Fast-track in open intestinal surgery: prospective randomized study (Clinical Trials Gov Identifier no. NCT00123456)

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.

Fast Track versus Conventional Perioperative Care Protocols in Paediatric Intestinal Stoma Closure ‒ A Randomised Study

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear to what extent fast-track (FT) surgery is applicable in paediatric surgery. The aim of the study was to compare the outcome between FT and conventional perioperative care protocols in paediatric intestinal stoma closure to assess the safety for future application.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective randomised study. Twenty-six paediatric patients who underwent intestinal stoma closure from December 2019 to March 2021 were divided into two groups: group A, conventional methods and Group B FT protocol. The FT protocol included minimal pre-operative fasting, no pre-operative bowel preparation, no routine intraoperative use of nasogastric tube, drain tube, urinary catheter, early post-operative enteral feeding, early mobilisation, non-opioid analgesics and prophylactic use of anti-emetic. Total length of post-operative hospital stays and complications between these two groups were compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding anastomotic leak (nil in both groups), wound infection (7.7% in Group A vs. 0% in Group B; P = 1.0) and wound dehiscence (7.7% in Group A vs. 0% in Group B; P = 1.0). No significant differences were found in post-operative length of stay (median 5, interquartile range [IQR] 4-9 in Group A and median 6, IQR 4-7 in Group B, P = 0.549) and time to appearance of bowel function (passage of stool) (median 2 days in both groups; P = 0.978).

CONCLUSIONS

FT surgery was comparable to the conventional method in terms of complication and thus can reduce unnecessary interventions.

Impact of enhanced recovery pathways on patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supports that enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) reduce length of stay and complications; however, these measures may not reflect the perspective of patients who are the main stakeholders in the recovery process. This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence regarding the impact of ERPs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Five databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of ERPs on PROs after abdominal surgery. We focused on distinct periods of recovery: early (within 7 days postoperatively) and late (beyond 7 days). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2.0. Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity hindered meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Fifty-six RCTs were identified [colorectal (n = 18), hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) (n = 11), upper gastrointestinal (UGI) (n = 10), gynecological (n = 7), urological (n = 7), general surgery (n = 3)]. Most trials had 'some concerns' (n = 30) or 'high' (n = 25) risk of bias. In the early postoperative period, ERPs improved patient-reported general health (colorectal, HPB, UGI, urological; very low to low certainty), physical health (colorectal, gynecological; very low to low certainty), mental health (colorectal, gynecological; very low certainty), pain (all specialties; very low to moderate certainty), and fatigue (colorectal; low certainty). In the late postoperative period, ERPs improved general health (HPB, UGI, urological; very low certainty), physical health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low to low certainty), mental health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low certainty), social health (gynecological; very low certainty), pain (gynecological, urological; very low certainty), and fatigue (gynecological; very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

This review supports that ERPs may have a positive impact on patient-reported postoperative health status (i.e., general, physical, mental, and social health) and symptom experience (i.e., pain and fatigue) after abdominal surgery; however, data were largely derived from low-quality trials. Although these findings contribute important knowledge to inform evidence-based ERP implementation, there remains a great need to improve PRO assessment in studies focused on postoperative recovery.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Bariatric Surgery Leads to Decreased Complications and Shorter Length of Stay

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown in some specialties to improve short-term outcomes following surgical procedures. There is no consensus regarding the optimal perioperative care for bariatric surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to develop a bariatric ERAS protocol and determine whether it improved outcomes following surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An IRB-approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing bariatric surgery from October 2018 to January 2020. Propensity matching was used to compare post-ERAS implementation patients to pre-ERAS implementation.

RESULTS

There were 319 patients (87 ERAS, 232 pre-ERAS) who underwent bariatric operations between October 2018 and January 2020. Seventy-nine patients were kept on the ERAS protocol whereas 8 deviated. Patients who deviated from the ERAS protocol had a longer length of stay when compared to patients who completed the protocol. The use of any ERAS protocol (completed or deviated) reduced the odds of complications by 54% and decreased length of stay by 15%. Furthermore, patients who completed the ERAS protocol had an 83% reduction in odds of complications and 31% decrease in length of stay. Similar trends were observed in the matched cohort with 74% reduction in odds of complications and 26% reduction in length of stay when ERAS was used.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol decreases complications and reduces length of stay in bariatric patients.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) decreases complications and reduces length of stay in foregut surgery patients

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework for optimal perioperative care to improve post-operative outcomes following surgical procedures. However, there is no consensus regarding an ERAS protocol following foregut surgery. The purpose of this study was to develop an ERAS protocol for these patients and determine whether they improved outcomes.

METHODS

An IRB approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing benign minimally invasive foregut surgery from October 2018 to January 2020. All patients were entered into the ACS risk calculator to determine their predicted rate of complications and length of stay for comparison between the ERAS and control groups. Propensity matching was used to compare post-ERAS implementation to pre-ERAS implementation patients. Firth logistic and Poisson regression analysis were used to assess the rate of complications and length of stay among the different groups of patients.

RESULTS

There were 255 patients (60 Post-ERAS, 195 Pre-ERAS) who underwent foregut operations and met inclusion criteria. ERAS was implemented, and patients were then subdivided based on those who completed ERAS (44) and those who deviated from the protocol (16). Propensity matching analysis was performed to compare the different cohorts and showed ERAS patients had 41% decreased odds of complications and 33% reduction in length of stay compared to pre-ERAS patients. Completion of the ERAS protocol resulted in even further reductions in odds of complication and length of stay compared to patients who deviated from the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS has shown to improve perioperative outcomes, but there is limited literature supporting the use of ERAS in foregut surgery. Usage of an ERAS protocol can decrease complications and reduce the length of stay in patients.

Rapid rehabilitation effect on complications, wound infection, anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission for gastrointestinal surgery subjects: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. A systematic literature search up to October 2021 was done and 31 studies included 4448 subjects with gastrointestinal surgery at the start of the study: 2242 of them were provided with rapid rehabilitation and 2206 were standard care. They were reporting relationships about the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects using the dichotomous method with a random- or fixed-effect model. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71, P < .001) and wound infection (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98, P = .03) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. However, rapid rehabilitation had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66-1.22, P = .49), obstruction (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, -0.64 to 1.31, P = .65), and hospital re-admission (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57-1.08, P = .13) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications and wound infection, and had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

Study protocol for feasibility and safety of adopting early oral feeding in post total laparoscopic total gastrectomy (overlap esophagojejunostomy): A multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background

Total laparoscopic total gastrectomy (TLTG) for gastric cancer, especially with overlap esophagojejunostomy, has been verified that it has advantages of minimally invasion, less intraoperative bleeding, and faster recovery. Meanwhile, early oral feeding (EOF) after the operation has been demonstrated to significantly promote early rehabilitation in patients, particularly with distal gastrectomy. However, due to the limited application of TLTG, there is few related research proving whether it is credible or safe to adopt EOF after TLTG (overlap esophagojejunostomy). So, it is urgent to start a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trials to supply high level evidence.

Methods/design

This study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with 200 patients (100 in each group). These eligible participants are randomly allocated into two different groups, including EOF group and delay oral feeding (DOF) group after TLTG (overlap esophagojejunostomy). Anastomotic leakage will be carefully observed and recorded as the primary endpoints; the period of the first defecation and exhaust, postoperative length of stay and hospitalization expenses will be recorded as secondary endpoints to ascertain the feasibility and safety of adopting EOF after TLTG (overlap esophagojejunostomy).

Discussion

Recently, the adoption of TLTG was limited due to its difficult anastomotic procedure, especially in vivo esophagojejunostomy. With the innovation and improvement of operating techniques, overlap esophagojejunostomy with linear staplers simplified the anastomotic steps and reduced operational difficulties after TLTG. Meanwhile, EOF had received increasing attention from surgical clinicians as a nutrition part of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), which had shown better results in patients after distal gastrectomy. Considering the above factors, we implemented EOF protocol to evaluate the feasibility and safety of adopting EOF after TLTG (overlap esophagojejunostomy), which provided additional evidence for the development of clinical nutrition guidelines.

Clinical trial registration

[www.chictr.org.cn], identifier [ChiECRCT20200440 and ChiCTR2000040692].

Differences Between the 2016 and 2022 Editions of the Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) Guidelines: Call to Action of FAIR Data and the Creation of a Global Consortium of Bariatric Care and Research

In 2016, the Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery guidelines (G16) was published, and in 2022, an update to it was released (G22). Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE), emphasizing the level of evidence (LoE) of both the guidelines, was performed. An overview of methodology was also performed, considering the following questions: how can research be improved, what can be done in the future using data, and how to collaborate more? Both guidelines did not explain how the LoE conclusions were derived regarding the risk of bias. There is also potential for forming a global consortium that deals with bariatric research, which can serve as a repository for all relevant data. Ensuring that this data is FAIR (findability, accessibility, interoperability, reusability) compliant and using this data to formulate future guidelines will benefit clinicians and patients alike.

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Predictors of Acute Postsurgical Pain following Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Several predictors have been shown to be independently associated with chronic postsurgical pain for gastrointestinal surgery, but few studies have investigated the factors associated with acute postsurgical pain (APSP). The aim of this study was to identify the predictors of APSP intensity and severity through investigating demographic, psychological, and clinical variables.

Methods

We performed a prospective cohort study of 282 patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery to analyze the predictors of APSP. Psychological questionnaires were assessed 1 day before surgery. Meanwhile, demographic characteristics and perioperative data were collected. The primary outcomes are APSP intensity assessed by numeric rating scale (NRS) and APSP severity defined as a clinically meaningful pain when NRS ≥4. The predictors for APSP intensity and severity were determined using multiple linear regression and multivariate logistic regression, respectively.

Results

112 patients (39.7%) reported a clinically meaningful pain during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME) consumption (β 0.05, 95% CI 0.03–0.07, p < 0.001), preoperative anxiety (β 0.12, 95% CI 0.08–0.15, p < 0.001), and expected postsurgical pain intensity (β 0.12, 95% CI 0.06–0.18, p < 0.001) were positively associated with APSP intensity. Furthermore, MME consumption (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10–1.21, p < 0.001), preoperative anxiety (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21–1.46, p < 0.001), and expected postsurgical pain intensity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17–1.57, p < 0.001) were independently associated with APSP severity.

Conclusion

These results suggested that the predictors for APSP intensity following gastrointestinal surgery included analgesic consumption, preoperative anxiety, and expected postsurgical pain, which were also the risk factors for APSP severity.

The Application of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway in bariatric surgery. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, OVID, World Health Organization International Trial Register, and Cochrane Library identifying all eligible studies comparing ERAS protocols with standard care (SC) in bariatric surgery through May 2020. Relevant perioperative parameters were extracted from the resulting studies for meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay, and secondary outcomes included operation time, postoperative nausea, and vomiting (PONV), postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation, and subsequent emergency room visits. Postoperative complications were categorized according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Final analysis included five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and twelve observational studies which included 4964 patients in the ERAS group and 3218 patients in the SC group. The length of the hospital stay was significantly decreased (p < 0.01) after ERAS protocol management, as did the incidence of POVN (p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the ERAS group and SC group in terms of operation time (p = 0.37), postoperative complications (p = 0.18), readmission (p = 0.17), reoperation (p = 0.34), or emergency room visits (p = 0.65). The application of ERAS protocols in bariatric surgery is safe and feasible, effectively shortening the length of a hospital stay without compromising morbidity, and accelerating patient recovery.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Quality Versus Costs Related to Gastrointestinal Surgery: Disentangling the Value Proposition

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic increase in worldwide health care spending over the last several decades. Operative procedures and perioperative care in the USA represent some of the most expensive episodes per patient. In view of both the rising cost of health care in general and the rising cost of surgical care specifically, policymakers and stakeholders have sought to identify ways to increase the value-improving quality of care while controlling (or diminishing) costs. In this context, we reviewed data relative to achieving the "value proposition" in the delivery of gastrointestinal surgical care.

METHODS

The National Library of Medicine online repository (PubMed) was text searched for human studies including "cost," "quality," "outcomes," "health care," "surgery," and "value." Results from this literature framed by the Donabedian conceptual model (identifying structures, processes, and outcomes), and the resulting impact of efforts to improve quality on costs.

RESULTS

The relationship between quality and costs was nuanced. Better quality care, though associated with better outcomes, was not always reported as concomitant with low costs. Moreover, some centers reported higher costs of surgical care commensurate with higher quality. Conversely, higher costs in health care delivery were not always linked to improved outcomes. While higher quality surgical care can lead to lower costs, higher costs of care were not necessarily associated with better outcomes. Strategies to improve quality, reduce cost, or achieve both simultaneously included regionalization of complex operations to high-volume centers of excellence, overall reduction in complications, introducing evidence-based improvements in perioperative care pathways including as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), and elimination of inefficient or low-value care.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between quality and cost following gastrointestinal surgical procedure is complex. Data from the current study should serve to highlight the various means available to improve the value proposition related to surgery, as well as encourage surgeons to become more engaged in the national conversation around the Triple Aim of better health care quality, lower costs, and improved health care outcomes.

