Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care have led to improvements in outcomes in numerous surgical areas, through multimodal optimization of patient pathway, reduction of complications, improved patient experience and reduction in the length of stay. ERAS represent a relatively new paradigm in spine surgery. PURPOSE: This multidisciplinary consensus review summarizes the literature and proposes recommendations for the perioperative care of patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery with an ERAS program. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review article. METHODS: Under the impetus of the ERAS� society, a multidisciplinary guideline development group was constituted by bringing together international experts involved in the practice of ERAS and spine surgery. This group identified 22 ERAS items for lumbar fusion. A systematic search in the English language was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies were included, and the evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Consensus recommendation was reached by the group after a critical appraisal of the literature. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six articles were included to develop the consensus statements for 22 ERAS items; one ERAS item (prehabilitation) was excluded from the final summary due to very poor quality and conflicting evidence in lumbar spinal fusion. From these remaining 21 ERAS items, 28 recommendations were included. All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on the best available evidence. These included nine preoperative, eleven intraoperative, and six postoperative recommendations. They span topics from preoperative patient education and nutritional evaluation, intraoperative anesthetic and surgical techniques, and postoperative multimodal analgesic strategies. The level of evidence for the use of each recommendation is presented. CONCLUSION: Based on the best evidence available for each ERAS item within the multidisciplinary perioperative care pathways, the ERAS� Society presents this comprehensive consensus review for perioperative care in lumbar fusion

Total disc replacement surgery for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disease: a systematic review of the literature

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of total disc replacement surgery compared with spinal fusion in patients with symptomatic lumbar disc degeneration. Low back pain (LBP), a major health problem in Western countries, can be caused by a variety of pathologies, one of which is degenerative disc disease (DDD). When conservative treatment fails, surgery might be considered. For a long time, lumbar fusion has been the “gold standard” of surgical treatment for DDD. Total disc replacement (TDR) has increased in popularity as an alternative for lumbar fusion. A comprehensive systematic literature search was performed up to October 2008. Two reviewers independently checked all retrieved titles and abstracts, and relevant full text articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted relevant data and outcomes. Three randomized controlled trials and 16 prospective cohort studies were identified. In all three trials, the total disc replacement was compared with lumbar fusion techniques. The Charité trial (designed as a non-inferiority trail) was considered to have a low risk of bias for the 2-year follow up, but a high risk of bias for the 5-year follow up. The Charité artificial disc was non-inferior to the BAK® Interbody Fusion System on a composite outcome of “clinical success” (57.1 vs. 46.5%, for the 2-year follow up; 57.8 vs. 51.2% for the 5-year follow up). There were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Prodisc artificial disc (also designed as a non-inferiority trail) was found to be statistically significant more effective when compared with the lumbar circumferential fusion on the composite outcome of “clinical success” (53.4 vs. 40.8%), but the risk of bias of this study was high. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in mean pain and physical function scores. The Flexicore trial, with a high risk of bias, found no clinical relevant differences on pain and physical function when compared with circumferential spinal fusion at 2-year follow up. Because these are preliminary results, in addition to the high risk of bias, no conclusions can be drawn based on this study. In general, these results suggest that no clinical relevant differences between the total disc replacement and fusion techniques. The overall success rates in both treatment groups were small. Complications related to the surgical approach ranged from 2.1 to 18.7%, prosthesis related complications from 2.0 to 39.3%, treatment related complications from 1.9 to 62.0% and general complications from 1.0 to 14.0%. Reoperation at the index level was reported in 1.0 to 28.6% of the patients. In the three trials published, overall complication rates ranged from 7.3 to 29.1% in the TDR group and from 6.3 to 50.2% in the fusion group. The overall reoperation rate at index-level ranged from 3.7 to 11.4% in the TDR group and from 5.4 to 26.1% in the fusion group. In conclusion, there is low quality evidence that the Charité is non-inferior to the BAK cage at the 2-year follow up on the primary outcome measures. For the 5-year follow up, the same conclusion is supported only by very low quality evidence. For the ProDisc, there is very low quality evidence for contradictory results on the primary outcome measures when compared with anterior lumbar circumferential fusion. High quality randomized controlled trials with relevant control group and long-term follow-up is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of TDR

Are MRI-defined fat infiltrations in the multifidus muscles associated with low back pain?

