<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>As high-quality health care becomes increasingly expensive, improvement projects are focused on reducing cost and increasing value. To increase value by reducing operating room (OR) utilization, we studied the effect of a dedicated team approach for posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for scoliosis.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>With institutional support, an interdisciplinary, dedicated team was assembled. Members developed standardized protocols for anesthetic management and patient transport, positioning, preparation, draping, imaging, and wake-up. These protocols were initially implemented with a small interdisciplinary team, including 1 surgeon (Phase 1), and then were expanded to include a second surgeon and additional anesthesiology staff (Phase 2). We compared procedures performed with a dedicated team (the Dedicated Team cases) and procedures performed without a such a team (the Casual Team cases). Because of the heterogeneous nature of PSF for scoliosis, we developed a case categorization system: Category 1 was relatively homogeneous and indicated patients with fusion of ≤12 levels, no osteotomies, and a body mass index (BMI) of &lt;25 kg/m, and Category 2 was more heterogeneous and indicated patients with fusion of &gt;12 levels and/or ≥1 osteotomy and/or a BMI of ≥25 kg/m.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>In total, 89 Casual Team and 78 Dedicated Team cases were evaluated: 71 were in Category 1 and 96 were in Category 2. Dedicated Team cases used significantly less OR time for both Categories 1 and 2 (p &lt; 0.001). In Category-1 cases, the average reduction was 111.4 minutes (29.7%); in Category-2 cases, it was 76.9 minutes (18.5%). The effect of the Dedicated Team was scalable: the reduction in OR time was significant in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 (p &lt; 0.001). The Dedicated Team cases had no complications. Cost reduction averaged approximately $8,900 for Category-1 and $6,000 for Category-2 cases.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>By creating a dedicated team and standardizing several aspects of PSFs for scoliosis, we achieved a large reduction in OR time. This increase in team efficiency was significant, consistent, and scalable. As a result, we can routinely complete 2 Category-1 PSFs in the same OR with the same team without exceeding standard block time.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Surgical site infections (SSIs) can have devastating consequences for children who undergo spinal instrumentation. Prospective evaluations of prophylactic cefazolin in this population are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe the pharmacokinetics and skeletal muscle disposition of prophylactic cefazolin in a paediatric population undergoing complex spinal surgery.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>This prospective pharmacokinetic study included 17 children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior spinal fusion, with a median age of 13.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 13.4-15.4] yr and a median weight of 60.6 (IQR 50.8-66.0) kg. A dosing strategy consistent with published guidelines was used. Serial plasma and skeletal muscle microdialysis samples were obtained during the operative procedure and unbound cefazolin concentrations measured. Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analyses were performed. The amount of time that the concentration of unbound cefazolin exceeded the minimal inhibitory concentration for bacterial growth for selected SSI pathogens was calculated.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>Skeletal muscle concentrations peaked at a median of 37.6 (IQR 26.8-40.0) µg ml(-1) within 30-60 min after the first cefazolin 30 mg kg(-1) dose. For patients who received a second 30 mg kg(-1) dose, the peak concentrations reached a median of 40.5 (IQR 30.8-45.7) µg ml(-1) within 30-60 min. The target cefazolin concentrations for SSI prophylaxis for meticillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) and Gram-negative pathogens were exceeded in skeletal muscle 98.9 and 58.3% of the intraoperative time, respectively.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>For children with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis undergoing posterior spinal fusion, the cefazolin dosing strategy used in this study resulted in skeletal muscle concentrations that were likely not to be effective for intraoperative SSI prophylaxis against Gram-negative pathogens.</p>

<p><strong>BACKGROUND: </strong>Posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is associated with significant pain and prolonged hospitalization. There is evidence that early mobilization and multimodal analgesia can accelerate functional recovery and reduced length of stay (LOS). Using these principles, we implemented a quality improvement initiative to enable earlier functional recovery in our AIS-PSF population.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>We designed and implemented a standardized rapid recovery pathway (RRP) with evidence-based management recommendations for children aged 10 to 21 years undergoing PSF for AIS. Our primary outcome, functional recovery, was assessed using statistical process control charts for LOS and average daily pain scores. Our process measures were medication adherence and order set utilization. The balancing measure was 30-day readmission rate.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>We included 322 patients from January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 with 134 (42%) serving as historical controls, 104 (32%) representing our transition population, and 84 (26%) serving as our RRP population. Baseline average LOS was 5.7 days and decreased to 4 days after RRP implementation. Average daily pain scores remained stable with improvement on postoperative day 0 (3.8 vs 4.9 days) and 1 (3.8 vs 5 days) after RRP implementation. In the second quarter of 2015, gabapentin (91%) and ketorolac (95%) use became routine and order set utilization was 100%. Readmission rates did not increase as a result of this pathway.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>Implementation of a standardized RRP with multimodal pain management and early mobilization strategies resulted in reduced LOS without an increase in reported pain scores or readmissions.</p>