Enhanced Recovery Program in Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: An Observational Controlled Trial

Background: Most of the evidence for enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) in colorectal surgery relies on nonrandomized studies with control groups either historical or operated on at different facilities. The aim of this study was to investigate ERP in coeval groups admitted in different wards at the same hospital. Materials and Methods: A prospective cohort of consecutive patients (n = 100) undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection completing a standardized ERP (ERP group) was compared with patients (n = 100) operated with traditional perioperative care in the same period at the same institution (non-ERP group). The two groups were located in separate wards and shared the same anesthesiologists. The exclusion criteria were: >80 years old, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) IV, metastatic disease, and inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LoS), used as a proxy of functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative complications, readmission rate, mortality, and protocol adherence. Results: The ERP group protocol adherence was 81%. The LoS was significantly reduced in the ERP group (4 versus 7 days). The number of 30-day postoperative complications was lower in the ERP group (P < .001). No increase was found in 30-day readmission or mortality. Conventional perioperative protocol was the only predictor of any postoperative complication and, together with male sex and age 65-74 years old, was the only factor associated with prolonged LoS. Conclusion: Implementing a colorectal ERP is feasible, safe, and efficient for functional recovery, but high protocol adherence is needed. Following traditional perioperative care is associated with more postoperative complications and prolonged LoS.

Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer

The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS)-analysis of practices in nutritional aspects from five continents

This study aims to understand the prevalent practices on the nutritional aspects of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol based on the knowledge and practice of surgeons, nutritionists, and anesthesiologists who work in the bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) units worldwide. This cross-sectional study enrolled BMS unit professionals from five continents-Africa, America, Asia, Europe, and Oceania. An electronic questionnaire developed by the researchers was provided to evaluate practices about the three nutritional aspects of ERAS protocol in BMS (Thorel et al. 2016): preoperative fasting, carbohydrate loading, and early postoperative nutrition. Only surgeons, nutritionists, and anesthesiologists were invited to participate. One hundred twenty-five professionals answered the questionnaires: 50.4% from America and 39.2% from Europe. The profile of participating professionals was bariatric surgeons 70.2%, nutritionists 26.4%, and anesthesiologists 3.3%. Approximately 47.9% of professionals work in private services, for about 11 to 20 years (48.7%). In all continents, a large majority were aware of the protocol. Professionals from the African continent reported having implemented the ERAS bariatric protocol 4.0 ± 0 years ago. It is worth mentioning that professionals from the five continents implemented the ERAS protocol based on the published literature (p = 0.012). About preoperative fasting abbreviation protocol, a significant difference was found between continents and consequently between services (p = 0.000). There is no uniformity in the conduct of shortening of fasting in the preoperative period and the immediate postoperative period. Early postoperative (PO) period protein supplementation is not performed in a standard fashion in all units globally. ERAS principles and practices are partial and insufficiently implemented on the five continents despite the prevalent knowledge of professionals based on evidence. Moreover, there is no uniformity in fasting, immediate postoperative diet, and early protein supplementation practices globally.

Patients' refusal as major limitation of early discharge after colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery program

PURPOSE

The reduction of length of hospitalization without compromising the patient's safety constitutes the challenge of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a 3-day hospitalization after colectomy and 5-day hospitalization after proctectomy in the setting of an ERAS program.

METHODS

An ERAS program was prospectively proposed to all patients who required a colorectal resection (January 2014-December 2018) with a 3- or 5-day discharge objective. The success of the program was defined by a 3-/5-day hospitalization without complications and without readmissions.

RESULTS

Among 283 patients included, 232 patients had a colectomy (82%) and 51 (18%) patients a proctectomy. Eighty-six patients experienced complications (30%) including fifteen severe complications (5%). Mean hospital stay was 5.1 ± 3.7 (2-33) days. A total of 136 patients (48%) were discharged at 3-/5-day, within 9 were readmitted (3%). Discharge was delayed after 3-/5-day for complications (n = 65, 23%), CRP > 120 (n = 45, 16%) or refusal without medical reason (n = 37, 13%). The success rate of the program was 45% (n = 127). This success rate was similar between colectomy and proctectomy (p = 0.277) and between right and left colectomy (p = 0.450). In multivariate analysis, predictive factors associated with the program success were intraoperative use of lidocaine (OR 2.1 [1.1-4.1], p = 0.022), time to remove perfusion ≤ 2 days (OR 10.3 [5.4-19.6], p = 0.001), time to recover bowel movement ≤ 2 days (OR 4.0 [1.7-9.6], p = 0.002) and time to walk out of the room ≤ 2 days (OR 2.6 [1.1-6.0], p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Integrating a realistic hospitalization duration objective into an ERAS program guarantees its safety, feasibility and effectiveness in reducing hospitalization duration.

Canadian consensus statement: enhanced recovery after surgery in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

In Canada, bariatric surgery continues to remain the most effective treatment for severe obesity and its comorbidities. As the number of bariatric surgeries continues to grow, the need for consensus guidelines for optimal perioperative care is imperative. In colorectal surgery, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols were created for this purpose. The objective of this review is to develop evidence-based ERAS guidelines for bariatric surgery.

METHODS

A literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed using ERAS-specific search terms. Recently published articles with a focus on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Quality of evidence and recommendations were evaluated using the GRADE assessment system.

RESULTS

Canadian bariatric surgeons from six provinces and ten bariatric centers performed a review of the evidence surrounding ERAS in bariatric surgery and created consensus guidelines for 14 essential ERAS elements. Our main recommendations were (1) to encourage participation in a presurgical weight loss program; (2) to abstain from tobacco and excessive alcohol; (3) low-calorie liquid diet for at least 2 weeks prior to surgery; (4) to avoid preanesthetic anxiolytics and long-acting opioids; (5) unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin prior to surgery; (6) antibiotic prophylaxis with cefazolin ± metronidazole; (7) reduced opioids during surgery; (8) surgeon preference regarding intraoperative leak testing; (9) nasogastric intubation needed only for Veress access; (10) to avoid abdominal drains and urinary catheters; (11) to prevent ileus by discontinuing intravenous fluids early; (12) postoperative analgesia with acetaminophen, short-term NSAIDS, and minimal opioids; (13) to resume full fluid diet on first postoperative day; (14) early telephone follow-up with full clinic follow-up at 3-4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of addressing these ERAS elements is to develop guidelines that can be implemented and practiced clinically. ERAS is an excellent model that improves surgical efficiency and acts as a common perioperative pathway. In the interim, this multimodal bariatric perioperative guideline serves as a common consensus point for Canadian bariatric surgeons.

Bowel preparation for colostomy reversal in children

PURPOSE

Pediatric bowel preparation protocols used before colostomy reversal vary. The aim of this study is to determine institutional practices at our institution and evaluate the impact of bowel preparations on postoperative outcomes and hospital length of stay in children.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of children ≤18 years old undergoing colostomy reversal at Texas Children's Hospital (TCH) between 12/2013 and 8/2017. Preoperative bowel regimens and outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank-Sum and Fishers Exact tests. Continuous variables are presented as median [IQR].

RESULTS

Sixty-one children underwent colostomy reversal. Thirty-eight (62%) did not receive a preoperative bowel preparation. The two cohorts were similar in age, gender, and race. The most common indication for colostomy was anorectal malformation for thirty-seven (61%). Time from admission to surgery (19 h [17, 23] vs 3 [2, 3]; p < 0.01) and HLOS (6 days [5, 8] vs 5 [4, 6]; p = 0.02) were both longer in the bowel preparation cohort. Complications (3 [13%] vs 5 [22%]; p = 0.12) and 90-day readmissions (3 [13%] vs 6 [16%]; p = 0.64) were similar in both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Foregoing bowel preparation may have the potential to improve cost and reduce morbidity in children undergoing colostomy closure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

STUDY TYPE

Treatment study.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018

BACKGROUND

This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS® protocol.

METHODS

A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good-quality trials; meta-analyses of good-quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

Preserved Analgesia With Reduction in Opioids Through the Use of an Acute Pain Protocol in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Open Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are designed to restore baseline physiology, mitigate surgical stressors, and hasten recovery. Paramount to this approach is optimal pain control through multimodal analgesia and limiting reliance on opioid-based medications. Recent studies have fostered growing controversy surrounding the use of epidural analgesia in the ERAS setting, especially for higher-risk procedures. We examine the analgesic end points associated with the use of epidural within the ERAS framework for open hepatectomy.

METHODS

From November 2013 through March 2016, postoperative analgesic end points including daily morphine equivalent administration and self-reported pain scores were prospectively collected and analyzed for 180 consecutive patients scheduled for open hepatectomy. Patients whose surgeries performed prior to July 2014 were managed using traditional strategy (pre-ERAS, n = 60), and those after July 1 underwent a comprehensive perioperative ERAS pathway (ERAS, n = 120).

RESULTS

Patients managed using the ERAS pathway had a significant reduction in morphine equivalent requirements at 24 hours (median, 10.0 vs 116.0 mg; P < 0.001), 48 hours (median, 10.1 vs 85.4 mg; P < 0.001), and 72 hours (median, 2.5 vs 60.0 mg; P < 0.001) compared with pre-ERAS counterparts with a reduction in average pain scores at 24 hours (numeric pain rating scale, 4.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.1 ± 1.8) and similar scores at other time points. Within ERAS, patients who received epidural (n = 87) required significantly less morphine equivalents at 24 hours (median, 2.7 vs 65.0 mg; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (median, 8.0 vs 50.0 mg; P < 0.001) but not at 72 hours (median, 1.3 vs 4.5 mg; P = 0.56), as well as improved pain scores at 24 hours (visual analog scale score, 3.8 ± 1.3 vs 5.0 ± 1.8; P < 0.001) and 48 hours (3.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.7 ± 1.9; P = 0.001) compared with those who did not receive epidural (n = 33). Other associated postoperative end points including provision of fluids, rates of clinically significant hypotension, and lengths of stay between epidural and nonepidural groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel ERAS protocol for open hepatectomy successfully reduced reliance on perioperative opioids without expensing adequate analgesia compared with traditional care. Patients within ERAS benefitted from application of epidural, which further reduced opioid requirements and optimized pain control without increasing complication rates. Epidurals should remain an integral part of ERAS protocols for liver resection surgery.

Novel use of REDCap to develop an advanced platform to display predictive analytics and track compliance with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Prediction models are increasingly being used with clinical practice guidelines to inform decision making. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS^®) protocols are standardized care pathways that incorporate evidence-based practices to improve patient outcomes. Predictive analytics incorporated within a data management system, such as Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), may help clinicians estimate risk probabilities and track compliance with standardized care practices.

METHODS

Predictive models were developed from retrospective data on 400 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2008 through 2014. The REDCap was programmed to display predictive analytics and create a data tracking system that met ERAS guidelines. Based on predictive scores for serious complication, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality, we developed targeted interventions to decrease readmissions and postoperative laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Predictive models demonstrated a receiver-operating characteristic area (ROC) ranges of 641-856. After implementing the REDCap platform, the readmission rate for high-risk patients decreased 15.8% during the initial three months following ERAS implementation. Based on predictive outputs, patients with a low-risk score received a limited set of postoperative laboratory tests. Targeted interventions to decrease hospital readmission for high-risk patients included home care orders and post-discharge instructions.

CONCLUSIONS

The REDCap platform offers hospitals a practical option to display predictive analytics and create a data tracking program that meets ERAS guidelines. Prediction models programmed into REDCap offer clinicians a support tool to assess the probability of patient outcomes. Risk calculations based on predictive scores enabled clinicians to titrate postoperative laboratory tests and develop post-discharge home care orders.

Enhanced Recovery Protocols for Adults Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced surgical recovery protocols are designed to reduce hospital length of stay and health care costs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review and summarize evidence from randomized and controlled clinical trials comparing enhanced recovery protocols versus usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with emphasis on recent trials, protocol components, and subgroups for surgical approach and colorectal condition.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE from 2011 to July 2017; reference lists of existing systematic reviews and included studies were reviewed to identify all eligible trials published before 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

English language trials comparing a protocol of preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative components with usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected.

INTERVENTION

The enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Length of stay, perioperative morbidity, mortality, readmission within 30 days, and surgical site infection were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials of open or laparoscopic surgery for cancer or noncancer conditions were included. Enhanced recovery protocols consisted of 4 to 18 components. Few studies fully described the various components. Length of stay (mean reduction, 2.6 days; 95% CI, -3.2 to -2.0) and risk of overall perioperative morbidity (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.80) were lower in enhanced recovery protocol groups than in usual care groups (moderate-quality evidence). All-cause mortality (rare), readmissions, and surgical site infection rates were similar between protocol groups (low-quality evidence). In predefined subgroup analyses, findings did not vary by surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic) or colorectal condition.

