Adapted ERAS Pathway vs. Standard Care in Patients with Perforated Duodenal Ulcer-a Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of chewing gum in reducing postoperative ileus after gastroduodenal perforation peritonitis surgery: A prospective randomised controlled trial

Chewing gum reduces the duration of postoperative ileus and early recovery of bowel function following elective abdominal surgery. However, its role has not been studied in cases of gastroduodenal perforation peritonitis, prompting us to conduct this study. Patients were randomised into two groups, 39 patients received chewing gum (study group) and 43 patients were in the control group. Sensation of hunger, appearance of first bowel sound, and passages of flatus and faeces were significantly early in the study group; their hospital stay was also shorter. Chewing gum reduces the duration of postoperative ileus in cases of gastroduodenal perforation peritonitis.Registration number: IEC/2020-23/3359 dated 13 December 2020, Institutional Ethics Committee, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur, India.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Guidelines and Hospital Length of Stay, Readmission, Complications, and Mortality: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

A comprehensive review of the evidence exploring the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines has not been completed.

Objective

To evaluate if ERAS guidelines are associated with improved hospital length of stay, hospital readmission, complications, and mortality compared with usual surgical care, and to understand differences in estimates based on study and patient factors.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception until June 2021.

Study Selection

Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers. Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials that examined ERAS-guided surgery compared with a control group and reported on at least 1 of the outcomes.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Data were abstracted in duplicate using a standardized data abstraction form. The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates for each outcome, and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity within each outcome.

Main Outcome and Measures

The primary outcomes were hospital length of stay, hospital readmission within 30 days of index discharge, 30-day postoperative complications, and 30-day postoperative mortality.

Results

Of the 12 047 references identified, 1493 full texts were screened for eligibility, 495 were included in the systematic review, and 74 RCTs with 9076 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Included studies presented data from 21 countries and 9 ERAS-guided surgical procedures with 15 (20.3%) having a low risk of bias. The mean (SD) Reporting on ERAS Compliance, Outcomes, and Elements Research checklist score was 13.5 (2.3). Hospital length of stay decreased by 1.88 days (95% CI, 0.95-2.81 days; I2 = 86.5%; P < .001) and the risk of complications decreased (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.87; I2 = 78.6%; P < .001) in the ERAS group. Risk of readmission and mortality were not significant.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this meta-analysis, ERAS guidelines were associated with decreased hospital length of stay and complications. Future studies should aim to improve implementation of ERAS and increase the reach of the guidelines.

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.

Cost saving in implementing ERAS protocol in emergency abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol is now proposed as the standard of care in elective major abdominal surgery. Implementation of the ERAS protocol in emergency setting has been proposed but his economic impact has not been investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the cost saving of implementing ERAS in abdominal emergency surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

A group of 80 consecutive patients treated by ERAS protocol for gastrointestinal emergency surgery in 2021 was compared with an analogue group of 75 consecutive patients treated by the same surgery the year before implementation of ERAS protocol. Adhesion to postoperative items, length of stay, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Cost saving analysis was performed.

RESULTS

50% Adhesion to postoperative items was reached on day 2 in the ERAS group in mean. Laparoscopic approach was 40 vs 12% in ERAS and control group respectively (p ,002). Length of stay was shorter in ERAS group by 3 days (9 vs 12 days p ,002). Morbidity and mortality rate were similar in both groups. The ERAS group had a mean cost saving of 1022,78 € per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol implementation in the abdominal emergency setting is cost effective resulting in a significant shorter length of stay and cost saving per patient.

Modified Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol Versus Non-ERAS Protocol in Patients Undergoing Emergency Laparotomy for Acute Intestinal Obstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal approach with promising results in improving patient outcome. Only recently, is evidence emerging highlighting how similar principles of care can be applied to patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 2021 to April 2022 at PGIMER Chandigarh, which is a leading tertiary care hospital in northern India. 60 patients with acute intestinal obstruction requiring emergency laparotomy were randomized and assigned to ERAS or Non-ERAS group. ERAS protocol with some modifications was applied. Primary endpoints were post-operative hospital stay. Secondary end points were morbidity, 30-day readmission and mortality rate. Data analysis was done using SPSS 22.0. Independent t test or Mann-Whitney test and Chi-square or Fisher-exact test were used for analysis.

