Enhanced recovery after surgery in emergency resection for obstructive colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Protocolized care pathways in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. The delivery of standardized pathways in this setting may have the potential to transform clinical care and improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

The OVID SP versions of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched between January 1950 and October 2022. All randomized and non-randomized cohort studies comparing protocolized care streams with standard care protocols in adult patients (>18 years old) undergoing major emergency abdominal surgery with 30-day follow-up data were included. Studies were excluded if they reported on standardized care protocols in the trauma or elective setting. Outcomes assessed included length of stay, 30-day postoperative morbidity, 30-day postoperative mortality and 30-day readmission and reoperations rates. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies and RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects modelling.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 20 927 patients were identified, with 12 359 patients undergoing protocolized care pathways and 8568 patients undergoing standard care pathways. Thirteen unique protocolized pathways were identified, with a median of eight components (range 6-15), with compliance of 24-100%. Protocolized care pathways were associated with a shorter hospital stay compared to standard care pathways (mean difference -2.47, 95% c.i. -4.01 to -0.93, P = 0.002). Protocolized care pathways had no impact on postoperative mortality (OR 0.87, 95% c.i. 0.41 to 1.87, P = 0.72). A reduction in specific postoperative complications was observed, including postoperative pneumonia (OR 0.42 95% c.i. 0.24 to 0.73, P = 0.002) and surgical site infection (OR 0.34, 95% c.i. 0.21 to 0.55, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Protocolized care pathways in the emergency setting currently lack standardization, with variable components and low compliance; however, despite this they are associated with short-term clinical benefits.

Enhanced recovery protocols in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) have been shown to improve patient outcomes and is now regarded as standard of care in elective surgical setting. However, the literature addressing the use of ERP in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) is limited and heterogenous. A scoping review was conducted to comprehensively assess the literature on ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS.

METHODS

Three bibliographic databases were searched for studies addressing ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS. We extracted the study characteristics including study design, country, year, surgical procedures, ERP components used, and outcomes. Reporting was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews.

RESULTS

After screening of 1631 articles for eligibility, 39 studies were included in the review. There has been an increase in the number of articles in the field, with 44% of the identified studies published between 2020 and 2022. Fourteen different protocols were identified, with varying components for each operative phase (preoperative; 29, intraoperative; 20, postoperative; 27). The majority of the studies addressed the effectiveness of ERP on clinical outcomes (31/39: 79%). Only two studies (5%) included purely trauma populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies on ERP implementations in the EAS populations were published across a range of countries, with improved outcomes. However, a clear gap in ERP research on trauma laparotomy was identified. This scoping review indicates that standardization of care through ERP implementation has potential to improve the quality of care in both EAS and trauma laparotomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery improve postoperative outcomes as compared to conventional care.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CENTRAL, and Pubmed were searched from inception to December 2022. Articles were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) or non-randomized studies comparing ERAS protocols to conventional care for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The outcomes included postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI), and readmission. An inverse variance random effects meta-analysis was performed. A risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane tools. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE.

RESULTS

After screening 1018 citations, 20 studies with 1615 patients in ERAS programs and 1933 patients receiving conventional care were included. There was a reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery (MD3.35, 95% CI 2.52-4.17, p < 0.00001) and lower GI surgery (MD2.80, 95% CI 2.62-2.99, p < 0.00001). There was a reduction in postoperative morbidity in the ERAS group for patients undergoing upper GI surgery (RR0.56, 95% CI 0.30-1.02, p = 0.06) and lower GI surgery (RR 0.66, 95%CI 0.52-0.85, p = 0.001). In the upper and lower GI subgroup, there were nonsignificant reductions in PPOI in the ERAS groups (RR0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.17, p = 0.13; RR0.49, 95% CI 0.21-1.14, p = 0.10). There was a nonsignificant increased risk of readmission in the ERAS group (RR1.60, 95% CI 0.57-4.50, p = 0.50).

CONCLUSION

There is low-to-very-low certainty evidence supporting the use ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. The currently available data are limited by imprecision.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols following emergency intra-abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate whether the implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols for adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery decreases postoperative length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality compared to conventional perioperative care.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). It has been registered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42023391709). A comprehensive, electronic search strategy will be used to identify studies published and indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Pubmed databases since their inception. Trial registries and references of included studies and pertinent previous systematic reviews will also be searched. Studies will be included if they are randomized controlled trials or cohort studies evaluating adult patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery and comparing ERAS or modified ERAS protocols to conventional perioperative care and report one of the following outcomes: postoperative length of stay, overall 30-day morbidity, 30-day mortality, 30-day infectious morbidity, prolonged postoperative ileus, return of bowel function, and 30-day readmissions. A meta-analysis will be performed using a random effects model for all comparative data using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (London, United Kingdom).

DISCUSSION

ERAS protocols have become standard of care for patients undergoing elective surgery. Their use in the setting of emergency surgery is far less common. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess whether there are benefits in patient important outcomes with the implementation of ERAS protocols for patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery. Ultimately, we hope to promote their use and further large randomized controlled trials evaluating emergency surgery ERAS programs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023391709.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and emergency surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to assess the modified protocols used and patient outcomes when enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are utilized in an emergency setting.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were comprehensively searched until 13 March 2023. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess for bias, along with funnel plot asymmetry. We present log risk ratios for dichotomous variables and raw mean differences for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials were included, comprising 573 patients. Results of the primary outcomes when comparing ERAS to standard care are as follows; withdrawal of nasogastric tube (raw mean difference -1.87 CI: -2.386 to -1.359), time to first liquid diet (raw mean difference -2.56 CI: -3.435 to -1.669), time to first solid diet (raw mean difference -2.35 CI: -2.933 to -1.76), time to first flatus (raw mean difference -2.73 CI: -5.726 to 0.257), time to first stool passed (raw mean difference -1.83 CI: -2.307 to -1.349), time to removal of drains (raw mean difference -3.23 CI: -3.609 to -2.852), time to removal of urinary catheter (raw mean difference -1.57 CI: -3.472 to 0.334), mean pain score (raw mean difference -1.79 CI: -2.222 to -1.351) and length of hospital stay (raw mean difference -3.16 CI: -3.688 to -2.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of ERAS protocols in an emergency surgery setting was observed to enhance patient recovery, while not indicating any statistically significant increase in adverse outcomes.

Same-day discharge (SDD) vs standard enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for major colorectal surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are well-established, resulting in improved outcomes and shorter length of hospital stay (LOS). Same-day discharge (SDD), or "hyper-ERAS", is a natural progression of ERAS. This systematic review aims to compare the safety and efficacy of SDD against conventional ERAS in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (394793). A systematic search was performed in major databases to identify relevant articles, and a narrative systematic review was performed. Primary outcomes were readmission rates and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were operative time and blood loss, postoperative pain, morbidity, nausea or vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Risks of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included, with five single-arm and eight comparative studies, of which one was a randomised controlled trial. This comprised a total of 38,854 patients (SDD: 1622; ERAS: 37,232). Of the 1622 patients on the SDD pathway, 1590 patients (98%) were successfully discharged within 24 h of surgery. While most studies had an overall low risk of bias, there was considerable variability in inclusion criteria, types of surgery or anaesthesia, and discharge criteria. SDD resulted in a significantly reduced postoperative LOS, without increasing risk of 30-day readmission. Intraoperative blood loss and postoperative morbidity rates were comparable between both groups. Operative duration was shorter in the SDD group. Patient-reported satisfaction was high in the SDD cohort.

CONCLUSION

SDD protocols appear to be safe and feasible in selected patients undergoing major colorectal operations. Randomised controlled trials are necessary to further substantiate these findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven valuable for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received traditional surgery. While for those receiving minimally invasive surgery (MIS), its efficacy and safety remain debatable. Materials and Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and Web of science, were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 23, 2022. Eligible articles were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. The comparison between ERAS and traditional care (TC) was performed. Primary outcomes of this study were postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, time to the first anal exhaust, and defecation. Results: Thirteen cohort studies covering 4308 patients were included. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS (weight mean differences [WMD]: -1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.33 to -1.45; P < .001), lower incidence of postoperative complications (risk ratios [RR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5-0.88; P < .001), lower 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; P < .05), and shorter time to the first defecation (WMD: -1.93; 95% CI: -3.26 to -0.59; P < .001), but unimproved mortality, reoperation rate, and time to the first anal exhaust (P > .05) compared with those in the TC group. Conclusions: ERAS was effective and safe for CRC patients receiving MIS from a real-world perspective. Hence, the implementation of ERAS should be recommended for minimally invasive CRC surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CRD42022321333.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Before-and-After Study of the First Four Years of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Programme in Older Adults Undergoing Elective Colorectal Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine whether the inclusion of older patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer resection in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS^®) programme could improve clinical outcomes during hospital admission.

METHODS

A before-and-after study in ≥70-year-old patients electively admitted for colorectal cancer resection was designed. In total, 213 patients were included in the ERAS^® group, and 158 were included in the control group.

RESULTS

The average age was 77.9 years old (SD 5.31) and 57.14% of them were men, with a Charlson Index score of 3.42 (SD 3.32). The ERAS^® group presented a lower transfusion rate of 42 (19.7%), compared to 75 (47.5%) in the control group (p < 0.001). The crude odds ratio (OR) for transfusion was 0.27 (95% CI 0.17-0.43; p < 0.001), and the adjusted odds ratio was 0.26 (95% CI 0.14-0.48; p < 0.001). The ERAS^® group had a lower percentage of patients with moderate-severe malnutrition on admission, at 23.4% (37 patients) against 36.2% in the control group (42 patients) (p = 0.023), with an OR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.29-0.75; p < 0.002) and an adjusted OR of 0.48 (95% CI 0.29-0.78; p = 0.003). The number of patients who required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) was also markedly lower: 54 from the ERAS^® group (25.4%) versus 71 from the control group (44.9%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ≥70-year-old adults in the ERAS^® programme resulted in a decrease in transfusions, number of erythrocyte concentrates transfused, and number of ICU admissions, along with improved nutritional status.

