Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs have been widely adopted throughout the world, but not in spinal surgery. In this report, we review the implementation of a "fast track" surgery for lumbar fusion and its effect on acute care hospitalization costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a "fast track" surgery methodology results in acute care cost savings. METHODS: Thirty-eight consecutive ERAS patients were compared with patients undergoing conventional minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Differences between these groups included the use of endoscopic decompression, injections of liposomal bupivacaine, and performing the surgery under sedation in the ERAS® group. RESULTS: Patients had similar medical comorbidities (2.02 vs 2 for ERAS® and comparator groups, respectively; P = .458). Body mass index was similar (26.5 vs 27.0; P = .329). ERAS® patients were older (65 vs 59 yr, P = .031). Both groups had excellent clinical results with an improvement of 23% and 24%, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was less (68 ± 31 cc vs 231 ± 73, P < 0.001). Length of stay was also less with ERAS® surgery, at a mean of 1.23 ± 0.8 d vs 3.9 ± 1.1 d (P = 0.009). When comparing ERAS® surgery to standard minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, the total cost for the acute care hospitalization was $19 212 vs $22 656, respectively (P < 0.001). This reflected an average of $3444 in savings, which was a 15.2% reduction. CONCLUSION: ERAS® programs for spinal fusion surgery have the potential to reduce the costs of acute care. This is made possible by leveraging less invasive interventions to minimize soft tissue damage.

Endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion without general anesthesia: initial clinical experience with 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE One of the principal goals of minimally invasive surgery has been to speed postoperative recovery. In this case series, the authors used an endoscopic technique for interbody fusion combined with percutaneous screw fixation to obviate the need for general anesthesia. METHODS The first 10 consecutive patients treated with a minimum of 1 year's follow-up were included in this series. The patients were all treated using endoscopic access through Kambin's triangle to allow for neural decompression, discectomy, endplate preparation, and interbody fusion. This was followed by percutaneous pedicle screw and connecting rod placement using liposomal bupivacaine for long-acting analgesia. No narcotics or regional anesthetics were used during surgery. RESULTS All patients underwent the procedure successfully without conversion to open surgery. The patients' average age was 62.2 ± 9.0 years (range 52-78 years). All patients had severe disc height collapse, and 60% had a Grade I spondylolisthesis. The mean operative time was 113.5 ± 6.3 minutes (range 105-120 minutes), and blood loss was 65 ± 38 ml (range 30-190 ml). The mean length of hospital stay was 1.4 ± 1.3 nights. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications. Comparison of preoperative and final clinical metrics demonstrated that the Oswestry Disability Index improved from 42 ± 11.8 to 13.3 ± 15.1; the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary improved from 47.6 ± 3.8 to 49.7 ± 5.4; the SF-36 Mental Component Summary decreased from 47 ± 3.9 to 46.7 ± 3.4; and the EQ-5D improved from 10.7 ± 9.5 to 14.2 ± 1.6. There were no cases of nonunion identified radiographically on follow-up imaging. CONCLUSIONS Endoscopic fusion under conscious sedation may represent a feasible alternative to traditional lumbar spine fusion in select patients. Larger clinical series are necessary to validate that clinical improvements are sustained and that arthrodesis rates are successful when compared with open surgery. This initial experience demonstrates the possible utility of this procedure.

Effect of performing real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in addition to two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on operator diagnostic confidence.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effects of performing real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in addition to conventional two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on diagnostic confidence. METHODS: Operator diagnostic confidence in addressing clinical questions posed by the referral was scored using a five-point scale for two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography alone and the combination of two-dimensional and real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography in 136 consecutive patients undergoing examination in an academic hospital. RESULTS: Mean diagnostic confidence score was higher for the combined studies compared to two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography alone (4.5 vs. 4.1, P < 0.001)). The addition of real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography increased diagnostic confidence score in 45 (33.1%) patients, and the percentage of studies with total diagnostic confidence rose from 40.4% with two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography alone to 65.4% after performing real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. Type of clinical indication was associated with improved score by the combined exams (P < 0.004). The addition of real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography was most likely to improve diagnostic confidence score in studies performed to assess valve disease (56.1%) and least likely in examinations performed for intracardiac infection (14.9%). The location (anterior or posterior) of the primary cardiac pathology was not associated with improved score by the combined studies (P = 0.498). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography to two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography increases diagnostic confidence in examinations routinely performed in an academic practice. Further studies of the impact of real time three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography on patient management, outcomes and displacement of or need for downstream testing are warranted.

Inspiratory flow rates and volumes with the Aerolizer dry powder inhaler in asthmatic children and adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR) and forced inspiratory vital capacity (FIVC) through the formoterol (Foradil*) Aerolizer* in patients with mild, moderate and severe asthma. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PIFR and FIVC were assessed in 33 adults and 32 children using a spirometer alone (baseline), a spirometer with an adaptor, and a spirometer with an adaptor and the Aerolizer inhaler (placebo loaded). RESULTS: Of adult patients using the Aerolizer inhaler, 73% had PIFR values of >100 l/min and 91% had values of >60 l/min. PIFR in adults was reduced from a mean baseline of 283 l/min to 118 l/min through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler. Similarly, 75% of children using the Aerolizer inhaler had PIFR values >80 l/min and 91% had values of > 60 l/min. The mean PIFR in children was reduced from a baseline of 154 l/min to 100 l/min through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler. Only small mean decreases from baseline were observed in FIVC through the loaded Aerolizer inhaler: 8.4% in adults and 3.8% in children. FIVC values of > 2.0 litre were achieved in 82% of adults, and 81% of children achieved FIVC values of >1.5 litre. CONCLUSIONS: This study, albeit in a relatively small patient population, suggests that most children and adults with asthma can generate PIFRs of > 60 l/min and FIVCs of > 1.5 litre through the Aerolizer inhaler regardless of their disease severity. Such findings compare extremely favourably with other dry powder inhalers.

Histamine skin test reactivity following single and multiple doses of azelastine nasal spray in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether azelastine nasal spray suppresses the dermal response to epicutaneous histamine in allergic patients and the duration of suppression after azelastine use is discontinued. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis were entered into this randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Patients received either azelastine nasal spray (2 sprays per nostril twice daily) or placebo nasal spray for 14 days. Skin tests were performed 5 hours after the first dose of study drugs to determine the effect of a single dose of azelastine nasal spray on the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. At the end of the 14-day treatment period, skin tests were performed 5 hours after the last dose of study drugs and at 24-hour intervals thereafter, until each patient's wheal-and-flare response to histamine (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL) returned to within 20% of baseline values. RESULTS: A single dose of azelastine nasal spray did not significantly alter the wheal-and-flare response to histamine. The wheal response was within 20% of the baseline value in 82% and 88% (1.0 and 5.0 mg/mL of histamine, respectively) of the patients 5 hours after discontinuing 14 days of treatment with azelastine nasal spray. Wheal responses were within 20% of baseline values 48 hours after treatment was discontinued, whereas flare responses returned to within 20% of baseline within 48 hours in 92% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Azelastine nasal spray should be discontinued for at least 48 hours before beginning allergy skin test procedures.