LIMITATIONS

Protocols varied across studies and little information was provided regarding compliance with, or implementation of, specific protocol components.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery protocols for adults undergoing colorectal surgery improve patient outcomes with no increase in adverse events. Evidence was insufficient regarding which components, or component combinations, are key to improving patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067991.

The impact of complications on a programme of enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery

Background

The advantages of Enhanced Recovery (ER) programmes are well known, in terms of improved overall experience of the patients, which associates with low morbidity and reduced length of stay. As a result, the pattern of morbidity is changing and some patients may develop complications after discharge. Aim of this work was to evaluate the impact of morbidity and related outcomes such as unplanned readmission and reoperation rate on an ER programme in colorectal surgery.

Methods

Prospectively collected clinical data of patients who underwent colorectal resection have been retrospectively analysed. Endpoints were: 90-day mortality and morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS) and rate of unplanned readmissions and reoperations.

Results

Mortality and morbidity did not change in the analysed period, but LOS reduced significantly. Main determinant of postoperative LOS was the type of surgical approach, laparoscopy being associated with earlier discharge. LOS was longer in patients who developed complications. Morbidity and reoperation rate were significantly higher in patients discharged after day 4. Majority of complications happened in patients who were still in the hospital. However, the few patients who developed complications after discharge did not have a worse outcome if compared to those who had complications in hospital.

Conclusions

ER protocols must become integral part of the perioperative management of colorectal patients. ER and laparoscopy have a synergic effect to improve the postoperative recovery and reduce morbidity. Early discharge of patients does not affect the outcome of postoperative complications.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Extended Perioperative Counseling in Enhanced Recovery After Colorectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs reduce the length of hospital stay in patients who undergo elective colorectal resection, but the reasons for this reduction are not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess the impact of extended perioperative counseling in treatment groups that were otherwise the same with respect to enhanced recovery after surgery criteria.

DESIGN

Patients eligible for open or laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomly assigned to extended counseling (repeated information and guidance by a dedicated nurse) or standard counseling.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single institution.

PATIENTS

Patients (n = 164) were randomly assigned to enhanced recovery after surgery plus extended counseling (n = 80) or enhanced recovery after surgery with standard counseling (n = 84).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the total length of hospital stay. Discharge criteria were defined. Secondary end points were postoperative complications, postoperative length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and mortality.

RESULTS

Total hospital stay was significantly shorter among patients randomly assigned to enhanced recovery after surgery plus extended counseling (median 5 (range 2-29) days vs 7 (range 2-39) days, p < 0.001). The 2 treatment groups differed in adherence to the elements of postoperative enhanced recovery after surgery such as mobilization and total oral intake. The 2 treatment groups did not differ in overall, major, and minor morbidity; reoperation rate; readmission rate; and 30-day mortality.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of this study was the absence of blinding.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative information and guidance were important factors in enhanced recovery after surgery care and were associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay. Our findings suggest that perioperative counseling enables patients to comply with the elements of postoperative enhanced recovery after surgery and thereby reduces the length of hospital stay. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01610726). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A505.

Enhanced Recovery via Peripheral Nerve Block for Open Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are now commonplace in many fields of surgery, but only limited data exists for their use in hepatobiliary surgery. We implemented standardized ERAS protocols for all open hepatectomies and replaced thoracic epidurals with a transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing open hepatectomy during the 14 months before and 19 months after implementation of an ERAS protocol at our institution (January 2014-September 2016). Trained abstractors reviewed charts for patient demographics, perioperative details, and healthcare utilization. All nursing-reported visual analog scale pain scores were sampled to identify patients with uncontrolled pain (daily mean score > 5). Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), costs, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients (mean age 54.6 ± 13.0 years, 44% female) underwent open liver resection (69 [54%] after ERAS implementation). ERAS protocols were associated with significantly lower rates of ICU admission (47 vs. 13%, p < 0.001), shorter LOS (median 5.3 vs. 4.3 days, p = 0.007), and lower median costs ($3566 less, p = 0.03). Readmission remained low throughout the study period (5% pre-ERAS, 4% during ERAS, p = 0.83). Rates of uncontrolled pain were either the same or better after ERAS implementation through post-operative day #3 (41% pre-ERAS, 23% during ERAS, p = 0.03).

DISCUSSION

The use of TAP block for hepatectomy as part of an ERAS protocol is associated with improved quality and cost of care. Surgeons performing liver resections should consider standardization of evidence-based best practices in all patients.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

During the last two decades, an increasing number of bariatric surgical procedures have been performed worldwide. There is no consensus regarding optimal perioperative care in bariatric surgery. This review aims to present such a consensus and to provide graded recommendations for elements in an evidence-based "enhanced" perioperative protocol.

METHODS

The English-language literature between January 1966 and January 2015 was searched, with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. Selected studies were examined, reviewed and graded. After critical appraisal of these studies, the group of authors reached a consensus recommendation.

RESULTS

Although for some elements, recommendations are extrapolated from non-bariatric settings (mainly colorectal), most recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive evidence-based consensus was reached and is presented in this review by the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Society. The guidelines were endorsed by the International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and based on the evidence available in the literature for each of the elements of the multimodal perioperative care pathway for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Standardizing the Protocols for Enhanced Recovery From Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Are We a Step Closer to Ideal Recovery?

PURPOSE

Enhanced recovery protocols are being implemented into the standard of care in surgical practice. This study aimed to insert a steadfast set of elements into the perioperative care pathway to establish an improved recovery program for colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Seventy patients planned for elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomized into 2 groups: conventional recovery group (n = 35) and enhanced recovery group (n = 35). The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included the times of removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs), successful enteral feeding, and removal of drains, postoperative complications, intra-hospital mortality, and rate of readmission.

RESULTS

The mean postoperative hospital stay was 4.49 ± 0.85 days vs. 13.31 ± 6.9 days (P < 0.001), the mean time of removal of NGTs was 0.77 ± 1.031 days vs. 3.26 ± 2.737 days (P < 0.001), the mean time of successful enteral feeding was 1.89 ± 1.13 days vs. 5.46 ± 1.67 days (P < 0.001), and the mean time for removal of intra-abdominal drains was 2.94 ± 1.056 days vs. 9.06 ± 3.757 days (P < 0.001) for the enhanced and the conventional groups, respectively. Complications were significantly lower among patients in the enhanced group (25.7% vs. 65.7%) (P = 0.001). The rates of readmission were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Applying definite evidence-based elements to the colorectal rehabilitation program significantly boosts the recovery pathway with favorable outcomes, including faster recovery of gastrointestinal tract functions, lower morbidities, and eventually earlier discharge from the hospital.

