of 74 patients undergoing traditional perioperative care (control group). The 2 groups were similar in baseline demographics. Intravenous opioid medications postoperatively via patient-controlled analgesia was nearly eliminated in the ERAS group (0.5% vs 54.1%, p < 0.001). This change was not associated with an increase in the average or daily pain scores in the ERAS group. At 1 month following surgery, a smaller proportion of patients in the ERAS group were using opioids (38.8% vs 52.7%, p = 0.041). The ERAS group demonstrated greater mobilization on postoperative day 0 (53.4% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001) and postoperative day 1 (84.1% vs 45.7%, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. Postoperative Foley use was decreased in the ERAS group (20.4% vs 47.3%, p < 0.001) without an increase in the rate of straight catheterization (8.1% vs 11.9%, p = 0.51).CONCLUSIONSImplementation of this novel ERAS pathway safely reduces patients' postoperative opioid requirements during hospitalization and 1 month postoperatively. ERAS results in improved postoperative mobilization and ambulation.

Implications of anesthetic approach, spinal versus general, for the treatment of spinal disc herniation.

OBJECTIVEHealthcare costs continue to escalate. Approaches to care that have comparable outcomes and complications are increasingly assessed for quality improvement and, when possible, cost containment. Efforts to identify components of care to reduce length of stay (LOS) have been ongoing. Spinal anesthesia (SA), for select lumbar spine procedures, has garnered interest as an alternative to general anesthesia (GA) that might reduce cost and in-hospital LOS and accelerate recovery. While clinical outcomes with SA or GA have been studied extensively, few authors have looked at the cost-analysis in relation to clinical outcomes. The authors' objectives were to compare the clinical perioperative outcomes of patients who received SA and GA, as well as the direct costs associated with each modality of care, and to determine which, in a retrospective analysis, can serve as a dominant procedural approach.METHODSThe authors retrospectively analyzed a homogeneous surgical population of 550 patients who underwent hemilaminotomy for disc herniation and who received either SA (n = 91) or GA (n = 459). All clinical and billing data were obtained via each patient's chart and the hospital's billing database, respectively. Additionally, the authors prospectively assessed patient-reported outcome measures for a subgroup of consecutively treated patients (n = 75) and compared quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains between the two cohorts. Furthermore, the authors performed a propensity score-matching analysis to compare the two cohorts (n = 180).RESULTSDirect hospital costs for patients receiving SA were 40% higher, in the hundreds of dollars, than for patients who received GA (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, there was a significant difference with regard to LOS (p < 0.0001), where patients receiving SA had a considerably longer hospital LOS (27.6% increase in hours). Patients undergoing SA had more comorbidities (p = 0.0053), specifically diabetes and hypertension. However, metrics of complications, including readmission (p = 0.3038) and emergency department (ED) visits at 30 days (p = 1.0), were no different. Furthermore, in a small pilot group, QALY gains were statistically no different (n = 75, p = 0.6708). Propensity score-matching analysis demonstrated similar results as the univariate analysis: there was no difference between the cohorts regarding 30-day readmission (p = 1.0000); ED within 30 days could not be analyzed as there were no patients in the SA group; and total direct costs and LOS were significantly different between the two cohorts (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0126, respectively).CONCLUSIONSBoth SA and GA exhibit the qualities of a good anesthetic, and the utilization of these modalities for lumbar spine surgery is safe and effective. However, this work suggests that SA is associated with increased LOS and higher direct costs, although these differences may not be clinically or fiscally meaningful.

A Prospective Detailed Time Analysis Study of 18 Patients Undergoing Elective Single-Level Open Lumbar Microdiscectomy Spinal Surgery Compared with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Reimbursement Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Single-level open lumbar microdiscectomy surgery is one of the most straightforward and effective spinal surgeries performed by spinal surgeons today to treat disk herniation. Although a common operation, little in the literature is reported on the exact overall time, cost, and effort associated with the performance of this surgery. The consistency of this operation across institutions and disciplines makes it a good starting point to accurately track the total time and effort of all phases of the surgical intervention. METHODS: Eighteen patients undergoing elective single-level open lumbar microdiscectomy surgery were prospectively enrolled in this study. The time spent interacting with each patient by every member of the surgical team was tracked and recorded along will every phone call and e-mail. All perioperative times associated with the surgery were tracked and analyzed. Each patient was followed from their first interaction through surgery and for the first 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The advanced practice providers spent the most time with the patient both pre- and postoperatively followed by the surgeon and resident. A total of 2.98 hours was spent with the patient preoperatively in clinic and 1.69 hours postoperatively. The total time commitment of an institution treating this condition was 12.56 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing our results with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data, a significant discrepancy and underestimation was observed. As such, we hope our results enable health care providers to more accurately allocate resources for the provision of high-quality medical care to patients with this increasingly common condition.

