Frailty Assessment and Prehabilitation Before Complex Spine Surgery in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease: A Narrative Review.

Degenerative spine disease increases in prevalence and may become debilitating as people age. Complex spine surgery may offer relief but becomes riskier with age. Efforts to lessen the physiological impact of surgery through minimally invasive techniques and enhanced recovery programs mitigate risk only after the decision for surgery. Frailty assessments outperform traditional tools of perioperative risk stratification. The extent of frailty predicts complications after spine surgery such as reoperation for infection and 30-day mortality, as well as elements of social cost such as hospital length of stay and discharge to an advanced care facility. Symptoms of spine disease overlap with phenotypic markers of frailty; therefore, different frailty assessment tools may perform differently in patients with degenerative spine disease. Beyond frailty, however, cognitive decline and psychosocial isolation may interact with frailty and affect achievable surgical outcomes. Prehabilitation, which has reduced perioperative risk in colorectal and cardiac surgery, may benefit potential complex spine surgery patients. Typical prehabilitation includes physical exercise, nutrition supplementation, and behavioral measures that may offer symptomatic relief even in the absence of surgery. Nonetheless, the data on the efficacy of prehabilitation for spine surgery remains sparse and barriers to prehabilitation are poorly defined. This narrative review concludes that a frailty assessment-potentially supplemented by an assessment of cognition and psychosocial resources-should be part of shared decision-making for patients considering complex spine surgery. Such an assessment may suffice to prompt interventions that form a prehabilitation program. Formal prehabilitation programs will require further study to better define their place in complex spine care.

Best Practices in Facial Nerve Monitoring.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Facial nerve monitoring (FNM) has evolved into a widely used adjunct for many surgical procedures along the course of the facial nerve. Even though majority opinion holds that FNM reduces the incidence of iatrogenic nerve injury, there are few if any studies yielding high-level evidence and no practice guidelines on which clinicians can rely. Instead, a review of the literature and medicolegal cases reveals significant variations in methodology, training, and clinical indications. STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and expert opinion. METHODS: Given the lack of standard references to serve as a resource for FNM, we assembled a multidisciplinary group of experts representing more than a century of combined monitoring experience to synthesize the literature and provide a rational basis to improve the quality of patient care during FNM. RESULTS: Over the years, two models of monitoring have become well-established: 1) monitoring by the surgeon using a stand-alone device that provides auditory feedback of facial electromyography directly to the surgeon, and 2) a team, typically consisting of surgeon, technologist, and interpreting neurophysiologist. Regardless of the setting and the number of people involved, the reliability of monitoring depends on the integration of proper technical performance, accurate interpretation of responses, and their timely application to the surgical procedure. We describe critical steps in the technical set-up and provide a basis for context-appropriate interpretation and troubleshooting of recorded signals. CONCLUSIONS: We trust this initial attempt to describe best practices will serve as a basis for improving the quality of patient care while reducing inappropriate variations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:S1-S42, 2021.