OBJECTIVE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has led to a paradigm shift in various surgical specialties. Its application can result in substantial benefits in perioperative healthcare utilization through preoperative physical and mental patient optimization and modulation of the recovery process. Still, ERAS remains relatively new to spine surgery. The authors report their 5-year experience, focusing on ERAS application to a broad population of patients with degenerative spine conditions undergoing elective surgical procedures, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: A multimodal ERAS protocol was applied between November 2013 and October 2018. The authors analyze hospital stay, perioperative outcomes, readmissions, and adverse events obtained from a prospective institutional registry. Elective tubular microdiscectomy and mini-open decompression as well as minimally invasive (MI) anterior or posterior fusion cases were included. Their institutional ERAS protocol contains 22 pre-, intra-, and postoperative elements, including preoperative patient counseling, MI techniques, early mobilization and oral intake, minimal postoperative restrictions, and regular audits. RESULTS: A total of 2592 consecutive patients were included, with 199 (8%) undergoing fusion. The mean hospital stay was 1.1 ± 1.2 days, with 20 (0.8%) 30-day and 36 (1.4%) 60-day readmissions. Ninety-four percent of patients were discharged after a maximum 1-night hospital stay. Over the 5-year period, a clear trend toward a higher proportion of patients discharged home after a 1-night stay was observed (p < 0.001), with a concomitant decrease in adverse events in the overall cohort (p = 0.025) and without increase in readmissions. For fusion procedures, the rate of 1-night hospital stays increased from 26% to 85% (p < 0.001). Similarly, the average length of hospital stay decreased steadily from 2.4 ± 1.2 days to 1.5 ± 0.3 days (p < 0.001), with a notable concomitant decrease in variance, resulting in an estimated reduction in nursing costs of 46.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an ERAS protocol over 5 years to a diverse population of patients undergoing surgical procedures, including ALIF, for treatment of degenerative spine conditions was safe and effective, without increase in readmissions. The data from this large case series stress the importance of the multidisciplinary, iterative improvement process to overcome the learning curve associated with ERAS implementation, and the importance of a dedicated perioperative care team. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate spinal ERAS on a higher level of evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has led to a paradigm shift in perioperative care through multimodal interventions. Still, ERAS remains a relatively new concept in neurosurgery, and there is no summary of evidence on ERAS applications in cranial neurosurgery. METHODS: The authors systematically reviewed the literature using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for ERAS protocols and elements. Studies had to assess at least one pre-, peri-, or postoperative ERAS element and evaluate at least one of the following outcomes: 1) length of hospital stay, 2) length of ICU stay, 3) postoperative pain, 4) direct and indirect healthcare cost, 5) complication rate, 6) readmission rate, or 7) patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A final 27 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, with mixed quality of evidence ranging from high in 3 cases to very low in 1 case. Seventeen studies reported a complete ERAS protocol. Preoperative ERAS elements include patient selection through multidisciplinary team discussion, patient counseling and education to adjust expectations of the postoperative period, and mental state assessment; antimicrobial, steroidal, and antiepileptic prophylaxes; nutritional assessment, as well as preoperative oral carbohydrate loading; and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis. Anesthesiology interventions included local anesthesia for pin sites, regional field block or scalp block, avoidance or minimization of the duration of invasive monitoring, and limitation of intraoperative mannitol. Other intraoperative elements include absorbable skin sutures and avoidance of wound drains. Postoperatively, the authors identified early extubation, observation in a step-down unit instead of routine ICU admission, early mobilization, early fluid de-escalation, early intake of solid food and liquids, early removal of invasive monitoring, professional nutritional assessment, PONV management, nonopioid rescue analgesia, and early postoperative imaging. Other postoperative interventions included discharge criteria standardization and home visits or progress monitoring by a nurse. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of evidence-based interventions are available to improve recovery after elective craniotomy, although there are few published ERAS protocols. Patient-centered optimization of neurosurgical care spanning the pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods is feasible and has already provided positive results in terms of improved outcomes such as postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, reduced length of stay, and cost reduction with an excellent safety profile. Although fast-track recovery protocols and ERAS studies are gaining momentum for elective craniotomy, prospective trials are needed to provide stronger evidence.

The accurate determination of a patient's functional status is necessary for therapeutic decision-making and to critically appraise treatment efficacy. Current subjective patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based assessments have limitations and can be complimented by objective measures of function. To systematically review the literature and provide an overview on the available objective measures of function for patients with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine. Systematic review of the literature. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Two reviewers independently searched the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases for permutations of the words "objective," "assessment," "function," "lumbar," and "spine" including articles on human subjects with degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine that reported on objective measures of function, published until September 2018. Risk of bias was not assessed. No funding was received. The authors report no conflicts of interest. Of 2,389 identified articles, 82 were included in the final analysis. There was a significant increase of 0.12 per year in the number of publications dealing with objective measures of function since 1989 (95% CI 0.08-0.16, p<.001). Some publications studied multiple diagnoses and objective measures. The United States was the leading nation in terms of scientific output for objective outcome measures (n=21; 25.6%), followed by Switzerland (n=17; 20.7%), Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom (each n=6; 7.3%). Our search revealed 21 different types of objective measures, predominantly applied to patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (n=67 publications; 81.7%), chronic/unspecific low back pain (n=28; 34.2%) and lumbar disc herniation (n=22; 26.8%). The Timed-Up-and-Go test was the most frequently applied measure (n=26 publications; 31.7%; cumulative number of reported subjects: 5,181), followed by the Motorized Treadmill Test (n=25 publications; 30.5%, 1,499 subjects) and with each n=9 publications (11.0%) the Five-Repetition Sit-To-Stand test (955 subjects), as well as accelerometry analyses (336 subjects). The reliability and validity of many of the less-applied objective measures was uncertain. There was profound heterogeneity in their application and interpretation of results. Clinical studies on patients with lumbar degenerative diseases increasingly employ objective measures of function, which offer high potential for improving the quality of outcome measurement in patient-care and research. This review provides an overview on available options. Our findings call for an agreement and standardization in terms of test selection, conduction and analysis to facilitate comparison of results across cohorts. CRD42019122622.