RESULTS

A significant 3-day reduction in hospital stay was observed in ERAS compared to non-ERAS group (median (interquartile range) 5.50 (4.75-8.25) vs 8.0 (6.0-11.0) p = 0.003) with no difference in 30-day readmission rate, mortality rate and complication rate (according to Clavien-Dindo classification). ERAS group was associated with early recovery of gastrointestinal functions including time to first passage of flatus (p < 0.001), stools (p = 0.014), early ambulation (p < 0.001), time to first fluid diet (p < 0.001), solid diet (p = 0.001) and reduced nasogastric tube reinsertion rates (p = 0.01) despite its early removal.

CONCLUSION

ERAS with some modifications can be applied in patients with intestinal obstruction. Thus, we can expedite post-operative recovery and early regain of gastrointestinal function with decreased hospital stay, comparable morbidity and mortality. Further studies are needed to assess ERAS role in emergency gastrointestinal surgeries. Trial registration Ctri.gov Identifier: CTRI/2022/04/042156.

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.

Comparison of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Elective Stoma Reversal Surgery- A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Practices such as prolonged preoperative fasting, bowel preparation, delayed ambulation and resumption of orals result in morbidity in 15-20% of stoma reversal cases which can be improved by Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways.

AIM

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of ERAS pathway in patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal surgery METHODS: This was an open-labeled, superiority randomized controlled trial in which patients undergoing loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal were randomized to standard or ERAS care. Patients with ASA class ≥3, needing laparotomy for stoma reversal, cardiac, renal and neurological illnesses were excluded. Components of ERAS protocol included pre-operative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of mechanical bowel preparation, goal directed fluid therapy, avoidance of long-acting opioid anesthetics or analgesics, avoidance of drains, urinary catheter or nasogastric tube, early mobilization and early enteral feeding. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) while the secondary outcomes were postoperative recovery and morbidity parameters.

RESULTS

Forty patients each were randomized to standard care and ERAS. Demographic and laboratory parameters between the two groups were comparable. ERAS group patients had significantly reduced LOS (5.3 ± 0.3 vs 7 ± 2.6; mean difference: 1.73 ± 0.98; p=0.0008). Functional recovery was earlier in the ERAS group compared to the standard care group, such as early resolution of ileus (median-2 days; p<0.001), time to first stool (median-3 days; p=0.0002), time to the resumption of liquid diet (median-3 days; p<0.001) and solid diet (median-4 days; p<0.001). Surgical site infections (SSI) were significantly lesser in ERAS group (12.5% vs 32.5%; p=0.03) while postoperative nausea/vomiting (p=0.08), pulmonary complications (p=0.17) and urinary tract infections (p=0.56) were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

ERAS pathways are feasible, safe and significantly reduces LOS in patients undergoing elective loop ileostomy or colostomy reversal surgery.

Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery: the WSES position paper

Enhanced perioperative care protocols become the standard of care in elective surgery with a significant improvement in patients' outcome. The key element of the enhanced perioperative care protocol is the multimodal and interdisciplinary approach targeted to the patient, focused on a holistic approach to reduce surgical stress and improve perioperative recovery. Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery is still a debated topic with little evidence available. The present position paper illustrates the existing evidence about perioperative care in emergency surgery patients with a focus on each perioperative intervention in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phase. For each item was proposed and approved a statement by the WSES collaborative group.

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.

Impact of Tailored-Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Versus Conventional Care in Patients of Gastro-Duodenal Perforation: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program established improved clinical outcomes in elective surgery; however, its role in emergencies is uncertain. This study was designed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a tailored-ERAS (t-ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing modified Graham's patch closure for gastro-duodenal perforation.