Evaluation of clinical prognostic variables on short-term outcome for colorectal cancer surgery: An overview and minimum dataset

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with post-operative morbidity and mortality. Multiple systematic reviews have reported on individual factors affecting short-term outcome following surgical resection. This umbrella review aims to synthesize the available evidence on host and other factors associated with short-term post-operative complications.

METHODS

A comprehensive search identified systematic reviews reporting on short-term outcomes following colorectal cancer surgery using PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science from inception to 8th September 2020. All reported clinicopathological variables were extracted from published systematic reviews.

RESULTS

The present overview identified multiple validated factors affecting short-term outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection. In particular, factors consistently associated with post-operative outcome differed with the type of complication; infective, non-infective or mortality. A minimum dataset was identified for future studies and included pre-operative age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, body composition (sarcopenia, visceral obesity) and functional status (ASA, frailty). A recommended dataset included antibiotic prophylaxis, iron therapy, blood transfusion, erythropoietin, steroid use, enhance recovery programme and finally potential dataset included measures of the systemic inflammatory response CONCLUSION: A minimum dataset of mandatory, recommended, and potential baseline variables to be included in studies of patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection is proposed. This will maximise the benefit of such study datasets.

Effect of Postoperative Coffee Consumption on Postoperative Ileus after Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have not clarified the effect of postoperative coffee consumption on the incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) and the length of hospital stay (LOS). We aimed to assess its effect on these postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Studies evaluating postoperative coffee consumption were searched using electronic databases until September 2021 to perform random-effect meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee were also compared.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1246 patients) and nine ongoing trials were included. Of the 13 trials, 6 were on colorectal surgery, 5 on caesarean section, and 2 on gynecological surgery. Coffee reduced the time to first defecation (mean difference (MD) -10.1 min; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -14.5 to -5.6), POI (risk ratio 0.42; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.69); and LOS (MD -1.5; 95% CI = -2.7 to -0.3). This trend was similar in colorectal and gynecological surgeries. Coffee had no adverse effects. There was no difference in POI or LOS between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee (p > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that postoperative coffee consumption, regardless of caffeine content, likely reduces POI and LOS after colorectal and gynecological surgery.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises]

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts or fast-track are supposed to accelerate recovery after surgery, reduce postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay when compared to traditional perioperative treatment.

METHODS

Electronic search of the PubMed database to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR) comparing ERAS and traditional treatment.

RESULTS

The presented SR investigated 70 randomized controlled studies (RCT) with 12,986 patients and 93 non-RCT (24,335 patients) concerning abdominal, thoracic and vascular as well as orthopedic surgery. The complication rates were decreased under ERAS following colorectal esophageal, liver and pulmonary resections as well as after implantation of hip endoprostheses. Pulmonary complications were reduced after ERAS esophageal, gastric and pulmonary resections. The first bowel movements occurred earlier after ERAS colorectal resections and delayed gastric emptying was less often observed after ERAS pancreatic resection. Following ERAS fast-track esophageal resection, anastomotic leakage was diagnosed less often as well as surgical complications after ERAS pulmonary resection. The ERAS in all studies concerning orthopedic surgery and trials investigating implantation of a hip endoprosthesis or knee endoprosthesis reduced the risk for postoperative blood transfusions. Regardless of the type of surgery, ERAS shortened hospital stay without increasing readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that ERAS reduces postoperative morbidity, shortens hospital stay and accelerates recovery without increasing readmission rates following most surgical operations.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery vs. Conventional Recovery After Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Radical Cystectomy

Background and objective: Radical cystectomy has been characterized as the most difficult operation in urology because of the complex surgical procedures and postoperative complications. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), which reduces the incidence of perioperative complications, has been widely used in clinical surgery. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ERAS vs. conventional recovery after surgery (CRAS) on perioperative outcomes of radical cystectomy. Methods: We performed a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the following databases: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, based on the PICOS strategy. The reference lists of the retrieved studies were further surveyed for relevant publications. Results: Our search yielded seven RCTs containing 813 patients. The ERAS group was found to have better performance in the following parameters: length of hospital stay [mean difference (MD) = -1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.80 to -0.45, P = 0.001], time to first flatus (MD = -0.70, 95% CI: -0.98 to 0.41, P < 0.00001), and time to regular diet (MD = -0.12, 95% CI: -1.76 to -0.28, P = 0.007). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in major complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.63 to 1.34, P = 0.64], readmission (OR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.01, P = 0.63), ileus (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.28, P = 0.29), wound infection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.01, P = 0.05), mortality (OR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.99, P = 0.49), or time to first bowel movement (MD = -0.55, 95% CI: -1.62 to 0.53, P = 0.32). Conclusion: ERAS reduced the length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and time to regular diet after cystectomy. Compared to CRAS protocols, ERAS protocols do not increase the risk of adverse events.