BACKGROUND: Because training of the lumbar muscles is a commonly recommended intervention in low back pain (LBP), it is important to clarify whether lumbar muscle atrophy is related to LBP. Fat infiltration seems to be a late stage of muscular degeneration, and can be measured in a non-invasive manner using magnetic resonance imaging. The purpose of this study was to investigate if fat infiltration in the lumbar multifidus muscles (LMM) is associated with LBP in adults and adolescents. METHODS: In total, 412 adults (40-year-olds) and 442 adolescents (13-year-olds) from the general Danish population participated in this cross-sectional cohort study. People with LBP were identified through questionnaires. Using MRI, fat infiltration of the LMM was visually graded as none, slight or severe. Odds ratios were calculated for both age groups, taking into account sex, body composition and leisure time physical activity for both groups, and physical workload (in adults only) or daily bicycling (in adolescents only). RESULTS: Fat infiltration was noted in 81% of the adults but only 14% of the adolescents. In the adults, severe fat infiltration was strongly associated with ever having had LBP (OR 9.2; 95% CI 2.0–43.2), and with having LBP in the past year (OR 4.1; 1.5–11.2), but there was no such association in adolescents. None of the investigated moderating factors had an obvious effect on the OR in the adults. CONCLUSION: Fat infiltration in the LMM is strongly associated with LBP in adults only. However, it will be necessary to quantify these measurements objectively and to investigate the direction of this link longitudinally in order to determine if the abnormal muscle is the cause of LBP or vice versa

Electrical conductivity measurement: a new technique to detect iatrogenic initial pedicle perforation

Abstract Pedicle screw fixation has achieved significant popularity amongst spinal surgeons for both single and multi-level spinal fusion. Misplacement and pedicle cortical violation occurs in over 20% of screw placement and can result in potential complications such as dysthesia, paraparesis or paraplegia. There have been many advances in techniques available for navigating through the pedicle; however, these techniques are not without drawbacks. A new electrical conductivity-measuring device, previously evaluated on the porcine model to detect the pedicle violation, was evaluated amongst nine European Hospitals to be used in conjunction with the methods currently used in that centre. This new device is based on two original principles; the device is integrated in the drilling or screwing tool. The technology allows real-time detection of perforation through two independent parameters, impedance variation and evoked muscle contractions. Data was collected twofold. Initially, the surgeon was given the device and a comparison was made between the devices ability to detect a breech and the surgeon's ability to detect one using his traditional methods of pedicle preparation. In the second module of the study, the surgeon was limited to using the electrical conductivity detection device as their sole guide to detect pedicle breaches. A comparison was made between the detection ability of the device and the other detection possibilities. Post-operative fine cut CT scanning was used to detect the pedicle breaches. Overall, the 11 trial surgeons performed a total of 521 pedicle drillings on 97 patients. Initially there were 147 drillings with 23 breaches detected. The detection rate of these breaches were 22/23 for the device compared to 10/23 by the surgeon. Over both parts of the study 64 breaches (12.3%) were confirmed on post-operative CT imaging. The electrical conductivity detection device detected 63 of the 64 breaches (98.4%). There was one false negative and four false positives. This gives the device an overall sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 99% for detecting a pedicle breach. The negative predictive value was 99.8%, with a positive predictive value of 94%. No adverse event was noted with the use of the electrical conductivity device. Electrical conductivity monitoring may provide

Microstructure and biomechanical characteristics of bone substitutes for trauma and orthopaedic surgery

Abstract. BACKGROUND: Many (artificial) bone substitute materials are currently available for use in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Objective data on their biological and biomechanical characteristics, which determine their clinical application, is mostly lacking. The aim of this study was to investigate structural and in vitro mechanical properties of nine bone substitute cements registered for use in orthopaedic trauma surgery in the Netherlands. METHODS: Seven calcium phosphate cements (BoneSource®, Calcibon®, ChronOS®, Eurobone®, HydroSet™, Norian SRS®, and Ostim®), one calcium sulphate cement (MIIG® X3), and one bioactive glass cement (Cortoss®) were tested. Structural characteristics were measured by micro-CT scanning. Compression strength and stiffness were determined following unconfined compression tests. RESULTS: Each bone substitute had unique characteristics. Mean total porosity ranged from 53% (Ostim®) to 0.5% (Norian SRS®). Mean pore size exceeded 100 μm only in Eurobone® and Cortoss® (162.2 ± 107.1 μm and 148.4 ± 70.6 μm, respectively). However, 230 μm pores were found in Calcibon®, Norian SRS®, HydroSet™, and MIIG® X3. Connectivity density ranged from 27/cm3 for HydroSet™ to 0.03/cm3 for Calcibon®. The ultimate compression strength was highest in Cortoss® (47.32 MPa) and lowest in Ostim® (0.24 MPa). Young's Modulus was highest in Calcibon® (790 MPa) and lowest in Ostim® (6 MPa). CONCLUSIONS: The bone substitutes tested display a wide range in structural properties and compression strength, indicating that they will be suitable for different clinical indications. The data outlined here will help surgeons to select the most suitable products currently available for specific clinical indications

Surgical techniques in pediatric spine surgery.

JOURNAL ARTICLEinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe