Dataset Information

Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The best evidence-enhanced recovery care pathway is yet to be defined for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Minimally invasive surgery, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early postoperative nutrition have been considered as critical components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS). The objective of this study will be to synthesize the evidence underpinning individual components of a proposed multidisciplinary enhanced recovery pathway for patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Methods

This is the study protocol for a systematic review of complex interventions. Our team identified 22 individual care components of a proposed pathway based on clinical practice guidelines and published reviews. We will include systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in adults or pediatric patients evaluating any one of the pre-determined care components. Our primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). We will search the following databases (1990 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The risk of bias for individual studies will be appraised using appropriate tools. A narrative synthesis will be provided with the information presented in the text and tables to summarize and explain the characteristics and findings of the included studies. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we do not anticipate to conduct meta-analyses. Confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of care will be classified according to the GRADE system.

Discussion

This systematic review will identify, evaluate, and integrate the evidence underpinning individual components of a pathway for patients undergoing spinal surgery. The formation of an evidence-based pathway will allow for the standardization of clinical care delivery within the context of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42019135289.

SUBMITTER: Licina A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7035675 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review.

Licina Ana A Silvers Andrew A Laughlin Harry H Russell Jeremy J Wan Crispin C

Systematic reviews 20200221 1

<h4>Background</h4>The best evidence-enhanced recovery care pathway is yet to be defined for patients undergoing spinal surgery. Minimally invasive surgery, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early postoperative nutrition have been considered as critical components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS). The objective of this study will be to synthesize the evidence underpinning individual components of a proposed multidisciplinary enhanced recovery pathway for patients undergo ...[more]

PMID: 32085813

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnhanced recovery in spinal surgery (ERSS) has shown promising improvements in clinical and economical outcomes. We have proposed an ERSS pathway based on available evidence. We aimed to delineate the clinical efficacy of individual pathway components in ERSS through a systematic narrative review.MethodsWe included systematic reviews and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled studies, and observational studies in adults and pediatric patients evaluating any one of the 22 pre-defined components. Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, morbidity outcomes (e.g., pulmonary, cardiac, renal, surgical complications), patient-reported outcomes and experiences (e.g., pain, quality of care experience), and health services outcomes (e.g., length of stay and costs). Following databases (1990 onwards) were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL). Two authors screened the citations, full-text articles, and extracted data. A narrative synthesis was provided. We constructed Evidence Profile (EP) tables for each component of the pathway, where appropriate information was available. Due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a meta-analyses. GRADE system was used to classify confidence in cumulative evidence for each component of the pathway.ResultsWe identified 5423 relevant studies excluding duplicates as relating to the 22 pre-defined components of enhanced recovery in spinal surgery. We included 664 studies in the systematic review. We identified specific evidence within the context of spinal surgery for 14/22 proposed components. Evidence was summarized in EP tables where suitable. We performed thematic synthesis without EP for 6/22 elements. We identified appropriate societal guidelines for the remainder of the components.ConclusionsWe identified the following components with high quality of evidence as per GRADE system: pre-emptive analgesia, peri-operative blood conservation (antifibrinolytic use), surgical site preparation and antibiotic prophylaxis. There was moderate level of evidence for implementation of prehabilitation, minimally invasive surgery, multimodal perioperative analgesia, intravenous lignocaine and ketamine use as well as early mobilization. This review allows for the first formalized evidence-based unified protocol in the field of ERSS. Further studies validating the multimodal ERSS framework are essential to guide the future evolution of care in patients undergoing spinal surgery.

Project description:Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are multimodal, evidence-based approaches to optimize patient outcome after surgery. However, the use of ERAS protocols to improve morbidity and recovery time without compromising safety following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains to be elucidated.We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS protocols compared with conventional perioperative care (CPC) in patients following PD.PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched between January 2000 and June 2015.The patients who underwent PD with ERAS protocols or CPC were eligible. The studies that compared postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS), postoperative complications, or in-hospital costs in the 2 groups were included.A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to estimate the postoperative outcomes between the 2 groups and identified the potential confounders. We used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies checklist to assess methodological qualities. Weighted mean differences (WMD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The publication bias tests were also performed through the funnel plots.In total, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies with 1409 ERAS cases and 1310 controls were analyzed. Implementation of an ERAS protocol significantly reduced PLOS (WMD: -4.17 days; 95%CI: -5.72 to -2.61), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.44-0.71), overall morbidity (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.74), and in-hospital costs compared to CPC (all P?<?0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in other postoperative outcomes. Age, gender, and ERAS component implementation did not significantly contribute to heterogeneity for PLOS as shown by meta-regression analysis.Our study suggested that ERAS was as safe as CPC and improved recovery of patients undergoing PD, thus reducing in-hospital costs. General adoption of ERAS protocols during PD should be recommended.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery decreases postoperative length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality compared to conventional perioperative care.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It has been registered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023391709). A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies published and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Pubmed databases since their inception. Trial registries and references of included studies and pertinent previous systematic reviews will also be searched. Studies will be included if they are randomized controlled trials or cohort studies evaluating adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery and comparing ERAS or modified ERAS protocols to conventional perioperative care and report one of the following outcomes: postoperative length of stay, overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day infectious morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus, return of bowel function, and 30-day readmissions. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random effects model for all comparative data using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (London, United Kingdom).DiscussionERAS protocols have become standard of care for patients undergoing elective surgery. Their use in the setting of emergency surgery is far less common. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess whether there are benefits in patient important outcomes with the implementation of ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. Ultimately, we hope to promote their use and further large randomized controlled trials evaluating emergency surgery ERAS programs.Prospero registration numberCRD42023391709.