METHODS

A single-centre, prospective, parallel-arm, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted from February 2021 to December 2021. Patients with gastroduodenal perforation undergoing modified Graham's patch were randomly assigned to either conventional care or the t-ERAS pathway. Patients with refractory septic shock, psychiatric or neurological disorders, pregnancy, multiple perforations, sealed-off perforations, and perforation sizes greater than 1.5 cm were excluded. The primary outcome was to compare the length of hospitalization (LOH). Functional recovery parameters and morbidity were compared in secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients each were included in conventional care and the t-ERAS group. In the t-ERAS group, LOH was significantly shorter (6.3 SD2.15 days versus 9.56 SD4.33 days, p = 0.001). Patients in the t-ERAS group had significantly early functional recovery (days) with time to first bowel sound (1.8 SD0.41; p 0.002), first flatus (2.52 SD0.65; p = 0.026), first stool (3.04 SD0.68; p < 0.001), first liquid diet (2.24 SD0.60; p = 0.002), and duration of ileus (2.64 SD0.86; p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in morbidity such as post-operative nausea and vomiting, SSI, or pulmonary complications between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Tailored ERAS pathways are safe and effective in reducing the LOH and promoting early functional recovery in patients undergoing emergency closure of gastro-duodenal perforation.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care

BACKGROUND

This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

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.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

Implementing Enhanced Perioperative Care in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

ERAS pathway has been proposed as the standard of care in elective abdominal surgery. Guidelines on ERAS in emergency surgery have been recently published; however, few evidences are still available in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol in a large cohort of patients undergoing emergency surgery and to identify possible factors impacting postoperative protocol compliance.

METHODS

This is a prospective multicenter observational study including patients who underwent major emergency general surgery for either intra-abdominal infection or intestinal obstruction. The primary endpoint of the study is the adherence to ERAS postoperative protocol. Secondary endpoints are 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients were enrolled in the study, 256 (43.5%) of them underwent intestinal resection with anastomosis. Major complications occurred in 92 (15.6%) patients and 30-day mortality was 6.3%. Median adherence occurred on postoperative day (POD) 1 for naso-gastric tube removal, on POD 2 for mobilization and urinary catheter removal, and on POD 3 for oral intake and i.v. fluid suspension. Laparoscopy was significantly associated with adherence to postoperative protocol, whereas operative fluid infusion > 12 mL/Kg/h, preoperative hyperglycemia, presence of a drain, duration of surgery and major complications showed a negative association.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports that an enhanced recovery protocol in emergency surgery is feasible and safe. Laparoscopy was associated with an earlier recovery, whereas preoperative hyperglycemia, fluid overload, and abdominal drain were associated with a delayed recovery.

Factors associated with enteral nutrition tolerance after trauma laparotomy of the small bowel and mesenteric injuries by blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

In patients with blunt injury due to abdominal trauma, the common cause for laparotomy is damage to the small bowel and mesentery. Recently, postoperative early enteral nutrition (EEN) has been recommended for abdominal surgery. However, EEN in patients with blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury (BBMI) has not been established. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the factors that affect early postoperative small bowel obstruction (EPSBO) and the date of tolerance to solid food and defecation (SF + D) after surgery in patients with BBMI.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent laparotomy for BBMI at a single regional trauma center between January 2013 and July 2021. A total of 257 patients were included to analyze the factors associated with enteral nutrition tolerance in patients with EPSBO and the postoperative day of tolerance to SF + D.

RESULTS

The incidence of EPSBO in patients with BBMI was affected by male sex, small bowel organ injury scale (OIS) score, mesentery OIS score, amount of crystalloid, blood transfusion, and postoperative drain removal date. The higher the mesentery OIS score, the higher was the EPSBO incidence, whereas the small bowel OIS did not increase the incidence of EPSBO. The amount of crystalloid infused within 24 h; the amount of packed red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, and platelet concentrate transfused; the time of drain removal; Injury Severity Score; and extremity abbreviated injury scale (AIS) score were correlated with the day of tolerance to SF + D. Multivariate analysis between the EPSBO and non-EPSBO groups identified mesentery and small bowel OIS scores as the factors related to EPSBO.

