Abdominal aortic calcification is an independent predictor of perioperative blood loss in posterior spinal fusion surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Abdominal aortic calcification (AAC), often found incidentally on lateral lumbar radiographs, is increasingly recognized for its association with adverse outcomes in spine surgery. As a marker of advanced atherosclerosis affecting cardiovascular dynamics, this study evaluates AAC's impact on perioperative blood loss in posterior spinal fusion (PSF). METHODS: Patients undergoing PSF from March 2016 to July 2023 were included. Estimated blood loss (EBL) and total blood volume (TBV) were calculated. AAC was assessed on lateral lumbar radiographs according to the Kauppila classification. Predictors of the EBL-to-TBV ratio (%EBL/TBV) were examined via univariable and multivariable regression analyses, which adjusted for parameters such as hypertension and aspirin use. RESULTS: A total of 199 patients (47.2% female) were analyzed. AAC was present in 106 patients (53.3%). AAC independently predicted %EBL/TBV, accounting for an increase in blood loss of 4.46% of TBV (95% CI 1.17-7.74, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify AAC as an independent predictor of perioperative blood loss in PSF. In addition to its link to degenerative spinal conditions and adverse postoperative outcomes, the relationship between AAC and increased blood loss warrants attention in patients undergoing PSF.

Effectiveness of oral versus intravenous tranexamic acid in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces rates of blood transfusion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although the use of oral TXA rather than intravenous (i.v.) TXA might improve safety and reduce cost, it is not clear whether oral administration is as effective. METHODS: This noninferiority trial randomly assigned consecutive patients undergoing primary THA or TKA under neuraxial anaesthesia to either one preoperative dose of oral TXA or one preoperative dose of i.v. TXA. The primary outcome was calculated blood loss on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes were transfusions and complications within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: Four hundred participants were randomised (200 THA and 200 TKA). The final analysis included 196 THA patients (98 oral, 98 i.v.) and 191 TKA patients (93 oral, 98 i.v.). Oral TXA was non-inferior to i.v. TXA in terms of calculated blood loss for both THA (effect size=-18.2 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -113 to 76.3; P<0.001) and TKA (effect size=-79.7 ml; 95% CI, -178.9 to 19.6; P<0.001). One patient in the i.v. TXA group received a postoperative transfusion. Complication rates were similar between the two groups (5/191 [2.6%] oral vs 5/196 [2.6%] i.v.; P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Oral TXA can be administered in the preoperative setting before THA or TKA and performs similarly to i.v. TXA with respect to blood loss and transfusion rates. Switching from i.v. to oral TXA in this setting has the potential to improve patient safety and decrease costs.

Spine surgery under neuraxial vs. general anesthesia: the current state of comparative outcomes research.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The impact of primary anesthetic technique on outcomes after spine surgery is controversial. Given frequent calls for well designed prospective comparative studies of neuraxial anesthesia vs. general anesthesia and recent reports of 'awake spine surgery' successes in the surgical literature, an updated evidence review is indicated. RECENT FINDINGS: Systematic reviews, population-based and retrospective cohort studies suggest few significant differences in important complications or global recovery between anesthetic techniques. On the basis of overall low-to-moderate quality evidence, neuraxial anesthesia is associated with statistically significant benefits for several individual outcomes compared with general anesthesia, including improved intraoperative hemodynamic stability, less postoperative nausea and vomiting, lower early pain scores and shorter length of hospital stay. There are ongoing calls for well designed, adequately powered prospective studies. SUMMARY: Our understanding of the risks, benefits and comparative outcomes between neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia for spine surgery is evolving. Although the results derived from this body of literature suggest specific benefits of neuraxial anesthesia, further research is required before widespread recommendations for either technique can be made. Until then, both neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia are reasonable choices for lumbar spine surgery of short duration, in appropriately selected patients.

