Object. Endovascular and surgical treatment must be clearly defined in the management of anterior communicating artery (ACoA) aneurysms. In this study the authors report their recent experience in using a combined surgical and endovascular team approach for ACoA aneurysms, and compare these results with those obtained during an earlier period in which surgical treatment was used alone. Morbidity and mortality rates, causes of unfavorable outcomes, and morphological results were also assessed. Methods. The prospective study included 223 patients who were divided into three groups: Group A (83 microsurgically treated patients, 1990–1995); Group B (103 microsurgically treated patients, 1996–2000); and Group C (37 patients treated with Guglielmi Detachable Coil [GDC] embolization, 1996–2000). Depending on the direction in which the aneurysm fundus projected, the authors attempted to apply microsurgical treatment to Type 1 aneurysms (located in front of the axis formed by the pericallosal arteries). They proposed the most adapted procedure for Type 2 aneurysms (located behind the axis of the pericallosal arteries) after discussion with the neurovascular team, depending on the physiological status of the patient, the treatment risk, and the size of the aneurysm neck. In accordance with the classification of Hunt and Hess, the authors designated those patients with unruptured aneurysms (Grade 0) and some patients with ruptured aneurysms (Grades I–III) as having good preoperative grades. Patients with Grade IV or V hemorrhages were designated as having poor preoperative grades. By performing routine angiography and computerized tomography scanning, the causes of unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale [GOS] score < 5) and the morphological results (complete or incomplete occlusion) were analyzed. Overall, the clinical outcome was excellent (GOS Score 5) in 65% of patients, good (GOS Score 4) in 9.4%, fair (GOS Score 3) in 11.6%, poor (GOS Score 2) in 3.6%, and fatal in 10.3% (GOS Score 1). Among 166 patients in good preoperative grades, an excellent outcome was observed in 134 patients (80.7%). The combined permanent morbidity and mortality rate accounted for up to 19.3% of patients. The rates of permanent morbidity and death that were related to the initial subarachnoid hemorrhage were 6.2 and 1.5% for Group A, 6.6 and 1.3% for Group B, and 4 and 4% for Group C, respectively. The rates of permanent morbidity and death that were related to the procedure were 15.4 and 1.5% for Group A, 3.9 and 0% for Group B, and 8 and 8% for Group C, respectively. When microsurgical periods were compared, the rate of permanent morbidity or death related to microsurgical complications decreased significantly (Group A, 11 patients [16.9%] and Group B, three patients [3.9%]); Fisher exact test, p = 0.011) from the period of 1990 to 1995 to the period of 1996 to 2000. The combined rate of morbidity and mortality that was related to the endovascular procedure (16%) explained the nonsignificance of the different rates of procedural complications for the two periods, despite the significant decrease in the number of microsurgical complications. Among 57 patients in poor preoperative grade, an excellent outcome was observed in 11 patients (19.3%); however, permanent morbidity (GOS Scores 2–4) or death (GOS Score 1) occurred in 46 patients (80.7%). With regard to the correlation between vessel occlusion (the primary microsurgical complication) and the morphological characteristics of aneurysms, only the direction in which the fundus projected appeared significant as a risk factor for the microsurgically treated groups (Fisher exact test: Group A, p = 0.03; Group B, p = 0.002). The difference between endovascular and microsurgical procedures in the achievement of complete occlusion was considered significant (χ² = 6.13, p = 0.01). Conclusions. The direction in which the fundus projects was chosen as the morphological criterion between endovascular and surgical methods. The authors propose that microsurgical clip application should be the preferred option in the treatment of ACoA aneurysms with anteriorly directed fundi and that endovascular packing be selected for those lesions with posteriorly directed fundi, depending on morphological criteria.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. Thanks to the improvement in care protocols and the fluidity of the patient pathway, the first goal of ERAS is the improvement of surgical outcomes and patient experience, with a final impact on a reduction in the hospital length of stay (LOS). The implementation of ERAS in spinal surgery is in the early stages. The authors report on their initial experience in applying an ERAS program to several degenerative spinal fusion procedures. METHODS: The authors selected two 2-year periods: the first from before any implementation of ERAS principles (pre-ERAS years 2012–2013) and the second corresponding to a period when the paradigm was applied widely (post-ERAS years 2016–2017). Patient groups in these periods were retrospectively compared according to three degenerative conditions requiring fusion: anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and posterior lumbar fusion. Data were collected on patient demographics, operative and perioperative data, LOSs, 90-day readmissions, and morbidity. ERAS-trained nurses were involved to support patients at each pre-, intra-, and postoperative step with the help of a mobile application (app). A satisfaction survey was included in the app. RESULTS: The pre-ERAS group included 1563 patients (159 ALIF, 749 ACDF, and 655 posterior fusion), and the post-ERAS group included 1920 patients (202 ALIF, 612 ACDF, and 1106 posterior fusion). The mean LOS was significantly shorter in the post-ERAS group than in the pre-ERAS group for all three conditions. It was reduced from 6.06 ± 1.1 to 3.33 ± 0.8 days for the ALIF group (p < 0.001), from 3.08 ± 0.9 to 1.3 ± 0.7 days for the ACDF group (p < 0.001), and from 6.7 ± 4.8 to 4.8 ± 2.3 days for posterior fusion cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall complications between the two periods for the ALIF (11.9% pre-ERAS vs 11.4% post-ERAS, p = 0.86) and ACDF (6.0% vs 8.2%, p = 0.12) cases, but they decreased significantly for lumbar fusions (14.8% vs 10.9%, p = 0.02). Regarding satisfaction with overall care among 808 available responses, 699 patients (86.5%) were satisfied or very satisfied, and regarding appreciation of the mobile e-health app in the perceived optimization of care management, 665 patients (82.3%) were satisfied or very satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the ERAS approach at the authors’ institution for spinal fusion for three studied conditions resulted in a significant decrease in LOS without causing increased postoperative complications. Patient satisfaction with overall management, upstream organization of hospitalization, and the use of e-health was high. According to the study results, which are consistent with those in other studies, the whole concept of ERAS (primarily reducing complications and pain, and then reducing LOS) seems applicable to spinal surgery.

The concept of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) entails recovery facilitation of patients who undergo surgery through the implementation of a multidisciplinary and multimodal perioperative care approach. By its application, ERAS improves the overall functional outcome after surgery while maintaining high standards of care. A review of the essential aspects of ERAS in spine surgery was undertaken. Special consideration was given to the risks and benefits for patients and caregivers, as well as the medical and economical aspects of this concept.