Citations

Background/Objectives: Postoperative opioid exposure after lumbar fusion remains a key clinical concern. Understanding which perioperative factors are associated with lower postoperative opioid use may help optimize recovery after minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This study aimed to determine if patients undergoing MIS-TLIF under spinal anesthesia (SA) showed lower postoperative opioid use compared to those undergoing MIS-TLIF under general anesthesia (GA). Methods: We retrospectively studied all adult patients (>18 years) undergoing 1- and contiguous 2-level MIS-TLIFs performed by a single surgeon. Patients undergoing the procedure under GA were compared to those undergoing the procedure under SA. Postoperative oral opioid use, up to 3 months post discharge, was collected. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) protocol was implemented. Each outcome variable was initially assessed using univariate regression. Predictor variables with a p-value < 0.2 were included in the multivariate regression model. This was a retrospective, non-randomized study, and residual confounding cannot be excluded despite PSM. Results: The matched groups (n = 50 in each group) did not differ significantly depending on demographics or levels fused. Before regression, mean number of postoperative opioid prescriptions (p = 0.03), mean total operating room (OR) time in minutes (p < 0.01), and median length of stay (LOS) in days (p = 0.03) were significantly different. Multivariate regression showed that the GA group received 216.5 more total morphine milligram equivalents than the SA group (95% CI = 0.7–432.2, p = 0.049). The days of opioid use were higher in the GA group by 3.8 days (95% CI = 0.5 to 7.1, p = 0.025). On multivariate regression, LOS in hours was greater in the GA group by 14.1 h (p = 0.042). Conclusions: SA is an effective anesthetic modality for spinal surgery with the advantages of reduced postoperative opioid use, reduced OR time, and shorter LOS compared to GA.

OBJECTIVE The implementation of robotics and spinal anesthesia (SA) in spine surgery is rapidly expanding, offering significant benefits for an increasingly complex and aging patient population with degenerative spinal disease. Here, the authors present the largest cohort to date evaluating the combined use of these two techniques in minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHODS The authors retrospectively analyzed surgical outcomes of a series of patients who underwent robot-assisted (RA)–MIS TLIF under SA and general anesthesia (GA) at their institution from 2018 to 2024. Primary outcomes included operative times and postoperative pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, postoperative functional status, length of stay (LOS), and discharge status. To address potential confounders, a 1:1 propensity score–matching and regression analysis was implemented. Statistical analyses were conducted using Python. RESULTS A total of 209 patients underwent RA-MIS TLIF, with 31 (14.83%) receiving SA and 178 (85.17%) GA. After propensity score matching, the SA cohort demonstrated significantly shorter median total operating room (OR) time, total procedure time, time from entering the OR to skin incision, and time from closure to leaving the OR (all p < 0.01). Additionally, postoperative pain scores were significantly lower (p < 0.01), and LOS was significantly shorter (p < 0.01) in the SA cohort. Regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders, further supported these findings. CONCLUSIONS RA-MIS TLIF fusion under SA is a safe and effective approach that significantly reduces operative time, postoperative pain, and hospital LOS in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rising US healthcare costs and the COVID-19 pandemic put increased pressure on hospitals to reduce patient length of stay (LOS) while maintaining high-quality care. We aimed to determine if implementing a pathway for same-day discharge after elective neuroendovascular procedures to a monitored hotel setting is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. METHODS: We evaluated patient outcomes after elective neuroendovascular procedures and same-day discharge to an on-campus Care Hotel. The study enrolled patients aged ≥18 years from October 1, 2020, to February 28, 2023. Exclusion criteria comprised major comorbidities, additional care necessitating hospitalization, absence of a caregiver, insurer-mandated hospitalization, or patient refusal of the Care Hotel model. Primary outcomes were readmission rate or prolonged LOS, new ischemic or hemorrhagic complications rate, and death rate from vascular causes within 6 months. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and deaths related to causes other than vascular complications within 6 months and changes in modified Rankin Scale score by 1 or more points at last follow-up. Healthcare cost savings associated with same-day discharge were analyzed using a control group. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients discharged to the Care Hotel and 84 controls. The average age was 61 years in the Care Hotel group and 64 years in the control group, and aneurysm treatment was the most frequent neuroendovascular procedure (83.3% and 79.8%, respectively). The readmission and extended LOS rates were 4.8% for the Care Hotel group. The rate of new ischemic or hemorrhagic complications was 4.8%. Cost analysis estimated savings of $7730.12 per procedure. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the Care Hotel model is a safe, feasible, and cost-effective option for carefully selected patients undergoing elective neuroendovascular interventions. Adherence to discharge readiness criteria and meticulous patient selection are critical to minimizing complications and readmissions.