Comparative review of airway anesthesia and sedation methods for awake intubation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Successful awake intubation hinges upon adequate airway anesthesia and sedation for patient comfort. This review will summarize relevant anatomy and regional anesthesia techniques to achieve airway anesthesia, and compare various airway anesthesia and sedation regimens. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall, nerve blocks consistently provided superior airway anesthesia, shorter time to intubation, higher patient comfort, and higher postintubation patient satisfaction. Additionally, ultrasound guidance can further provide benefit by reducing the amount of local anesthetic administered, leading to denser blockade, and proving invaluable in challenging clinical situations. Regarding sedation methods, numerous studies supported the use of dexmedetomidine, with or without the addition of supplemental sedation, such as midazolam, ketamine, or opioids. SUMMARY: Emerging evidence has indicated that nerve blocks for airway anesthesia may be superior to other methods of topicalization. Additionally, dexmedetomidine can be useful, both as monotherapy and with supplemental sedatives, to safely provide anxiolysis for the patient and increase success. However, it is crucial to note that the method of airway anesthesia and sedation regimen should be adapted to each patient and clinical situation, and knowledge of multiple techniques and sedation regimens can best equip anesthesiologists to do so.

Ultrasound-guided fascial plane blocks for spine surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The development of truncal and fascial plane blocks has created novel opportunities to apply regional analgesic techniques to patients undergoing spine surgery. This review will summarize recent literature devoted to evaluating candidate blocks for spine surgery, including erector spinae plane block, thoracolumbar interfascial plane block, midpoint transverse process to pleura block, and transversus abdominis plane block. Procedure-specific effects of blocks on patient and healthcare system outcomes will be presented and gaps in care and knowledge will be highlighted. RECENT FINDINGS: The most studied paradigm was bilateral erector spinae plane block for lumbar spine surgery. The most common outcomes assessed were early postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption and related side effects, and length of hospital stay. All candidate blocks were associated with mixed evidence for analgesic and opioid-sparing benefits, and/or reductions in length of hospital stay. The magnitude of these effects was overall small, with many studies showing statistically but not clinically significant differences on outcomes of interest. This may reflect, at least in part, the current state of the (emerging) evidence base on this topic. SUMMARY: Our understanding of the risks, benefits, and value of truncal and fascial plane blocks for spine surgery cohorts is evolving. Although the results derived from this body of literature are encouraging, further research is required before the widespread adoption of specified blocks into spine care can be recommended.

Association between sex and perioperative opioid prescribing for total joint arthroplasty: a retrospective population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data exist on differential opioid prescribing between men and women in the pre-, peri-, and postoperative phases of care among patients undergoing total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). METHODS: In this retrospective population-based study, Truven Health MarketScan claims data were used to establish differences between men and women in (1) opioid prescribing in the year before THA/TKA surgery, (2) the amount of opioids prescribed at discharge, and (3) chronic opioid prescribing (3-12 months after surgery). Multivariable regression models measured odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Among 29 038 THAs (42% men) and 48 523 TKAs (52% men) men (compared with women) were less likely to receive an opioid prescription in the year before surgery (54% vs 60%, and 54% vs 60% for THA and TKA, respectively); P<0.001. However, in multivariable analyses male sex was associated with higher total opioid dosages prescribed at discharge after THA (OR=1.04; 95% CI 1.03, 1.06) and TKA (OR=1.05; 95% CI 1.04, 1.06); both P<0.001. Chronic opioid prescribing was found in 10% of the cohort (THA: n=2333; TKA: n=5365). Here, men demonstrated lower odds of persistent opioid prescribing specifically after THA (OR=0.90; 95% CI 0.82, 0.99) but not TKA (OR=0.96; 95% CI 0.90, 1.02); P=0.026 and P=0.207, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We found sex-based differences in opioid prescribing across all phases of care for THA/TKA. The results highlight temporal opportunities for targeted interventions to improve outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, particularly for women, and to decrease chronic opioid prescribing.

The association of transversus abdominis plane block with length of stay, pain and opioid consumption after anterior or lateral lumbar fusion: a retrospective study.

PURPOSE: Anterior (ALIF) and lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion is associated with significant postoperative pain, opioid consumption and length of stay. Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks improve these outcomes in other surgical subtypes but have not been applied to spine surgery. A retrospective study of 250 patients was performed to describe associations between TAP block and outcomes after ALIF/LLIF. METHODS: The electronic medical records of 129 patients who underwent ALIF or LLIF with TAP block were compared to 121 patients who did not. All patients were cared for under a standardized perioperative care pathway with comprehensive multimodal analgesia. Differences in patent demographics, surgical factors, length of stay (LOS), opioid consumption, opioid-related side effects and pain scores were compared in bivariable and multivariable regression analyses. RESULTS: In bivariable analyses, TAP block was associated with a significantly shorter LOS, less postoperative nausea/vomiting and lower opioid consumption in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). In multivariable analyses, TAP block was associated with significantly shorter LOS (ß - 12 h, 95% CI (- 22, - 2 h); p = 0.021). Preoperative opioid use was a strong predictive factor for higher opioid consumption in the PACU, opioid use in the first 24 h after surgery and longer LOS. We did not find significant differences in pain scores at any times between the groups. CONCLUSION: TAP block may represent an effective addition to pain management and opioid-reducing strategies and improve outcomes after ALIF/LLIF. Prospective trials are warranted to further explore these associations.

A Comprehensive Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Rotator Cuff Surgery Reduces Pain, Opioid Use, and Side Effects.

BACKGROUND: Patients often have moderate to severe pain after rotator cuff surgery, despite receiving analgesics and nerve blocks. There are many suggested ways to improve pain after rotator cuff surgery, but the effects of adopting a pathway that includes formal patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and extensive multimodal analgesia are unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does adoption of a clinical pathway incorporating patient education, a long-acting nerve block, and preemptive multimodal analgesia reduce the worst pain during the first 48 hours after surgery compared with current standard institutional practices? (2) Does adoption of the pathway reduce opioid use? (3) Does adoption of the pathway reduce side effects and improve patient-oriented outcomes? METHODS: From September 2018 to January 2020, 281 patients scheduled for arthroscopic ambulatory rotator cuff surgery were identified for this paired sequential prospective cohort study. Among patients in the control group, 177 were identified, 33% (58) were not eligible, for 11% (20) staff was not available, 56% (99) were approached, 16% (29) declined, 40% (70) enrolled, and 40% (70) were analyzed (2% [4] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). For patients in the pathway cohort, 104 were identified, 17% (18) were not eligible, for 11% (11) staff was not available, 72% (75) were approached, 5% (5) declined, 67% (70) enrolled, and 67% (70) were analyzed (3% [3] lost to follow-up for secondary outcomes after postoperative day 2). No patients were lost to follow-up for primary outcome; for secondary outcomes, four were lost in the control group and three in the pathway group after postoperative day 2 (p = 0.70). The initial 70 patients enrolled received routine care (control group), and in a subsequent cohort, 70 patients received care guided by a pathway (pathway group). Of the 205 eligible patients, 68% (140) were included in the analysis. This was not a study comparing two tightly defined protocols but rather a study to determine whether adoption of a pathway would alter patient outcomes. For this reason, we used a pragmatic (real-world) study design that did not specify how control patients would be treated, and it did not require that all pathway patients receive all components of the pathway. We developed the pathway in coordination with a group of surgeons and anesthesiologists who agreed to apply the pathway as much as was viewed practical for each individual patient. Patients in both groups received a brachial plexus nerve block with sedation. Major differences between the pathway and control groups were: detailed patient education regarding reasonable pain expectations with a goal of reducing opioid use (no formal educational presentation was given to the control), a long-acting nerve block using bupivacaine with dexamethasone (control patients often received shorter-acting local anesthetic without perineural dexamethasone), and preemptive multimodal analgesia including intraoperative ketamine, postoperative acetaminophen, NSAIDs, and gabapentin at bedtime, with opioids as needed (control patients received postoperative opioids but most did not get postoperative NSAIDS and no controls received gabapentin or separate prescriptions for acetaminophen). The primary outcome was the numerical rating scale (NRS) worst pain with movement 0 to 48 hours after block placement. The NRS pain score ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain possible). The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) [12] for NRS that was used for calculation of the study sample size was 1.3 [18], although some authors suggest 1 [13] or 2 [5] are appropriate; if we had used an MCID of 2, the sample size would have been smaller. Secondary outcomes included NRS pain scores at rest, daily opioid use (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), block duration, patient-oriented pain questions (postoperative day 1, 2, 7, 14), and patient and physician adherence to pathway. RESULTS: On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had lower worst pain with movement (3.3 ± 3.1) compared with control patients (5.6 ± 3.0, mean difference -2.7 [95% CI -3.7 to -1.7]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for pain at rest (1.9 ± 2.3 versus 4.0 ± 2.9, mean difference -2.0 [95% CI -2.8 to -1.3]; p < 0.001). Cumulative postoperative opioid use (0-48 hours) was reduced (pathway oral morphine equivalent use was 23 ± 28 mg versus 44 ± 35 mg, mean difference 21 [95% CI 10 to 32]; p < 0.01). The greatest difference in opioid use was in the first 24 hours after surgery (pathway 7 ± 12 mg versus control 21 ± 21 mg, mean difference -14 [95% CI -19 to -10]; p < 0.01). On postoperative day 1, pathway patients had less interference with staying asleep compared with control patients (0.5 ± 1.6 versus 2.6 ± 3.3, mean difference -2.2 [95% CI -3.3 to -1.1]; p < 0.001); lower scores were also seen for interference with activities (0.9 ± 2.3 versus 1.9 ± 2.9, mean difference -1.1 [95% CI -2 to -0.1]; p = 0.03). Satisfaction with pain treatment on postoperative day 1 was higher among pathway patients compared with control patients (9.2 ± 1.7 versus 8.2 ± 2.5, mean difference 1.0 [95% CI 0.3 to 1.8]; p < 0.001). On postoperative day 2, pathway patients had lower nausea scores compared with control patients (0.3 ± 1.1 versus 1 ± 2.1, mean difference -0.7 [95% CI -1.2 to -0.1]; p = 0.02); lower scores were also seen for drowsiness on postoperative day 1 (1.7 ± 2.7 versus 2.6 ± 2.6, mean difference -0.9 [95% CI - 1.7 to -0.1]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Adoption of the pathway was associated with improvement in the primary outcome (pain with movement) that exceeded the MCID. Patients in the pathway group had improved patient-oriented outcomes and fewer side effects. This pathway uses multiple analgesic drugs, which may pose risks to elderly patients, in particular. Therefore, in evaluating whether to use this pathway, clinicians should weigh the effect sizes against the potential risks that may emerge with large scale use, consider the difficulties involved in adapting a pathway to local practice so that pathway will persist, and recognize that this study only enrolled patients among surgeons and the anesthesiologists that advocated for the pathway; results may have been different with less enthusiastic clinicians. This pathway, based on a long-lasting nerve block, multimodal analgesia, and patient education can be considered for adoption. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Enhanced Recovery after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Quality of Patient Recovery.

