OBJECTIVEEnhanced 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.METHODSThe 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONSThe 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.

BACKGROUND The Timed Up and Go Test (TUG Test) has previously been described as a reliable tool to evaluate objective functional impairment in patients with degenerative disc disease. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the TUG Test. METHODS The TUG Test (measured in seconds) was correlated with validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) of pain intensity (Visual Analog Scale for back and leg pain), functional impairment (Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Morris Disability Index), and health-related quality of life measures (Short Form-12 and EuroQol 5D). Three established methods were used to establish anchor-based MCID values using responders of the following PROs (Visual Analog Scale back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index, Roland Morris Disability Index, EuroQol 5D index, and Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary) as anchors: (1) average change, (2) minimum detectable change, and (3) change difference approach. RESULTS One hundred patients with a mean ± SD age of 56.2 ± 16.1 years, 57 (57%) male, 45 patients undergoing microdiscectomy, 35 undergoing lumbar decompression, and 20 undergoing fusion surgery were studied. The 3 MCID computation methods revealed a range of MCID values according to the PRO used from 0.9 s (Oswestry Disability Index based on the change difference approach) to 6.0 s (EuroQol 5D index based on the minimum detectable change approach), with a mean MCID of 3.4 s for all measured PROs. CONCLUSION The MCID for the TUG Test time is highly variable depending on the computation technique used. The average TUG Test MCID was 3.4 s using all 3 methods and all anchors. ABBREVIATIONS D3, day 3DDD, degenerative disc diseaseEQ5D, EuroQol 5DFU, follow-upHRQoL, health-related quality of lifeMCID, minimum clinically important differenceODI, Oswestry Disability IndexOFI, objective functional impairmentPCS, Physical Component SummaryPRO, patient-reported outcome measureRMDI, Roland-Morris Disability IndexSF-12, Short Form 12TUG Test, Time Up and Go TestVAS, Visual Analog Scale.

No abstract