Zarina S. Ali, Tracy M. Flanders, Ali K. Ozturk, Neil R. Malhotra, Lena Leszinsky, Brendan J. McShane, Diana Gardiner, Kristin Rupich, H. Isaac Chen, James Schuster, Paul J. Marcotte, Michael J. Kallan, M. Sean Grady, Lee A. Fleisher and William C. Welch
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols address pre-, peri-, and postoperative factors of a patient’s surgical journey. The authors sought to assess the effects of a novel ERAS protocol on clinical outcomes for patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgery.
The authors conducted a prospective cohort analysis comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing elective spine or peripheral nerve surgery after implementation of the ERAS protocol compared to a historical control cohort in a tertiary care academic medical center. Patients in the historical cohort (September–December 2016) underwent traditional surgical care. Patients in the intervention group (April–June 2017) were enrolled in a unique ERAS protocol created by the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania. Primary objectives were as follows: opioid and nonopioid pain medication consumption, need for opioid use at 1 month postoperatively, and patient-reported pain scores. Secondary objectives were as follows: mobilization and ambulation status, Foley catheter use, need for straight catheterization, length of stay, need for ICU admission, discharge status, and readmission within 30 days.
A total of 201 patients underwent surgical care via an ERAS protocol and were compared to a total of 74 patients undergoing traditional perioperative care (control group). The 2 groups were similar in baseline demographics. Intravenous opioid medications postoperatively via patient-controlled analgesia was nearly eliminated in the ERAS group (0.5% vs 54.1%, p < 0.001). This change was not associated with an increase in the average or daily pain scores in the ERAS group. At 1 month following surgery, a smaller proportion of patients in the ERAS group were using opioids (38.8% vs 52.7%, p = 0.041). The ERAS group demonstrated greater mobilization on postoperative day 0 (53.4% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001) and postoperative day 1 (84.1% vs 45.7%, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. Postoperative Foley use was decreased in the ERAS group (20.4% vs 47.3%, p < 0.001) without an increase in the rate of straight catheterization (8.1% vs 11.9%, p = 0.51).
Implementation of this novel ERAS pathway safely reduces patients’ postoperative opioid requirements during hospitalization and 1 month postoperatively. ERAS results in improved postoperative mobilization and ambulation.
R. Carter Clement, Brendan G. Carr, Michael J. Kallan, Catherine Wolff, Patrick M. Reilly and Neil R. Malhotra
A positive correlation between outcomes and the volume of patients seen by a provider has been supported by numerous studies. Volume-outcome relationships (VORs) have been well documented in the setting of both neurosurgery and trauma care and have shaped regionalization policies to optimize patient outcomes. Several authors have also investigated the correlation between patient volume and cost of care, known as the volume-cost relationship (VCR), with mixed results. The purpose of the present study was to investigate VORs and VCRs in the treatment of common intracranial injuries by testing the hypotheses that outcomes suffer at small-volume centers and costs rise at large-volume centers.
The authors performed a cross-sectional cohort study of patients with neurological trauma using the 2006 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest nationally representative all-payer data set. Patients were identified using ICD-9 codes for subdural, subarachnoid, and extradural hemorrhage following injury. Transfers were excluded from the study. In the primary analysis the association between a facility's neurotrauma patient volume and patient survival was tested. Secondary analyses focused on the relationships between patient volume and discharge status as well as between patient volume and cost. Analyses were performed using logistic regression.
In-hospital mortality in the overall cohort was 9.9%. In-hospital mortality was 14.9% in the group with the smallest volume of patients, that is, fewer than 6 cases annually. At facilities treating 6–11, 12–23, 24–59, and 60+ patients annually, mortality was 8.0%, 8.3%, 9.5%, and 10.0%, respectively. For these groups there was a significantly reduced risk of in-hospital mortality as compared with the group with fewer than 6 annual patients; the adjusted ORs (and corresponding 95% CIs) were 0.45 (0.29–0.68), 0.56 (0.38–0.81), 0.63 (0.44–0.90), and 0.59 (0.41–0.87), respectively. For these same groups (once again using < 6 cases/year as the reference), there were no statistically significant differences in either estimated actual cost or duration of hospital stay.
A VOR exists in the treatment of neurotrauma, and a meaningful threshold for significantly improved mortality is 6 cases per year. Emergency and interfacility transport policies based on this threshold might improve national outcomes. Cost of care does not differ significantly with patient volume.