BACKGROUND: Prospective trials of enhanced recovery after spine surgery are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that an enhanced recovery pathway improves quality of recovery after one- to two-level lumbar fusion. METHODS: A patient- and assessor-blinded trial of 56 patients randomized to enhanced recovery (17 evidence-based pre-, intra-, and postoperative care elements) or usual care was performed. The primary outcome was Quality of Recovery-40 score (40 to 200 points) at postoperative day 3. Twelve points defined the clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Recovery-40 at days 0 to 2, 14, and 56; time to oral intake and discharge from physical therapy; length of stay; numeric pain scores (0 to 10); opioid consumption (morphine equivalents); duration of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia use; complications; and markers of surgical stress (interleukin 6, cortisol, and C-reactive protein). RESULTS: The analysis included 25 enhanced recovery patients and 26 usual care patients. Significantly higher Quality of Recovery-40 scores were found in the enhanced recovery group at postoperative day 3 (179 ± 14 vs. 170 ± 16; P = 0.041) without reaching the clinically important difference. There were no significant differences in recovery scores at days 0 (175 ± 16 vs. 162 ± 22; P = 0.059), 1 (174 ± 18 vs. 164 ± 15; P = 0.050), 2 (174 ± 18 vs. 167 ± 17; P = 0.289), 14 (184 ± 13 vs. 180 ± 12; P = 0.500), and 56 (187 ± 14 vs. 190 ± 8; P = 0.801). In the enhanced recovery group, subscores on the Quality of Recovery-40 comfort dimension were higher (longitudinal mean score difference, 4; 95% CI, 1, 7; P = 0.008); time to oral intake (-3 h; 95% CI, -6, -0.5; P = 0.010); and duration of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (-11 h; 95% CI, -19, -6; P < 0.001) were shorter; opioid consumption was lower at day 1 (-57 mg; 95% CI, -130, -5; P = 0.030) without adversely affecting pain scores (-2; 95% CI, -3, 0; P = 0.005); and C-reactive protein was lower at day 3 (6.1; 95% CI, 3.8, 15.7 vs. 15.9; 95% CI, 6.6, 19.7; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant gains in early recovery were achieved by an enhanced recovery pathway. However, significant clinical impact was not demonstrated.