Study Design. Literature review and institutional analysis. Objective. This review examines the potential advantages of awake spinal surgery under neuroaxial anesthesia in minimizing positioning-related complications compared with traditional general anesthesia. Summary of Background Data. Spinal surgeries performed in the prone position under general anesthesia are associated with perioperative complications, such as ocular injury and vision loss, nerve damage, and pressure ulcers. Materials and Methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted for articles published from 1986 to 2023 focusing on awake spinal surgery and positioning-related complications. In addition, insights from the Mayo Clinic team were incorporated to assess the potential benefits of awake spine surgery. Results. The review identified several positioning-related complications associated with prone positioning during spine surgery, including perioperative visual loss, neuropathies, pressure ulcers, and intra-abdominal hypertension leading to systemic cardiovascular effects and potential organ dysfunction. Advances at the Mayo Clinic have enabled the use of awake spinal surgery under neuroaxial anesthesia for complex procedures such as robotic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. The use of awake lumbar spine surgery has demonstrated advantages, including reduced positioning-related complications, immediate patient feedback to avoid harmful maneuvers, shorter operating room times, and improved hemodynamic stability. Conclusions. Awake lumbar spine surgery offers notable advantages in reducing positioning-related complications and presents a promising alternative to general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Awake minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) generates minimal surrounding tissue damage and has been shown to be a safe, time-effective, and cost-reductive technique in single-level procedures. The purpose of this study was to advocate for the utilization of multilevel MIS-TLIF even in challenging cases as it has demonstrated positive outcomes. METHODS: Chart review was conducted for consecutive patients undergoing awake multilevel MIS-TLIF from 2020 to 2023. Various demographic, preoperative, and postoperative variables were collected and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: Sixteen patients underwent multilevel awake MIS-TLIF at our institution during the specified period. Among them, 87.5% underwent a two-level procedure and 12.5% a three-level procedure. The median age ± IQR was 69.5 ± 11 years, with a slight male predominance (56.25%). Common comorbidities included hypertension (56.25%), obesity (37.5%), sleep apnea (25%), and type 2 diabetes (18.75%). The American Society of Anesthesiologists risk was 2 in 43.75% of patients and 3 in 56.25%. All patients presented pain, and 12.5% showed motor deficit. Intraoperative data showed a median of 196 minutes in the operating room where 156 ± 27.75 minutes corresponded to actual procedure time. The median estimated blood loss was 50 ± 70 cc. In the immediate postoperative period, 1 patient had nausea and emesis, and 1 reported fatigue. The median pain score during this period was 4.6 ± 2.03. Pain control medications were required for various patients, with methocarbamol (50%), hydromorphone (37.5%), and oxycodone (25%) being the most commonly prescribed in the postanesthesia care unit. No patient had new neurological deficits after the surgical intervention. The median length of stay was 2 days ±1.25. All patients were discharged with no complications. CONCLUSION: Multilevel awake MIS-TLIF emerges as a safe and effective technique for complex cases, enhancing patient quality of life with minimal blood loss and postoperative pain.