Pre-optimization of spinal surgery patients: Development of a neurosurgical enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol.

OBJECTIVE: Despite surgical, technological, medical, and anesthetic improvements, patient outcomes following elective neurosurgical procedures can be associated with high morbidity. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multimodal care pathways designed to optimize patient outcomes by addressing pre-, peri-, and post-operative factors. Despite significant data suggesting improved patient outcomes with the adoption of these pathways, development and implementation has been limited in the neurosurgical population. METHODS/RESULTS: This study protocol was designed to establish the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of implementation of an ERAS protocol on the improvement of clinical and patient reported outcomes and patient satisfaction scores in an elective inpatient spine surgery population. Neurosurgical patients undergoing spinal surgery will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of two treatment arms: ERAS protocol (experimental group) or hospital standard (control group). The experimental group will undergo interventions at the pre-, peri-, and post-operative time points, which are exclusive to this group as compared to the hospital standard group. CONCLUSIONS: The present proposal aims to provide supporting data for the application of these specific ERAS components in the spine surgery population and provide rationale/justification of this type of care pathway. This study will help inform the design of a future multi-institutional, randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: of this study will guide further efforts to limit post-operative morbidity in patients undergoing elective spinal surgery and to highlight the impact of ERAS care pathways in improving patient reported outcomes and satisfaction.

Efficiency of spinal anesthesia versus general anesthesia for lumbar spinal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 544 patients.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown varying results in selected outcomes when directly comparing spinal anesthesia to general in lumbar surgery. Some studies have shown reduced surgical time, postoperative pain, time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), incidence of urinary retention, postoperative nausea, and more favorable cost-effectiveness with spinal anesthesia. Despite these results, the current literature has also shown contradictory results in between-group comparisons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed by querying the electronic medical record database for surgeries performed by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011 using procedural codes 63030 for diskectomy and 63047 for laminectomy: 544 lumbar laminectomy and diskectomy surgeries were identified, with 183 undergoing general anesthesia and 361 undergoing spinal anesthesia (SA). Linear and multivariate regression analyses were performed to identify differences in blood loss, operative time, time from entering the operating room (OR) until incision, time from bandage placement to exiting the OR, total anesthesia time, PACU time, and total hospital stay. Secondary outcomes of interest included incidence of postoperative spinal hematoma and death, incidence of paraparesis, plegia, post-dural puncture headache, and paresthesia, among the SA patients. RESULTS: SA was associated with significantly lower operative time, blood loss, total anesthesia time, time from entering the OR until incision, time from bandage placement until exiting the OR, and total duration of hospital stay, but a longer stay in the PACU. The SA group experienced one spinal hematoma, which was evacuated without any long-term neurological deficits, and neither group experienced a death. The SA group had no episodes of paraparesis or plegia, post-dural puncture headaches, or episodes of persistent postoperative paresthesia or weakness. CONCLUSION: SA is effective for use in patients undergoing elective lumbar laminectomy and/or diskectomy spinal surgery, and was shown to be the more expedient anesthetic choice in the perioperative setting.

Recurring polysomatic hemangiomatosis: a new syndrome?

Systemic hemangiomatosis is extremely rare in adolescents and adults. The authors describe a 37-year-old man with a history of hepatic, splenic, cerebral, and multiple recurring osseous hemangiomas since age 14. After a 9-year period without disease progression, the patient presented with an acute bilateral lower extremity myelopathy. This was secondary to a T11 vertebral hemangioma that compressed the spinal cord. A 2-week course of radiation therapy failed to alleviate the patient's symptoms. Successful T11 vertebrectomy was then performed to decompress the spinal cord. The many organs and serially involved bones may represent a distinct variant of hemangiomatosis not previously described in the literature.