Key result
Spine ERAS cuts length of stay by up to ~2 days across hospital income settings.
Why the study?
To explore the implementation and outcomes of enhanced recovery after spine surgery across different World Bank country-income levels.
Does the implementation of enhanced recovery after spine surgery (spine ERAS) reduce length of stay and costs in adult and pediatric populations?
Meta-Analysis
Yes
Does the implementation of enhanced recovery after spine surgery (spine ERAS) reduce length of stay and costs in adult and pediatric populations?
Implementation of enhanced recovery after spine surgery effectively reduces length of stay across both low/middle-income and high-income countries.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Spine ERAS shortens hospital stay across income settings; extends ERAS benefits to spine surgery globally.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lele et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Spine surgery. Enhanced recovery after spine surgery (spine ERAS) vs. Standard care was evaluated on Length of stay (LOS) (MD -2.06, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.64). Implementation of spine ERAS reduced length of stay in both low-middle-income (MD -2.06 days; 95% CI -2.47 to -1.64) and high-income (MD -0.99 days; 95% CI -1.28 to -0.70) hospitals.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: