Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

Sustainability of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes in gastrointestinal surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based intervention that is well-recognised across multiple surgical specialties as having potential to lead to improved patient and hospital outcomes. Little is known about sustainability of ERAS programmes.

AIMS

This review aimed to describe available evidence evaluating sustainability of ERAS programmes in gastrointestinal surgery to understand: (a) how sustainability has been defined; (b) examine determinants of sustainability; (c) identify strategies used to facilitate sustainability; (d) identify adaptations to support sustainability; and (e) examine outcomes measured as indicators of sustainability of ERAS programmes.

METHODS

This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. Research databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL) and the grey literature were searched (inception to September 2022) for studies reporting sustainability of ERAS programmes in gastrointestinal surgery. Included articles reported an aspect of sustainability (i.e., definition, determinants, strategies, adaptations, outcomes and ongoing use) at ≥2 years following initial implementation. Aspects of sustainability were categorised according to relevant frameworks to facilitate synthesis.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1852 records; first round screening excluded 1749, leaving 103 articles for full text review. Overall, 22 studies were included in this review. Sustainability was poorly conceptualised and inconsistently reported across included studies. Provision of adequate resources was the most frequently identified enabler to sustainability (n/N = 9/12, 75%); however, relatively few studies (n = 4) provided a robust report of determinants, with no study reporting determinants of sustainability and strategies and adaptations to support sustainability alongside patient and service delivery outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Improved reporting, particularly of strategies and adaptations to support sustainability is needed. Refinement of ERAS reporting guidelines should be made to facilitate this, and future implementation studies should plan to document and report changes in context and corresponding programme changes to help researchers and clinicians sustain ERAS programmes locally.

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.