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

The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Program in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although ERAS Program had some advantages in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), its efficacy and safety remained unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the ERAS group and the traditional care (TC) group in LDG.

METHODS

Multiple databases were retrieved from 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2023. The risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the results.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis contained 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies, which comprised 1468 patients. Regarding efficacy, the ERAS group had significantly shorter postoperative time to first flatus (SMD = -1.29 [95% CI: -1.68, -0.90]), shorter time to first defecation (SMD = -1.26 [95% CI: -1.90, -0.61]), shorter hospital stays (SMD = -0.99 [95% CI: -1.34, -0.63]), and lower hospitalization costs (SMD = -1.17 [95% CI: -1.86, -0.48]) compared to the TC group. Furthermore, in the ERAS group, C-reactive protein levels were lower on postoperative days 1, 3 or 4, and 7; albumin levels were higher on postoperative days 3 or 4 and 7; and interleukin-6 levels were lower on postoperative days 1 and 3. Regarding safety, the overall postoperative complication rate was lower in the ERAS group (RR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.97]), but there was no significant difference in the individual postoperative complication rate. Other indicators were also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ERAS Program with laparoscopy surgery was safe and effective for the perioperative management of patients with distal gastric cancer.

Enhanced Recovery Protocol Versus Conventional Care in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Cancer: Advantages in Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol and conventional care in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer, which have not previously been compared.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included prospective PRO data from August 2019 to June 2021. Clinical outcomes included perioperative complications and postoperative length of stay (PLOS). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed by using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core-30 (QLQ-C30) and esophagus-specific module (QLQ-OES18) preoperatively to 6 months postoperatively. Mixed-effects models were used to longitudinally compare quality of life (QOL) scores between the two modes.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing conventional care and ERAS were analyzed (n = 348 and 109, respectively). The ERAS group had fewer overall complications, pneumonia, arrhythmia, and a shorter PLOS than the conventional group, and outperformed the conventional group in five functional QLQ-C30 domains and five symptom QLQ-OES18 domains, including less dysphagia (p < 0.0001), trouble talking (p = 0.0006), and better eating (p < 0.0001). These advantages persisted for 3 months postoperatively. For the cervical circular stapled anastomosis, the initial domains and duration of benefit were reduced in the ERAS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS protocol has significant advantages over conventional care in terms of clinical outcomes, lowering postoperative symptom burden, and improving functional QOL in patients who have undergone esophagectomy. Selection of the optimal technique for cervical anastomosis is a key operative component of ERAS that maintains the symptom domains and duration of the advantages of PROs.

Advances in the Surgical Management of Esophageal Cancer

Radical esophagectomy with two or three-field lymphadenectomy remains the mainstay of curative treatment for localized esophageal cancer, often in combination with systemic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. In this article, we describe notable advances in the surgical management of esophageal cancer over the past decade that have led to an improvement in both surgical and oncologic outcomes. In addition, we discuss new approaches to surgical management currently under investigation that have the potential to offer further benefits to appropriately selected patients. These incremental breakthroughs primarily include advances in endoscopic and minimally invasive techniques, perioperative management protocols, as well as the application of local therapies, including surgery, to oligometastatic disease.

Clinical predictors of postoperative complications in the context of enhanced recovery (ERAS) in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer

The overall frequency of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer diverges between studies. We evaluated the frequency and assessed the relationship between complications and demographic and clinical features. For this observational study, data were extracted from the ERAS Registry managed by the University of Verona, Italy. Patients were evaluated and compared for postoperative complications according to the consensus-based classification and the Clavien-Dindo scale. The study population was 877 patients: 346 (39.5%) with esophageal and 531 (60.5%) with gastric cancer; 492 (56.2%) reported one or more postoperative complications, 213 (61.6%) of those with esophageal and 279 (52.5%) of those with gastric cancer. When stratified by consensus-based classification, patients with esophageal cancer reported general postoperative complications more frequently (p < 0.001) than those with gastric cancer, but there was no difference in postoperative surgical complications between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression models revealed an association between postoperative complications and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.36), operation time (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI 1.00-1.15), and days to solid diet intake (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI 1.20-1.59). Complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer are frequent, even in those treated according to ERAS principles, and are often associated with comorbidities, longer operative time, and longer time to solid diet intake.

Implementation of the ERAS program in gastric surgery: a nationwide survey in Italy

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been developed by combining several evidence-based techniques for perioperative care, with the intention of reducing the stress response and organ dysfunction, thus allowing improved clinical results. ERAS programs have been widely adopted for colorectal surgery; however, their adoption for upper gastrointestinal surgery has been challenging even though good results have been reported in the literature. Our intent was to investigate the adoption of ERAS programs for resective gastric surgery in Italy. A survey was conducted among 20 departments of surgery belonging to the Italian Group for Research on Gastric Cancer (GC). Analysis of our survey showed that several evidence-based practices and many items of the ERAS guidelines for gastric surgery are not implemented in real practice in Italian centers dedicated to GC. This situation may be related to the hesitation of surgeons to introduce radical changes to the traditional postoperative management after gastrectomy. A multidisciplinary approach to the perioperative care of these patients is not routinely applied in many Italian centers. A strict collaboration of all clinicians involved in the perioperative care of patients undergoing gastrectomy for GC is key for the future implementation of ERAS in gastric surgery in our departments.