Project description:ObjectivesEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has become extensively practiced and has shown encouraging benefits. Within recent years, ERAS has also been increasingly performed in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). However, the actual efficacy of ERAS in CRS patients undergoing ESS is not completely clear, and the related evidence remains weak. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in the perioperative management of CRS patients receiving ESS.MethodsWe searched randomized controlled trials in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, Wanfang, and VIP Database up to February 2023, to analyze the effectiveness and safety of ERAS in ESS perioperative management of CRS patients. We appraised the methodological quality in the included RCTs using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and assessed the quality of evidence with the Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were carried out with the the software Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0. In addition, potential publication bias was detected by Begg's test, Egger's test, and funnel plot test.ResultsTwenty-eight studies involving 2636 patients were included within this study. In comparison with the standard care (SC) group, the ERAS group had the advantages in the following aspects: length of stay (MD = -2.50, 95%CI: -3.04 to -1.97), pain scores (MD = -1.07, 95%CI: -1.46 to -0.67), anxiety score (SMD = -2.13, 95%CI: -2.83 to -1.44), depression score (SMD = -2.42, 95%CI: -3.13 to -1.71), hospitalization expenses, and quality of life. At the same time, the ERAS group presented a markedly lower incidence of adverse events in comparison to the SC group, such as overall complications (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.20 to 0.41), postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.33, 95%CI:0.21 to 0.50), facial edema (RR = 0.20, 95%CI:0.11 to 0.38), low back pain (RR = 0.28, 95%CI:0.16 to 0.49), urinary retention (RR = 0.12, 95%CI:0.05 to 0.30) and haemorrhage (RR = 0.19, 95%CI:0.07 to 0.55).ConclusionsThe results showed that the ERAS protocol is effective and safe in CRS patients who undergo ESS. However, Due to the limited overall methodological quality included studies, caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results. More high-quality, multiple-centre, and large-sample studies are in demand in the future to further validate its clinical efficacy.

Project description:BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious, sometimes life-threatening complication that can occur following spine surgery. The incidence of VTE, and the optimal type and timing of thromboprophylaxis for this complication in elective spine surgery is a matter of debate.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review with the aim of clarifying the efficacy and adverse effects of mechanical and chemical prophylaxis for preventing thromboembolic complications in elective spine surgery for conditions other than trauma and malignant disease.Methods/designA search strategy of related articles up to March 2018 was designed and executed in Medline and Embase.Patientsadolescents (>10 years) and adults undergoing elective surgery for spinal deformity or degenerative disease (from C1 to S1).InterventionPerioperative mechanical and chemical thromboprophylaxis. Studies could be randomized controlled trials or observational studies that reported data on any relevant clinical outcomes.ResultsIn total, 2451 uniquecitations were identified and 35 studies were ultimately included in the systematic review. The overall mean incidence of complications was 3.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.0% for pulmonary embolism, and 3.7% for bleeding in chemoprophylaxis group; 2.9% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.4% for pulmonary embolism and 0.0% for bleeding in mechanoprophylaxis; and 0.7% for deep venous thrombosis, 0.1% for pulmonary embolism and 0.2% for bleeding in mixed prophylaxis group with no specific data on these rates for the type of patient and type and location of surgery. None of the articles retrieved provided information on the adolescent population.Discussion and conclusionsThe poor design and high variability among the studies regarding characteristics of study population, details of interventions, and definitions of outcomes, determines a low quality of the available evidence and limits the interpretation of the results. We were unable to identify a clear advantage of one type of thromboprophylaxis over the other, although there was an increased risk of bleeding with chemoprophylaxis, which could favor the use of mechanoprophylaxis in this scenario.

Dataset Information

Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Publications

Proposed pathway for patients undergoing enhanced recovery after spinal surgery: protocol for a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets