Scholarlink

Background and objective <p>Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been used to improve recovery and outcomes after surgical operations. However, the literature on implementing the ERAS concept in spine metastasis is sparse. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to shed light on this topic.</p> Method <p>MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase were searched. The primary outcomes were hospital LOS and complications. The secondary outcomes were duration of operation, operative blood loss, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), time to ambulation, time to urinary catheter removal, regular diet, radiation, and systemic internal therapy.</p> Results <p>Included four studies yielded 975 patients, from which 442 and 533 patients underwent surgery with and without ERAS, respectively. The two groups were similar in age, male gender, comorbidities, smoking, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score, location of surgery, and source of primary cancers. In the ERAS group, hospital length of stay (LOS MD= -1.97 days [-3.07, -0.87], <i>p</i> = 0.005) was shorter; however, both groups were similar in complications (OR = 0.71 [0.27, 1.82], <i>p</i> = 0.470). Furthermore, operative blood loss (MD= -204.35&#xa0;ml [-400.66, -8.03], <i>p</i> = 0.04), third-day postoperative VAS score (MD= -0.95 [-1.48, -0.41], <i>p</i> = 0.005), postoperative MEDD (MD= -206.81&#xa0;mg [-319.62, -94.01], <i>p</i> = 0.003), time to ambulation (MD= -33.81&#xa0;h [-43.91, -23.71], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), time to urinary catheter removal (MD= -30.75&#xa0;h [-33.99, -27.50], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), time to regular diet (MD= -19.67&#xa0;h [-32.62, -6.72], <i>p</i> = 0.003), time to radiation (MD= -6.05 days [-6.87, -5.24], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and time to systemic internal therapy (MD= -4.96 days [-5.79, -4.13], <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) were lower in the ERAS group. In addition, duration of operation was similar (MD = 0.06&#xa0;min [-34.45, 34.57], <i>p</i> = 1).</p> Conclusion <p>This study showed that the application of ERAS for patients with spinal metastases is beneficial in terms of operative blood loss, pain management, and time metric values. The possible effect of ERAS protocols on perioperative complications deserves further investigation. We recommend considering the ERAS concept for patients with spinal metastases.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Application of enhanced recovery after surgery for patients with spinal metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月13日

查看全文
  • Shahab Aldin Sattari,
  • S. Farzad Maroufi,
  • John N. Theodore,
  • Kelly Jiang,
  • Albert Antar,
  • Wuyang Yang,
  • Tej D. Azad,
  • A. Daniel Davidar,
  • Carly Weber-Levine,
  • Louis Chang,
  • Alexander C. Whiting,
  • Daniel Lubelski,
  • Ali Bydon,
  • Timothy Witham,
  • Jon Weingart,
  • Chetan Bettegowda,
  • Allan Belzberg,
  • Nicholas Theodore

摘要

Background and objective

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been used to improve recovery and outcomes after surgical operations. However, the literature on implementing the ERAS concept in spine metastasis is sparse. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to shed light on this topic.

Method

MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase were searched. The primary outcomes were hospital LOS and complications. The secondary outcomes were duration of operation, operative blood loss, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), time to ambulation, time to urinary catheter removal, regular diet, radiation, and systemic internal therapy.

Results

Included four studies yielded 975 patients, from which 442 and 533 patients underwent surgery with and without ERAS, respectively. The two groups were similar in age, male gender, comorbidities, smoking, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status score, location of surgery, and source of primary cancers. In the ERAS group, hospital length of stay (LOS MD= -1.97 days [-3.07, -0.87], p = 0.005) was shorter; however, both groups were similar in complications (OR = 0.71 [0.27, 1.82], p = 0.470). Furthermore, operative blood loss (MD= -204.35 ml [-400.66, -8.03], p = 0.04), third-day postoperative VAS score (MD= -0.95 [-1.48, -0.41], p = 0.005), postoperative MEDD (MD= -206.81 mg [-319.62, -94.01], p = 0.003), time to ambulation (MD= -33.81 h [-43.91, -23.71], p < 0.001), time to urinary catheter removal (MD= -30.75 h [-33.99, -27.50], p < 0.001), time to regular diet (MD= -19.67 h [-32.62, -6.72], p = 0.003), time to radiation (MD= -6.05 days [-6.87, -5.24], p < 0.001), and time to systemic internal therapy (MD= -4.96 days [-5.79, -4.13], p < 0.001) were lower in the ERAS group. In addition, duration of operation was similar (MD = 0.06 min [-34.45, 34.57], p = 1).

Conclusion

This study showed that the application of ERAS for patients with spinal metastases is beneficial in terms of operative blood loss, pain management, and time metric values. The possible effect of ERAS protocols on perioperative complications deserves further investigation. We recommend considering the ERAS concept for patients with spinal metastases.