ImportanceImplementing multidisciplinary teams for treatment of complex brain tumors needing awake craniotomies is associated with significant costs. To date, there is a paucity of analysis on the cost utility of introducing advanced multidisciplinary standardized teams to enable awake craniotomies.ObjectiveTo assess the cost utility of introducing a standardized program of awake craniotomies.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective economic evaluation was conducted at Mayo Clinic Florida. All patients with single, unilateral lesions who underwent elective awake craniotomies between January 2016 and December 2021 were considered eligible for inclusion. The economic perspective of the health care institution and a time horizon of 1 year were considered. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to May 2023.ExposureTreatment with an awake craniotomy before standardization (2016-2018) compared with treatment with awake craniotomy after standardization (2018-2021).Main Outcomes and MeasuresPatient demographics, perioperative, and postoperative outcomes, including length of stay, intensive care (ICU) admission, extent of resection, readmission rates, and 1-year mortality were compared between patients undergoing surgery before and after standardization. Direct medical costs were estimated from Medicare reimbursement rates for all billed procedures. A cost-utility analysis was performed considering differences in direct medical costs and in 1-year mortality within the periods before and after standardization of procedures. Uncertainty was explored in probability sensitivity analysis.ResultsA total of 164 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.9 [15.7] years; 98 [60%] male patients) were included in the study. Of those, 56 underwent surgery before and 108 after implementation of procedure standardization. Procedure standardization was associated with reductions in length of stay from a mean (SD) of 3.34 (1.79) to 2.46 (1.61) days (difference, 0.88 days; 95% CI, 0.33-1.42 days; P = .002), length of stay in ICU from a mean (SD) of 1.32 (0.69) to 0.99 (0.90) nights (difference, 0.33 nights; 95% CI, 0.06-0.60 nights; P = .02), 30-day readmission rate from 14% (8 patients) in the prestandardization cohort to 5% (5 patients) (difference, 9%; 95% CI, 19.6%-0.3%; P = .03), while extent of resection and intraoperative complication rates were similar between both cohorts. The standardized protocol was associated with mean (SD) savings of $7088.80 ($12 389.50) and decreases in 1-year mortality (dominant intervention). This protocol was found to be cost saving in 75.5% of all simulations in probability sensitivity analysis.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this economic evaluation of standardization of awake craniotomy, there was a generalized reduction in length of stay, ICU admission time, and direct medical costs with implementation of an optimized protocol. This was achieved without compromising patient outcomes and with similar extent of resection, complication rates, and reduced readmission rates.

OBJECTIVE There has been increasing interest in the use of spinal anesthesia (SA) for spine surgery, especially within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. Despite the wide adoption of SA by the orthopedic practices, it has not gained wide acceptance in lumbar spine surgery. Studies investigating SA versus general anesthesia (GA) in lumbar laminectomy and discectomy have found that SA reduces perioperative costs and leads to a reduction in analgesic use, as well as to shorter anesthesia and surgery time. The aim of this retrospective, case-control study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) after administration of SA with those who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA. METHODS Overall, 40 consecutive patients who underwent MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon were analyzed; 20 patients received SA and 20 patients received GA. Procedure time, intraoperative adverse events, postoperative adverse events, postoperative length of stay, 3-hour postanesthesia care unit (PACU) numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, opioid medication, and time to first ambulation were collected for each patient. RESULTS The two groups were homogeneous for clinical characteristics. A decrease in total operating room (OR) time was found for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF after administration of SA, with a mean OR time of 156.5 ± 18.9 minutes versus 213.6 ± 47.4 minutes for patients who underwent MIS-TLIF under GA (p < 0.0001), a reduction of 27%. A decrease in total procedure time was also observed for SA versus GA (122 ± 16.7 minutes vs 175.2 ± 10 minutes; p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found in intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. There was a difference in the mean maximum NRS pain score during the first 3 hours in the PACU as patients who received SA reported a lower pain score compared with those who received GA (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 7.3 ± 2.7; p = 0.018). No significant difference was observed in morphine equivalents received by the two groups. A difference was also observed in the mean overall NRS pain score, with 2.4 ± 2.1 for the SA group versus 4.9 ± 2.3 for the GA group (p = 0.001). Patients who received SA had a shorter time to first ambulation compared with those who received GA (385.8 ± 353.8 minutes vs 855.9 ± 337.4 minutes; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study have pointed to some important observations in this patient population. SA offers unique advantages in comparison with GA for performing MIS-TLIF, including reduced OR time and postoperative pain, and faster postoperative mobilization.