CONCLUSION

Mesenteric injury has a greater impact on EPSBO than small bowel injury. Further research is needed to determine whether the mesentery OIS score should be considered during EEN in patients with BBMI. The amount of crystalloid infused and transfused blood components within 24 h, time of drain removal, injury severity score, and extremity AIS score are related to the postoperative day on which patients can tolerate SF + D.

The Application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols in Patients With Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are nowadays considered the standard of care for various elective surgical procedures. However, its utilization remains low in tier-two and tier-three cities of India, and there exists a significant variation in the practice. In the present study, we have investigated the safety and feasibility of these protocols or pathways in emergency surgery for perforated duodenal ulcer disease. Methods A total of 41 patients with perforated duodenal ulcers were randomly divided into two groups. All the patients across the study were treated surgically with the open Graham patch repair technique. Patients in group A were managed with ERAS protocols, while patients in group B were managed with conventional peri-operative practices. A comparison was established between the two groups in terms of the duration of hospital stay and other postoperative parameters. Results The study was conducted on 41 patients who presented during the study period. Group A patients (n=19) were managed with standard protocols, and group B patients (n=22) were managed with conventional standard protocols. As compared to the standard care group, patients in the ERAS group showed quicker postoperative recovery and lesser complications. The need for nasogastric (NG) tube reinsertion, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, and surgical site infections (SSI) were all significantly lower in the patients of the ERAS group. A significant reduction in the length of hospital stay (LOHS) was found in the ERAS group when compared to the standard care group (relative risk {RR}=61.2; p=0.000). Conclusions The application of ERAS protocols with certain modifications in the management of perforated duodenal ulcers yields significant outcomes in terms of reduced duration of hospital stay and fewer postoperative complications in a selected subgroup of patients. However, the application of ERAS pathways in an emergency setup needs to be further evaluated to develop standardized protocols for a surgical emergency group of patients.

Associations Between Care Bundles and Postoperative Outcomes After Major Emergency Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Care bundles were found to improve postoperative outcomes in elective surgery. However, in major emergency general surgery studies show a divergent impact on mortality and length of stay. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate associations between care bundles and mortality, complications, and length of stay when applied in major emergency general surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase was performed on the May 1, 2021. Only comparative studies on care bundles in major emergency general surgery were included. Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed on 30-d mortality. We undertook a narrative approach of long-term mortality, complications, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of 13 studies with 35,771 patients demonstrated that care bundles in emergency surgery were not associated with a significant reduction in odds of 30-d mortality (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.03). Trial sequential analysis confirmed that the meta-analysis was underpowered with a minimum of 78,901 patients required for firm conclusions. Seven studies reported complication rates whereof six reported lower complication rates using care bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

Care bundles were reported to decrease postoperative complications in five out of seven studies and seven out of 11 studies reported a shortening in length of stay.

Adapted ERAS Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Emergency Surgery for Perforation Peritonitis-a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways have an uncertain role in emergencies. To the best of our knowledge, there are no trials studying ERAS in perforation peritonitis across the GI tract, despite it being a common surgical emergency.

AIMS

To evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy of adapted ERAS protocols in emergency laparotomy for perforation peritonitis.

METHODS

This was an open-labeled, superiority randomized controlled trial conducted between October 2018 and June 2020 in patients with perforation peritonitis assigned to standard care or adapted ERAS groups using block randomization. Patients with refractory shock, ASA class 4E, localized peritonitis, etc. were excluded. Components of the adapted ERAS protocol included epidural analgesia, goal-directed fluid therapy, avoidance of opioids, early mobilization, early removal of tubes, drains and catheters, and early enteral feeding. The primary outcome, length of hospitalization (LOH), and the secondary outcomes, functional recovery parameters, were analyzed between both the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients in standard care group and 61 patients in adapted ERAS group were included and randomized, and were comparable in terms of demographic and clinico-pathological characteristics. LOH in adapted ERAS group was shorter by 3 days (p < 0.001), and patients showed reduction in time (days) to first flatus (2.84 vs 4.22, p < 0.001), first stool (4.38 vs 6.08, p < 0.001) and solid diet (4.67 vs 8.37, p < 0.001). Post-operative nausea, vomiting (p = 0.05) and surgical site infections (p < 0.001) were reduced in adapted ERAS group. Pre-existing malignancy, respiratory complications and high output stoma were reasons for delayed discharge in adapted ERAS group.