Enhanced recovery after surgery components and perioperative outcomes: a nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to benefit recovery after several operations. However, large-scale data on the association between the level of ERAS use and perioperative complications are scarce, particularly in surgeries with increasing ERAS uptake, including total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). Using US national data, we examined the relationship between the number of ERAS components implemented ('level') and perioperative outcomes. METHODS: After ethics approval, we included 1 540 462 elective THA/TKA procedures (2006-2016, as recorded in the Premier Healthcare claims database) in this retrospective cohort study. Main outcomes were any complication, cardiopulmonary complications, mortality, blood transfusions, and length of stay. Eight commonly used ERAS components were included. Mixed-effects models measured associations between ERAS level and outcomes, with odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) reported. RESULTS: ERAS use increased over time; overall, 21.6% (n=324 437), 62.7% (n=965 953), and 18.0% (n=250 072) of cases were classified as 'High', 'Medium', or 'Low' ERAS. 'High ERAS', 'Medium ERAS', and 'Low ERAS' level of use were defined as such if they received either >6, 5-6, or <5 ERAS components, respectively. After adjustment for relevant covariates, higher levels of ERAS use were associated with incremental reductions in 'any complication': 'Medium' vs 'Low' (OR=0.84; CI, 0.82-0.86) and 'High' vs 'Low' (OR=0.71; CI, 0.68-0.74). Similar patterns were found for the other study outcomes. Individual ERAS components with the strongest effect estimates were early physical therapy, avoidance of a urinary catheter, and tranexamic acid administration. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS components were used more frequently over time, and the level of utilisation was independently associated with incrementally improved complication odds and reduced length of stay during the primary admission. Possible indication bias limits the certainty of these findings.

The prescription opioid crisis: role of the anaesthesiologist in reducing opioid use and misuse.

Reports of strategies to prevent and treat the opioid epidemic are growing. Significant attention has been paid to the benefits of opioid addiction research, clinical prescribing, and public policy initiatives in curbing the epidemic. However, the role of the anaesthesiologist in minimising opioid use and misuse remains underexplored. For many patients with an opioid use disorder, the perioperative period represents the source of initial exposure. As perioperative physicians, anaesthesiologists are in the unique position to manage pain effectively while simultaneously decreasing opioid consumption. Multiple opportunities exist for anaesthesiologists to minimise opioid exposure and prevent subsequent persistent opioid use. We present a global strategy for decreasing perioperative opioid use and misuse among surgical patients. A historical perspective of the opioid epidemic is presented, together with an analysis of opioid supply and demand forces. We then present specific temporal strategies for opioid use reduction in the perioperative period. We emphasise the importance of preoperative identification of patients at risk for long-term opioid use and misuse, review the evidence supporting the opioid sparing capacity of individual multimodal analgesic agents, and discuss the benefits of regional anaesthesia for minimising opioid consumption. We describe postoperative and post-discharge tools, including effective multimodal analgesia and the role of a transitional pain service. Finally, we offer general institutional strategies that can be led by anaesthesiologists, identify gaps in knowledge, and offer directions for future research.

Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding anaesthetic practice in hip/knee arthroplasty surgery is needed for improved healthcare outcomes. METHODS: The International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) systematic review, including randomised controlled and observational studies comparing neuraxial to general anaesthesia regarding major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, genitourinary, thromboembolic, neurological, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, from 1946 to May 17, 2018 were queried. Meta-analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was utilised to assess evidence quality and to develop recommendations. RESULTS: The analysis of 94 studies revealed that neuraxial anaesthesia was associated with lower odds or no difference in virtually all reported complications, except for urinary retention. Excerpt of complications for neuraxial vs general anaesthesia in hip/knee arthroplasty, respectively: mortality odds ratio (OR): 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.57-0.80/OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.60-1.15; pulmonary OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.52-0.80/OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58-0.81; acute renal failure OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81/OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.82; deep venous thrombosis OR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65/OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.64-0.93; infections OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.67-0.79/OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.85; and blood transfusion OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89/OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.82-0.87. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation: primary neuraxial anaesthesia is preferred for knee arthroplasty, given several positive postoperative outcome benefits; evidence level: low, weak recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: neuraxial anaesthesia is recommended for hip arthroplasty given associated outcome benefits; evidence level: moderate-low, strong recommendation. Based on current evidence, the consensus group recommends neuraxial over general anaesthesia for hip/knee arthroplasty. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42018099935.

