Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Enhanced Recovery Program for Gastrectomy A Retrospective Controlled Analysis

Challenging issues of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery programs in South Korea

This review discusses the challenges of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in South Korea. ERAS is a patient-centered perioperative care approach that aims to improve postoperative recovery by minimizing surgical stress and complications. While ERAS has demonstrated significant benefits, its successful implementation faces various barriers such as a lack of manpower and policy support, poor communication and collaboration among perioperative members, resistance to shifting away from outdated practices, and patient-specific risk factors. This review emphasizes the importance of understanding these factors to tailor effective strategies for successful ERAS implementation in South Korea's unique healthcare setting. In this review, we aim to shed light on the current status of ERAS in South Korea and identify key barriers. We hope to encourage Korean anesthesiologists to take a leading role in adopting the ERAS program as the standard for perioperative care. Ultimately, our goal is to improve the surgical outcomes of patients using this proactive approach.

The effect of the enhanced recovery programme on long-term survival following liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery programmes are associated with improved short-term outcomes following liver surgery. The impact of enhanced recovery programmes on medium- and long-term outcomes is incompletely understood. This study aimed to assess the impact of an enhanced recovery programme on long-term survival in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal liver metastases.

METHODS

At a tertiary hepatobiliary centre, we analysed short-, medium- and long-term outcomes in consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases. A five-year retrospective review was carried out comparing the enhanced recovery programme to standard care.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included in the analysis: 87 on standard care and 85 on an enhanced recovery programme. Open surgery was performed in 122 patients: 74 (85.1%) and 48 (56.5%) patients in the standard care and enhanced recovery programme, respectively (p < 0.001). There was a significant reduction in the median (IQR) length of hospital stay in the enhanced recovery programme compared with standard care (7 (5) days vs. 8 (3) days, p = 0.0009). There was no significant difference in survival between standard care and the Enhanced Recovery Programme at one (p = 0.818), three (p = 0.203), and five years (p = 0.247).

CONCLUSION

An enhanced recovery programme was associated with a reduced length of hospital stay. There was no effect on the one-, three- and five-year survival.

Incremental Cost-effectiveness Analysis on Length of Stay of an Enhanced Recovery After Spine Surgery Program: A Single-center, Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after spine surgery (ERAS) is increasingly utilized to improve postoperative outcomes and reduce cost. There are limited data on the monetary benefits of ERAS when incorporating the costs of developing, operationalizing, and maintaining ERAS programs. The objective of this study was to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness of a spine surgery ERAS program, modeling hospital and operational cost and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

The study included adult patients undergoing spine surgery before and after implementation of an ERAS program. Variables included individual patient-level and ERAS personnel costs, with LOS as the outcome utility of interest. Propensity score matching was used to create a quasi-experimental design to equate the standard care and ERAS groups.

RESULTS

Four hundred and nine patients were included in the unmatched group, with 54 patients each in the standard care and ERAS groups after matching. In the matched cohort, the only imbalance in predictors (standard mean difference [SMD] >0.2) were race (SMD, 0.21), American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status (SMD, 0.32), fluid balance in the operating room (SMD, 0.21), median (interquartile range) LOS (standard care, 2.0 [1.0, 3.75] days vs. ERAS, 4.0 [3.0, 5.0]; SMD, 0.81) and mean (±SD) total cost (standard care, $19,291.57±13,572.24 vs. ERAS, $24,363.45±26,352.45; SMD, 0.24). In the incremental cost effectiveness analysis, standard care was the dominant strategy in both 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We report a real-world, cost-effectiveness analysis following implementation of an ERAS program for spine surgery at a quaternary medical center. Our study demonstrated that considering LOS as the sole determinant, standard care is the dominant cost-effective strategy compared with the ERAS protocol.

State of the art of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagogastric cancer surgery: the Western experience

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve outcomes. The results of this multimodal and multidisciplinary approach based on actions focused on reducing physiological surgical stress in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods are beneficial in reducing morbidity and hospital stay, without increasing readmissions across different surgical settings. The implementation of ERAS in resection procedures of esophageal and gastric cancer has been challenging due to the complexity of these surgical techniques and the high risk of complications. Despite the limited evidence of ERAS in esophagectomy operations, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have confirmed a reduction of pulmonary complications and hospital stay without increasing readmissions. In gastrectomy operations, the implementation of ERAS reduces the use of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, facilitates early diet, and reduces the length of hospital stay, without increasing complications. There is, however, wide heterogeneity and absence of standardization in the number and definition of the ERAS components. The development of ERAS consensus guidelines including procedure-specific components may reduce this variability. Regardless growing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS, the adherence rate is still low. The commitment of the multidisciplinary team and leadership is critical in the application and refinement of ERAS protocols in parallel with periodic audits. Pre- and post-habilitation methods are emerging concepts to be incorporated in ERAS protocols.