CONCLUSION

Adapted ERAS pathways considerably reduce LOH in patients undergoing emergency surgery for perforation peritonitis, with no adverse events in 30 days after discharge.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php (CTRI/2019/02/017537).

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy after trauma: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

Background

The role of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been established in elective operations. However, its role in emergency operations especially in trauma is under-recognized. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of ERAS program in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy for trauma.

Methods

In this single-center study, patients who underwent emergency laparotomy after trauma were randomized to the ERAS protocol or conventional care. The ERAS protocol included early removal of catheters, early initiation of diet, use of postoperative prophylaxis and optimal usage of analgesia. The primary endpoint was duration of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were recovery of bowel function, pain scores, complications and readmission rate.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled in each arm. The ERAS group had significant reduction in duration of hospital stay (3.3±1.3 vs. 5.0±1.7; p<0.01). Time to remove nasogastric tube (1.1±0.1 vs. 2.2±0.9; p<0.01), urinary catheter (1.1±0.1 vs. 3.5±1.6; p<0.01), and drain (1.0±0.2 vs. 3.7±1.6; p<0.01) was shorter in the ERAS group. In ERAS group, there was earlier initiation of liquid diet (1.1±0.1 vs. 2.3±1.0; p<0.01) and solid diet (2.1±0.1 vs. 3.6±1.3; p<0.01). The usage of epidural analgesia (63% vs. 30%; p=0.01), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (93% vs. 67%; p-0.02) and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (100% vs. 70%; p<0.01) was higher in the ERAS group. There was no difference in the recovery of bowel function (2.4±1.0 vs. 2.1±0.9; p=0.15), pain scores (3.2±1.0 vs. 3.1±1.1; p=0.87), complications (27% vs. 23%; p=0.99) and readmission rates (07% vs. 10%; p=0.99) between the two groups.

Conclusion

ERAS protocol, when implemented in patients undergoing laparotomy for trauma, has decreased duration of hospital stay with no additional complications.

Level of evidence

Level 1, randomized controlled trial, care management.

Trial registration number

Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2019/06/019533).

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1-Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach.

METHODS

Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1.

RESULTS

Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Early Oral Feeding Compared With Traditional Postoperative Care in Patients Undergoing Emergency Abdominal Surgery for Perforated Duodenal Ulcer

Introduction

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely studied in elective abdominal surgeries with promising outcomes. However, the use of these protocols in emergency abdominal surgeries has not been widely investigated. This study aimed to evaluate ERAS application outcomes via early oral feeding compared to regular postoperative care in patients undergoing perforated duodenal ulcer repairs in emergency abdominal surgeries.

Materials and methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial at the Surgical Unit 1 Benazir Bhutto Hospital from August 2018 to December 2019. A total of 42 patients presenting to the emergency department with peritonitis secondary to suspected perforated duodenal ulcer were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups. Group A patients followed an ERAS protocol for early oral feeding, and Group B received regular postoperative care (i.e., delayed oral feeding). Our primary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, duodenal repair site leak, the severity of pain (via the visual analog scale), and postoperative ileus duration. Results were analyzed via IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). and chi-square and independent t-tests were applied.

Results

Patients who received early oral feeding (Group A) showed a shorter length of hospital stay, lower pain scores, and shorter postoperative ileus duration than patients in the traditional postoperative care group. Also, we noted no duodenal repair site leak in the early oral feeding group. The differences between the two groups were statistically significant (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Based on our results, ERAS protocols that promote early oral feeding can be applied in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for perforated duodenal repair. Early oral feeding in emergency surgery patients can reduce the patient burden on hospitals. In addition, early oral feeding can promote better outcomes and reduced economic burden for patients. Keywords: Perforated duodenal ulcer, ERAS protocol, randomized controlled trial, duodenal repair site leak, length of hospital stay, VAS score, postoperative ileus.

Adapted ERAS Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Emergency Small Bowel Surgery: a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Emergency laparotomy for small bowel pathologies comprises a significant number of all emergency surgeries. Application of evidence-based adapted enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can potentially improve the perioperative outcome in these procedures.

AIMS

To determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of adapted ERAS pathway in emergency small bowel surgery.

METHODOLOGY

This was a single-center, prospective, open-labeled, superiority, randomized controlled trial. Patients suspected to have small bowel pathology by the emergency surgical team were randomized preoperatively into standard care and adapted ERAS group. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologist class ≥ 3, polytrauma patients with associated other intra-abdominal organ injuries, duodenal ulcer perforations, patients presenting with refractory shock, and pregnant patients were excluded. Primary outcome parameter was the length of hospitalization (LOH). Morbidity and other functional recovery parameters were also assessed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were included in the adapted ERAS and standard care group. The laboratory and demographic variables were comparable. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly earlier recovery (days) in terms of first fluid diet (1.48 ± 0.18, p < 0.001), solid diet (2.11 ± 0.17, p < 0.001), time to first flatus (1.25 ± 0.24, p < 0.001), and first stool (1.8 ± 0.27, p < 0.001). Postoperative nausea, vomiting (RR 0.69, p = 0.19), pulmonary complications (RR 0.38, p = 0.16), superficial (RR 0.79, p = 0.33), and deep surgical site infections (RR 0.65, p = 0.39) were similar. Compared with the standard care group, ERAS group had significantly shorter LOH (8 ± 0.38 vs. 10.83 ± 0.42; Mean difference, 2.83 ± 0.56; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adapted ERAS pathways are feasible, safe, and significantly reduces the LOH in select patients undergoing emergency small bowel surgery.

Postoperative intravenous parecoxib sodium followed by oral celecoxib post total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients (PIPFORCE): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety.

DESIGN

Double-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Four tertiary hospitals in China.

PARTICIPANTS

246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption.

RESULTS

The cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol allows ambulatory laparoscopic appendectomy in uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Previous observational studies have demonstrated the safety of discharging patients after laparoscopic appendectomy within the same day without hospitalization. The application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines has resulted in shorter length of stay, fewer complications, and reduction in medical costs. The aim of this study was to investigate if ERAS protocol implementation in patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis decreases the length of stay enough to allow for ambulatory laparoscopic appendectomy.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial, 108 patients were randomized into two groups: laparoscopic appendectomy with ERAS (LA-E) or laparoscopic appendectomy with conventional care (LA-C). The primary endpoint was postoperative length of stay. The secondary end points were time to resume diet, postoperative pain, postoperative complications, re-admission rate, and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

From January 2016 through May 2017, 50 patients in the LA-E group and 58 in the LA-C were analyzed. There were no significant differences in preoperative data. Regarding the primary end point of the study, the ERAS protocol significantly reduced the postoperative length of stay with a mean of 9.7 h (SD: 3.1) versus 23.2 h (SD: 6.8) in the conventional group (p < 0.001). The ERAS protocol allowed ambulatory management in 90% of the patients included in this group. There was a significant reduction in time to resume diet (110 vs. 360 min, p < 0.001) and less moderate-severe postoperative pain (28 vs. 62.1%, p < 0.001) in the LA-E versus LA-C group. The rate of complications, readmissions, and reoperations were comparable in both groups (p = 0.772).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS implementation was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay, allowing for the ambulatory management of this group of patients. Ambulatory laparoscopic appendectomy is safe and feasible with similar rates of morbidity and readmissions compared with conventional care.