Cargando…

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) in Patients Over 60 Years Old

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is currently widely used in many surgical specialties, but there is still a lack of concern about the cervical ERAS program for old patients (>60 years old). We aimed to determine whether our ERAS program significantly improved satisfaction and o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Peng, Kong, Chao, Teng, Ze, Zhang, Sitao, Cui, Peng, Wang, Shuaikang, Zhao, Guoguang, Lu, Shibao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10543997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37790741
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S422418
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is currently widely used in many surgical specialties, but there is still a lack of concern about the cervical ERAS program for old patients (>60 years old). We aimed to determine whether our ERAS program significantly improved satisfaction and outcomes in old patients (>60 years old) with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. The study enrolled patients if they were over the age of 60 years old underwent ACDF from July 2019 and June 2021 (ERAS group) and from January 2018 and June 2019 (non-ERAS group). Data including demographic, comorbidity, and surgical information were collected. We also evaluated ERAS process compliance, primary outcome, surgical complication, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: There were 135 patients in the ERAS group, and 122 patients in the non-ERAS group were included. A comparison of the demographic data revealed that there were no statistically significant intergroup differences observed between the group. Overall, ERAS pathway compliance was 91.9%. There were no significant differences in the fusion levels, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative VAS score, and complications between the ERAS and non-ERAS groups. In addition, there was no significant difference in readmission and mortality at 30-day follow-up between the two groups. However, we observed a statistically significant decrease in the LOS in the ERAS group (8.68±2.34 of ERAS group versus 10.43±4.05 in non-ERAS group, p=0.013). CONCLUSION: This report describes the first ERAS protocol used in old patients with ACDF. Our ERAS program is safe and associated with incremental benefits with respect to LOS in old patients with ACDF.