Background: During awake craniotomy, securing the patient’s airway might be necessary electively or emergently. The objective of this study was to compare the feasibility of airway management using a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) and 4 alternative airway management techniques in an awake craniotomy simulation. Methods: After completing a questionnaire, 9 anesthesia providers attempted airway management in a cadaver positioned to simulate awake craniotomy conditions. Following the simulation, participants rated and ranked the devices in their order of preference. Results: Only 3 approaches resulted in the successful securement of an airway device for 100% of participants: LMA (median; interquartile range time to secure the airway 6 s, 5 to 10 s), fiberoptic bronchoscopy through an LMA (41 s; 23 to 51 s), and video laryngoscopy (49 s; 43 to 127 s). In contrast, the oral and nasal fiberoptic approaches demonstrated only 44.4% (154.5 s; 134.25 to 182 s) and 55.6% (75 s; 50 to 117 s) success rates, respectively. The LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure the airway (P=0.001). After the simulation, 100% of participants reported that an LMA would be their first choice for emergency airway management, followed by fiberoptic intubation through the LMA (7 of 9 participants) if the LMA failed to properly seat. Conclusions: We demonstrated that an LMA was the fastest and most reliable primary method to secure an airway in a laterally positioned cadaver with 3-pin skull fixation. Fiberoptic and video laryngoscope airway equipment should be readily available during awake craniotomy procedures, and an attempt to visualize the vocal cords through the LMA should be attempted before removing it for alternative techniques.

OBJECTIVEEpilepsy is common among patients with supratentorial brain tumors; approximately 40%–70% of patients with glioma develop brain tumor–related epilepsy (BTRE). Intraoperative localization of the epileptogenic zone during surgical tumor resection (real-time data) may improve intervention techniques in patients with lesional epilepsy, including BTRE. Accurate localization of the epileptogenic signals requires electrodes with high-density spatial organization that must be placed on the cortical surface during surgery. The authors investigated a 360° high-density ring-shaped cortical electrode assembly device, called the “circular grid,” that allows for simultaneous tumor resection and real-time electrophysiology data recording from the brain surface.METHODSThe authors collected data from 99 patients who underwent awake craniotomy from January 2008 to December 2018 (29 patients with the circular grid and 70 patients with strip electrodes), of whom 50 patients were matched-pair analyzed (25 patients with the circular grid and 25 patients with strip electrodes). Multiple variables were then retrospectively assessed to determine if utilization of this device provides more accurate real-time data and improves patient outcomes.RESULTSMatched-pair analysis showed higher extent of resection (p = 0.03) and a shorter transient motor recovery period during the hospitalization course (by approximately 6.6 days, p ≤ 0.05) in the circular grid patients. Postoperative versus preoperative Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) score difference/drop was greater for the strip electrode patients (p = 0.007). No significant difference in postoperative seizures between the 2 groups was present (p = 0.80).CONCLUSIONSThe circular grid is a safe, feasible tool that grants direct access to the cortical surgical surface for tissue resection while simultaneously monitoring electrical activity. Application of the circular grid to different brain pathologies may improve intraoperative epileptogenic detection accuracy and functional outcomes, while decreasing postoperative complications.

Abstract Background Transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block is considered an effective alternative to neuraxial analgesia for abdominal surgery. However, limited evidence supports its use over traditional analgesic modalities in colorectal surgery. This study compared the analgesic efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine TAP block with intrathecal (IT) opioid administration in a multicentre RCT. Methods Patients undergoing elective small bowel or colorectal resection were randomized to receive TAP block or a single injection of IT analgesia with hydromorphone. Patients were assessed at 4, 8, 16, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Primary outcomes were mean pain scores and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered within 48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative ileus and use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Results In total, 209 patients were recruited and 200 completed the trial (TAP 102, IT 98). The TAP group had a 1·6-point greater mean pain score than the IT group at 4 h after surgery, and this difference lasted for 16 h after operation. The TAP group received more MMEs within the first 24 h after surgery than the IT group (median difference in MMEs 10·0, 95 per cent c.i. 3·0 to 20·5). There were no differences in MME use at 24 and 48 h, or with respect to secondary outcomes. Conclusion IT opioid administration provided better immediate postoperative pain control than TAP block. Both modalities resulted in low pain scores in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery and should be considered in multimodal postoperative analgesic plans. Registration number: NCT02356198 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).