Evidence Review Conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: Focus on Anesthesiology for Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Successes using enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for total hip arthroplasty (THA) are increasingly being reported. As in other surgical subspecialties, ERAS for THA has been associated with superior outcomes, improved patient satisfaction, reduced length of hospital stay, and cost savings. Nonetheless, the adoption of ERAS to THA has not been universal. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality, has developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery. We have conducted an evidence review to select anesthetic interventions that positively influence outcomes and facilitate recovery after THA. A literature search was performed for each intervention, and the highest levels of available evidence were considered. Anesthesiology-related interventions for pre- (carbohydrate loading/fasting, multimodal preanesthetic medications), intra- (standardized intraoperative pathway, regional anesthesia, ventilation, tranexamic acid, fluid minimization, glycemic control), and postoperative (multimodal analgesia) phases of care are included. We have summarized the best available evidence to recommend the anesthetic components of care for ERAS for THA. There is evidence in the literature and from society guidelines to support the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery goals for THA.

Evidence Review Conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: Focus on Anesthesiology for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has rapidly gained popularity in a variety of surgical subspecialities. A large body of literature suggests that ERAS leads to superior outcomes, improved patient satisfaction, reduced length of hospital stay, and cost benefits, without affecting rates of readmission after surgery. These patterns have been described for patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, adoption of ERAS to orthopedic surgery has lagged behind other surgical disciplines. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in partnership with the American College of Surgeons and the Johns Hopkins Medicine Armstrong Institute (AI) for Patient Safety and Quality, has developed the Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery. The program comprises a national effort to incorporate best practice in perioperative care and improve patient safety, for over 750 hospitals and multiple procedures over the next 5 years, including orthopedic surgery. We have conducted a full evidence review of anesthetic interventions to derive anesthesiology-related components of an evidence-based ERAS pathway for TKA. A PubMed search was performed for each protocol component, focusing on the highest levels of evidence in the literature. Search findings are summarized in narrative format. Anesthesiology components of care were identified and evaluated across the pre-, intra-, and postoperative phases. A summary of the best available evidence, together with recommendations for inclusion in ERAS protocols for TKA, is provided. There is extensive evidence in the literature, and from society guidelines to support the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery goals for TKA.

Evidence Review Conducted for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery: Focus on Anesthesiology for Hip Fracture Surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols represent patient-centered, evidence-based, multidisciplinary care of the surgical patient. Although these patterns have been validated in numerous surgical specialities, ERAS has not been widely described for patients undergoing hip fracture (HFx) repair. As part of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Safety Program for Improving Surgical Care and Recovery, we have conducted a full evidence review of interventions that form the basis of the anesthesia components of the ERAS HFx pathway. A literature search was performed for each protocol component, and the highest levels of evidence available were selected for review. Anesthesiology components of care were identified and evaluated across the perioperative continuum. For the preoperative phase, the use of regional analgesia and nonopioid multimodal analgesic agents is suggested. For the intraoperative phase, a standardized anesthetic with postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis is suggested. For the postoperative phase, a multimodal (primarily nonopioid) analgesic regimen is suggested. A summary of the best available evidence and recommendations for inclusion in ERAS protocols for HFx repair are provided.

Effects of a multimodal analgesic pathway with transversus abdominis plane block for lumbar spine fusion: a prospective feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: Lumbar spine fusion with anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) approach is a moderately painful procedure associated with significant length of hospital stay (LoS) and opioid requirements. We developed an opioid-sparing analgesic pathway of care for ALIF and LLIF, featuring transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block. In this study, we assessed the feasibility of performing the TAP block as an analgesic adjunct for ALIF or LLIF. METHODS: This is a prospective feasibility study of 32 patients. All patients received pre-incisional TAP block, regularly scheduled non-opioid analgesics (gabapentin, acetaminophen, ketorolac), and oral tramadol, as needed. The primary feasibility outcomes were rates of recruitment, adherence and adverse events associated with the TAP block. Secondary outcomes included assessment of TAP block efficacy and duration, numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, LoS and opioid consumption. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were approached for the study, and all were enrolled. One patient did not have surgery. All patients received the intervention. There were no block-related adverse events. PACU NRS scores were significantly lower (1.9 ± 3.0) than at postoperative day 1 (POD1; 3.3 ± 2.5). The TAP block was effective in 31/32 patients, with 1 failed block. Median LoS was 26.8 h (IQR 22.8-49.5 h). Median opioid consumption was 57.5 oral morphine equivalents (IQR 30-74.38). One patient required opioid iv patient-controlled analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Applying TAP block to spine surgery is a novel pain management strategy. This study demonstrates high patient acceptance and the general safety of the technique. Although lacking a control arm, these results also provide preliminary data supporting efficacy. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Opioid-free anesthesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: a retrospective matched cohort study.

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and multimodal analgesia are established care models that minimize perioperative opioid consumption and promote positive outcomes after spine surgery. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an emerging technique that may achieve similar goals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate an OFA regimen within an ERAS pathway for lumbar decompressive surgery and to compare perioperative opioid requirements in a matched cohort of patients managed with traditional opioid-containing anesthesia (OCA).METHODSThe authors performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. They included 36 patients who underwent lumbar decompression under their ERAS pathway for spinal decompression between February and August 2018. Eighteen patients who received OFA were matched in a 1:1 ratio to a cohort managed with a traditional OCA regimen. The primary outcome was total perioperative opioid consumption. Postoperative pain scores (measured using the numerical rating scale [NRS]), opioid consumption (total morphine equivalents), and length of stay (time to readiness for discharge) were compared in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). The authors also assessed compliance with ERAS process measures and compared compliance during 3 phases of care: pre-, intra-, and postoperative.RESULTSThere was a significant reduction in total perioperative opioid consumption in patients who received OFA (2.43 ± 0.86 oral morphine equivalents [OMEs]; mean ± SEM), compared to patients who received OCA (38.125 ± 6.11 OMEs). There were no significant differences in worst postoperative pain scores (NRS scores 2.55 ± 0.70 vs 2.58 ± 0.73) or opioid consumption (5.28 ± 1.7 vs 4.86 ± 1.5 OMEs) in the PACU between OFA and OCA groups, respectively. There was a clinically significant decrease in time to readiness for discharge from the PACU associated with OFA (37 minutes), although this was not statistically significantly different. The authors found high overall compliance with ERAS process measures (91.4%) but variation in compliance according to phase of care. The highest compliance occurred during the preoperative phase (94.71% ± 2.88%), and the lowest compliance occurred during the postoperative phase of care (85.4% ± 5.7%).CONCLUSIONSOFA within an ERAS pathway for lumbar spinal decompression represents an opportunity to minimize perioperative opioid exposure without adversely affecting pain control or recovery. This study reveals opportunities for patient and provider education to reinforce ERAS and highlights the postoperative phase of care as a time when resources should be focused to increase ERAS adherence.

An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: association with rapid discharge and minimal complications after anterior cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are associated with improved outcomes, lower morbidity and complications, and higher patient satisfaction in multiple surgical subspecialties. Despite these gains, there are few data to guide the application of ERAS concepts to spine surgery. The authors report the development and implementation of the first ERAS pathway for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA).METHODSThis was a retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data. The authors created a multidisciplinary pathway based on best available evidence for interventions that positively influence outcomes after anterior cervical spine surgery. Patients were followed prospectively up to postoperative day 90. Patient data were collected via electronic medical record review and included demographics, comorbidities, baseline and perioperative opioid use, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). ERAS process measures and compliance with pathway elements were also tracked.RESULTSThirty-three patients were cared for under the pathway (n = 25 ACDF; n = 8 CDA). The median LOS was 416 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 210-1643 minutes). Eight patients required an extended stay-longer than 23 hours. Reasons for extended admission included pain (n = 4), dyspnea (n = 1), hypoxia (n = 1), hypertension (n = 1), and dysphagia (n = 1). The median LOS for the 8 patients who required extended monitoring prior to discharge was 1585 minutes (IQR 1423-1713 minutes). Overall pathway compliance with included process measures was 85.6%. The median number of ERAS process elements delivered to each patient was 18. There was no strong association between LOS and number of ERAS process elements provided (Pearson's r = -0.20). Twelve percent of the cohort was opioid tolerant on the day of surgery. There were no significant differences between total intraoperatively or postanesthesia care unit-administered opioid, or LOS, between opioid-tolerant and opioid-naïve patients. There were no complications requiring readmission.CONCLUSIONSAn ERAS pathway for anterior cervical spine surgery facilitates safe, prompt discharge. The ERAS pathway was associated with minimal complications, and no readmissions within 90 days of surgery. Pain and respiratory compromise were both linked with extended LOS in this cohort. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm the potential benefits of ERAS for anterior cervical spine surgery, including longer-term complications, cost, and functional outcomes.