Lele Abhijit V, Moreton Elizabeth O, Mejia-Mantilla Jorge, Blacker Samuel N
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina.
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2025 Jul 1;37(3):242-254. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000001006. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
In this review article, we explore the implementation and outcomes of enhanced recovery after spine surgery (spine ERAS) across different World Bank country-income levels. A systematic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL databases for articles on the implementation of spine ERAS in both adult and pediatric populations. Study characteristics, ERAS elements, and outcomes were analyzed and meta-analyses were performed for length of stay (LOS) and cost outcomes. The number of spine ERAS studies from low-middle-income countries (LMICs) increased since 2017, when the first spine ERAS implementation study was published. LMICs were more likely than high-income countries (HICs) to conduct studies on patients aged ≥18 years (odds ratio [OR], 6.00; 95% CI, 1.58-42.80), with sample sizes 51 to 100 (OR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.21-22.90), and randomized controlled trials (OR, 7.25; 95% CI, 1.77-53.50). Preoperative optimization was more frequently implemented in LMICs than in HICs (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.06-4.41), and operation time was more often studied in LMICs (OR 3.78; 95% CI, 1.77-8.35). Implementation of spine ERAS resulted in reductions in LOS in both LMIC (-2.06; 95% CI, -2.47 to -1.64 d) and HIC (-0.99; 95% CI, -1.28 to -0.70 d) hospitals. However, spine ERAS implementation did result in a significant reduction in costs. This review highlights the global landscape of ERAS implementation in spine surgery, demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing LOS across diverse settings. Further research with standardized reporting of ERAS elements and outcomes is warranted to explore the impact of spine ERAS on cost-effectiveness and other patient-centered outcomes.
在这篇综述文章中,我们探讨了不同世界银行国家收入水平下脊柱手术后加速康复(脊柱ERAS)的实施情况及结果。通过PubMed、Embase、Scopus和CINAHL数据库对关于成人和儿童人群中脊柱ERAS实施情况的文章进行了系统的文献检索。分析了研究特征、ERAS要素及结果,并对住院时间(LOS)和成本结果进行了荟萃分析。自2017年发表首篇脊柱ERAS实施研究以来,来自低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的脊柱ERAS研究数量有所增加。与高收入国家(HICs)相比,LMICs更有可能开展针对年龄≥18岁患者的研究(优势比[OR],6.00;95%置信区间[CI],1.58 - 42.80),样本量为51至100例(OR,4.50;95% CI,1.21 - 22.90),以及随机对照试验(OR,7.25;95% CI,1.77 - 53.50)。术前优化在LMICs中比在HICs中实施得更频繁(OR,2.14;95% CI,1.06 - 4.41),并且在LMICs中更常研究手术时间(OR 3.78;'95% CI,1.77 - 8.35)。脊柱ERAS的实施使LMICs医院(-2.06;95% CI,-2.47至-1.64天)和HICs医院(-0.99;95% CI,-1.28至-0.70天)的住院时间均有所缩短。然而,脊柱ERAS的实施并未导致成本显著降低。本综述突出了脊柱手术中ERAS实施的全球情况,表明其在不同环境下缩短住院时间方面的有效性。有必要开展关于ERAS要素和结果标准化报告的进一步研究,以探讨脊柱ERAS对成本效益和其他以患者为中心的结果的影响。