Enhanced recovery programme following laparoscopic colorectal resection for elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) in patients aged ≥75 years who undergo laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups according to perioperative management: the ERP group (Group A, n = 94) and the conventional perioperative care group (Group B, n = 157). The postoperative outcomes were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences in terms of age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, operative time or blood loss between two groups. Postoperative return of gastrointestinal function was significantly faster in Group A compared to Group B, including time to first flatus (2 versus 3 days, P < 0.001), first stool (3 versus 4 days, P = 0.001) and oral intake (1 versus 4 days, P < 0.001). Group A was associated with lower overall postoperative complication rate (26.6% versus 44.6%, P = 0.004) and general complication rate (14.9% versus 31.2%, P = 0.004). The median postoperative hospital stay was 6 days in Group A and 8 days in Group B (P < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ERP following laparoscopic colorectal resection for elderly patients is associated with faster postoperative recovery, shorter postoperative hospital stay and fewer complications compared with conventional perioperative care.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

Implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: a strategy to transform surgical care across a health system

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to have a positive impact on outcome. The ERAS care system includes an evidence-based guideline, an implementation program, and an interactive audit system to support practice change. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of the Theoretic Domains Framework (TDF) in changing surgical care and application of the Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) model to analyze end-to-end implementation of ERAS in colorectal surgery across multiple sites within a single health system. The ultimate intent of this work is to allow for the development of a model for spread, scale, and sustainability of ERAS in Alberta Health Services (AHS).

Methods

ERAS for colorectal surgery was implemented at two sites and then spread to four additional sites. The ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS) was used to assess compliance with the guidelines, length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Data sources informing knowledge translation included surveys, focus groups, interviews, and other qualitative data sources such as minutes and status updates. The QUERI model and TDF were used to thematically analyze 189 documents with 2188 quotes meeting the inclusion criteria. Data sources were analyzed for barriers or enablers, organized into a framework that included individual to organization impact, and areas of focus for guideline implementation.

Results

Compliance with the evidence-based guidelines for ERAS in colorectal surgery at baseline was 40%. Post implementation compliance, consistent with adoption of best practice, improved to 65%. Barriers and enablers were categorized as clinical practice (22%), individual provider (26%), organization (19%), external environment (7%), and patients (25%). In the Alberta context, 26% of barriers and enablers to ERAS implementation occurred at the site and unit levels, with a provider focus 26% of the time, a patient focus 26% of the time, and a system focus 22% of the time.

Conclusions

Using the ERAS care system and applying the QUERI model and TDF allow for identification of strategies that can support diffusion and sustainment of innovation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery across multiple sites within a health care system.

Propensity Score Analysis of an Enhanced Recovery Programme in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to examine the influence of an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) on outcomes of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer surgery by means of propensity score-matched analysis.

METHODS

Three hundred consecutive patients diagnosed with UGI cancer were studied prospectively before and after the introduction of an ERP. Multiple regression models, including propensity scores, were developed to assess confounding variables associated with undergoing surgery, and the risk adjusted association between treatment and length of hospital stay (LOHS).

RESULTS

After regression for confounding factors, a cohort of 252 patients was available of whom 160 received ERP [median age 66 years (IQR 58-73), 119 male, 81 oesophageal, 79 gastric cancer] and 92 control [66 years (IQR 58-74), 74 male, 58 oesophageal, 34 gastric cancer]. ERP operative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) and mortality were 13.8 and 3.1 % compared with 17.4 (p = 0.449) and 2.2 % (p = 0.658) in controls. Median ERP critical care and total LOS were 1 (IQR 0-1) and 13 (IQR 10-17) days, compared with 1 (IQR 1-2, p = 0.009) and 16 (IQR 13-26, p < 0.001) days. Multivariable analysis revealed ERP (HR 1.477, 95 % CI 1.084-2.013, p = 0.013), tumour location (HR 2.420, 95 % CI 1.624-3.606, p < 0.001), operative procedure (HR 1.143, 95 % CI 1.032-1.265, p = 0.010), and operative morbidity (HR 0.277, 95 % CI 0.179-0.429, p < 0.001) to be associated with LOHS.

CONCLUSION

An ERP in UGI cancer surgery was feasible, safe, and effective.

Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programmes in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of published literature for the factors reported to predict outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

ERAS programmes and the use of laparoscopy have been widely adopted in colorectal surgery bringing short-term patient benefit. However, there is a minority of patients that do not benefit from these strategies and their identification is not well characterised. The factors that underpin outcomes from ERAS programmes for laparoscopic patients are not understood.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify suitable articles published between 2000 and 2015. The search strategy captured terms for ERAS, colorectal resection, prediction and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies containing 10,861 laparoscopic resections were included. Thirty-one (91 %) studies were confined to elective cases. Predictive analysis of outcome was most frequently based on length of stay (LOS), morbidity and readmission which were the main outcome measures of 29 (85 %), 26 (76 %) and 18 (53 %) of the included studies, respectively. Forty-seven percentage of included studies investigated the impact of ERAS programme compliance on these outcomes. Reduced protocol compliance was the most frequently identified modifiable predictive factor for adverse LOS, morbidity and readmission.

CONCLUSION

Protocol compliance is the most frequently reported predictive factor for outcomes of ERAS programmes following laparoscopic colorectal resection. Reduced compliance increases LOS, morbidity and readmission to hospital. The impact of compliance with individual ERAS protocol elements is insufficiently studied, and the lack of a standardised framework for evaluating ERAS programmes makes it difficult to draw definite conclusions about which factors exert the greatest impact on outcome after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery criteria and preoperative and postoperative counselling reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare patients treated using a multimodal approach [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)], with a special focus on counselling, to patients treated in a standard conventional care pathway, who underwent elective colorectal resection.

METHOD

In a single-centre trial, adult patients eligible for open or laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomized to an ERAS programme or standard care. The primary end-point was postoperative total hospital stay. Identical discharge criteria were defined for both treatment groups. Secondary end-points included postoperative complications, postoperative C-reactive protein levels, postoperative hospital stay, readmission rate and mortality. All parameters were recorded before operation, on the day of surgery and daily thereafter until discharge.

RESULTS

Total hospital stay was significantly shorter among patients randomized to ERAS than among the standard group [median 5 days (range 2-50 days) vs median 8 days (range 2-48 days); P = 0.001]. The two treatment groups exhibited similar outcomes regarding overall major and minor morbidity, reoperation rate, readmission rate and 30-day mortality. There were also no differences in tolerance of enteral nutrition or in the inflammatory response, as reflected by postoperative C-reactive protein levels.

CONCLUSION

ERAS care was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay. Without any difference in surgical or general complications, tolerance of enteral nutrition or postoperative C-reactive protein levels, peri-operative information and guidance for ensuring that patients comply with the ERAS approach appear to be important factors to reduce the length of hospital stay.

Fast-track surgery and exclusive enteral nutrition applied to a rat model of heterotopic intestinal transplantation

The present study applied fast-track surgery (FTS) concepts and exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) to a rat model of heterotopic intestinal transplantation (HIT). A total of 96 pairs of Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly distributed into three groups, as follows: i) The conventional group (group 1); ii) the FTS group (group 2); and iii) the FTS with EEN group (EEN group). FTS alterations to the HIT protocol were as follows: i) The use of sevoflurane as an anesthetic; ii) alterations to the order of the procedure and iii) a modified suturing technique. In addition, the EEN group rats underwent an early EEN gavage. The operation time, success rate, recovery state and morphological characteristics of the grafts were compared among the groups. The average operative time was significantly decreased in the group 2 and EEN group rats (137.44±16.03 and 139.67±15.25 min, respectively), as compared with the group 1 rats (169.36±13.72 min; P<0.05). In addition, the percentage of rats surviving >14 days was significantly increased in the group 2 (87.5%) and EEN group (90.6%) rats, as compared with the group 1 rats (68.7%; P<0.05). Furthermore, the villi of graft in EEN group appeared longer, and exhibited narrower interspaces. The ischemia-reperfusion injury and mononuclear cell infiltration were attenuated at postoperative day 7. The results of the present study suggested that the application of FTS concepts and EEN gavage to HIT may accelerate recovery and ameliorate graft damage following surgery.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: consensus statement for anaesthesia practice

Background

The present interdisciplinary consensus review proposes clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthetic practice in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme.

Methods

Studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta‐analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English‐language literature was examined and reviewed. The group reached a consensus recommendation after critical appraisal of the literature.

Results

This consensus statement demonstrates that anaesthesiologists control several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative ERAS elements. Further research is needed to verify the strength of these recommendations.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence available for each element of perioperative care pathways, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ^®) Society presents a comprehensive consensus review, clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthesia care in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery within an ERAS programme. This unified protocol facilitates involvement of anaesthesiologists in the implementation of the ERAS programmes and allows for comparison between centres and it eventually might facilitate the design of multi‐institutional prospective and adequately powered randomized trials.

Enhanced recovery protocols for major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

'Fast-track surgery' or 'enhanced recovery protocol' or 'fast-track rehabilitation', incorporating one or more elements of preoperative education, pain relief, early mobilisation, enteral nutrition and growth factors, may improve health-related quality of life and reduce length of hospital stay and costs. The role of enhanced recovery protocols in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of enhanced recovery protocols compared with standard care (or usual practice) in major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded until March 2015 to identify randomised trials. We also searched the references of included trials to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) performed in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgery, irrespective of language, blinding or publication status for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified trials and independently extracted data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5, based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, and nine studies provided information on one or more outcomes for the review. A total of 1014 participants were randomly assigned to the enhanced recovery protocol (499 participants) or standard care (515 participants) in the nine RCTs. Most of the trials included low anaesthetic risk participants with high performance status undergoing different upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. Eight trials incorporated more than one element of the enhanced recovery protocol. All of the trials were at high risk of bias. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low.None of the trials reported long-term mortality, medium-term health-related quality of life(three months to one year), time to return to normal activity, or time to return to work. The difference between the enhanced recovery protocol and standard care were imprecise for short-term mortality (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/425 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 1/443 (0.2%); seven trials; 868 participants; RR 2.79; 95% CI 0.44 to 17.73; very low quality evidence), proportion of people with serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 4/157 (adjusted proportion = 0.6%); standard care: 0/184 (0.0%); two trials; 341 participants; RR 5.57; 95% CI 0.68 to 45.89; very low quality evidence), number of serious adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 34/421 (8 per 100 participants); standard care: 46/438 (11 per 100 participants); seven trials; 859 participants; rate ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13; very low quality evidence), health-related quality of life (four trials; 373 participants; SMD 0.29; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.62; very low quality evidence) and hospital readmissions (enhanced recovery protocol: 14/355 (adjusted proportion = 3.3%); standard care: 9/378 (2.4%); seven trials; 733 participants; RR 1.4; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.87; very low quality evidence). The enhanced recovery protocol group had a lower proportion of people with mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 31/254 (adjusted proportion = 10.9%); standard care: 51/271 (18.8%); four trials; 525 participants; RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85; low quality evidence), fewer number of mild adverse events (enhanced recovery protocol: 69/499 (13 per 100 participants); standard care: 128/515 (25 per 100 participants); nine trials; 1014 participants; rate ratio 0.52; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; low quality evidence), shorter length of hospital stay (nine trials; 1014 participants; MD -2.19 days; 95% CI -2.53 to -1.85; low quality evidence) and lower costs (four trials; 282 participants; MD USD -6300; 95% CI -8400 to -4200; low quality evidence) than standard care group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on low quality evidence, enhanced recovery protocols may reduce length of hospital stay and costs (primarily because of reduction in hospital stay) in people undergoing major upper gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic surgeries. However, the validity of the results is uncertain because of the risk of bias in the trials and the way the outcomes were measured. Future RCTs should be conducted with low risk of bias, and measure clinically important outcomes for including the three months to one year period.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Accurately Measure the Value of an Enhanced Recovery Program in Liver Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) pathways have become increasingly integrated into surgical practice. Studies that compare ER and traditional pathways often focus on outcomes confined to inpatient hospitalization and rarely assess a patient's functional recovery. The aim of this study was to compare functional outcomes for patients treated on an Enhanced Recovery in Liver Surgery (ERLS) pathway vs a traditional pathway.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred and eighteen hepatectomy patients rated symptom severity and life interference using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory preoperatively and postoperatively at every outpatient visit until 31 days after surgery. The ERLS protocol included patient education, narcotic-sparing anesthesia and analgesia, diet advancement, restrictive fluid administration, early ambulation, and avoidance of drains and tubes.

RESULTS

Seventy-five ERLS pathway patients were clinically comparable with 43 patients simultaneously treated on a traditional pathway. The ERLS patients reported lower immediate postoperative pain scores and experienced fewer complications and decreased length of stay. As measured by symptom burden on life interference, ERLS patients were more likely to return to baseline functional status in a shorter time interval. The only independent predictor of faster return to baseline interference levels was treatment on an ERLS pathway (p = 0.021; odds ratio = 2.62). In addition, ERLS pathway patients were more likely to return to intended oncologic therapy (95% vs 87%) at a shorter time interval compared to patients on the traditional pathway (44.7 vs 60.2 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In oncologic liver surgery, enhanced recovery's primary mechanism of action is reduction in life interference by postoperative surgical symptoms, allowing patients to return sooner to normal function and adjuvant cancer therapies.

Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are used widely in surgical practice. As protocols are multidisciplinary with multiple components, it is difficult to compare and contrast reports. The present study examined compliance and transferability to clinical practice among ER publications related to colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched for current colorectal ER manuscripts. Each publication was assessed for the number of ER elements, whether the element was explained sufficiently so that it could be transferred to clinical practice, and compliance with the ER element.

RESULTS

Some 50 publications met the reporting criteria for inclusion. A total of 22 ER elements were described. The median number of elements included in each publication was 9, and the median number of included patients was 130. The elements most commonly included in ER pathways were early postoperative diet advancement (49, 98 per cent) and early mobilization (47, 94 per cent). Early diet advancement was sufficiently explained in 43 (86 per cent) of the 50 publications, but only 22 (45 per cent) of 49 listing the variable reported compliance. The explanation for early mobilization was satisfactory in 41 (82 per cent) of the 50 publications, although only 14 (30 per cent) of 47 listing the variable reported compliance. Other ER elements had similar rates of explanation and compliance. The most frequently analysed outcome measures were morbidity (49, 98 per cent), length of stay (47, 94 per cent) and mortality (45, 90 per cent).

CONCLUSION

The current standard of reporting is frequently incomplete. To transfer knowledge and facilitate implementation of pathways that demonstrate improvements in perioperative care and recovery, a consistent structured reporting platform is needed.

Nausea, vomiting and return of bowel function after colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Although patterns of return of bowel function (ROBF) following colorectal surgery with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been well delineated, regular morphine use is uncommon. This study describes the patterns of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and ROBF in this context.

METHOD

Patients undergoing elective major colorectal surgery on an ERAS programme over 1 year were included. Patient details, intra-operative course, post-operative management, outcomes and complications were collected retrospectively from clinical records. Statistical analysis was performed using Stata version 12.

RESULTS

A total of 136/142 (96%) patients received morphine for post-operative analgesia. Most (112/142, 79%) experienced either no vomiting (87/142, 61%) or small amounts (25/142, 18%). On average, patients without an ileostomy passed flatus and opened their bowels after 2.4 and 4.3 days, those with an ileostomy taking 1.5 and 2.1 days. Vomiting was not related to ROBF (P = 0.370) or overall complications; wound complications (odds ratio (OR) = 8.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-32.5), electrolyte abnormalities (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2-7.1) and length of stay (hazard ratio = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.2-1.5) were related.

CONCLUSION

Most patients do not experience PONV in this context. ROBF is predictable without prolonged delays. This information could be used to allow confident early discharge and identify patients whose deviation from normal may indicate complications.

Improving Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery by Sequential Implementation of Multiple Standardized Care Programs

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the sequential implementation of the enhanced recovery program (ERP) and surgical site infection bundle (SSIB) on short-term outcomes in colorectal surgery (CRS) to determine if the presence of multiple standardized care programs provides additive benefit.

STUDY DESIGN

Institutional ACS-NSQIP data were used to identify patients who underwent elective CRS from September 2006 to March 2013. The cohort was stratified into 3 groups relative to implementation of the ERP (February 1, 2010) and SSIB (July 1, 2011). Unadjusted characteristics and 30-day outcomes were assessed, and inverse proportional weighting was then used to determine the adjusted effect of these programs.

RESULTS

There were 787 patients included: 337, 165, and 285 in the pre-ERP/SSIB, post-ERP/pre-SSIB, and post-ERP/SSIB periods, respectively. After inverse probability weighting (IPW) adjustment, groups were balanced with respect to patient and procedural characteristics considered. Compared with the pre-ERP/SSIB group, the post-ERP/pre-SSIB group had significantly reduced length of hospitalization (8.3 vs 6.6 days, p = 0.01) but did not differ with respect to postoperative wound complications and sepsis. Subsequent introduction of the SSIB then resulted in a significant decrease in superficial SSI (16.1% vs 6.3%, p < 0.01) and postoperative sepsis (11.2% vs 1.8%, p < 0.01). Finally, inflation-adjusted mean hospital cost for a CRS admission fell from $31,926 in 2008 to $22,044 in 2013 (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential implementation of the ERP and SSIB provided incremental improvements in CRS outcomes while controlling hospital costs, supporting their combined use as an effective strategy toward improving the quality of patient care.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for open hepatectomy--physiology, immunomodulation, and implementation

There has been recent interest in enhanced-recovery after surgery (ERAS®) or "fast-track" perioperative protocols in the surgical community. The subspecialty field of colorectal surgery has been the leading adopter of ERAS protocols, with less data available regarding its adoption in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. This review focuses on available data pertaining to the application of ERAS to open hepatectomy. We focus on four fundamental variables that impact normal physiology and exacerbate perioperative inflammation: (1) the stress of laparotomy, (2) the use of opioids, (3) blood loss and blood product transfusions, and (4) perioperative fasting. The attenuation of these inflammatory stressors is largely responsible for the improvements in perioperative outcomes due to the implementation of ERAS-based pathways. Collectively, the data suggest that the implementation of ERAS principles should be strongly considered in all patients undergoing hepatectomy.

Enhancing surgical performance outcomes through process-driven care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence has demonstrated the variability in quality of postoperative care, as measured by rates of failure to rescue (FTR). The identification of structure- and process-related factors affecting the quality of postoperative care is the first step towards understanding and improving outcomes. The aim of this review is to review current evidence for structure and process factors affecting postoperative care.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted. Studies were selected that examined structure or process variables affecting FTR rates and postoperative outcomes. Quality analysis with Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scales was conducted and poor-quality studies were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included in final analysis. Of these, 23 were related to enhanced recovery protocols in seven surgical specialties. Twenty-one of these 23 studies reported decreases in length of stay. Six studies also reported decreases in morbidity. No studies reported increases in stay duration or morbidity. Of the 16 studies that examined other structural and process factors, the strongest evidence was for the association between nursing ratios and FTR rates. The effects of hospital size, resources, and subspecialist care processes were less clear.

CONCLUSION

Process-led care represents a clear, evidence-based approach that can be integrated on a local scale, without necessitating major structural or organisational change, to improve outcomes and may also be cost effective. To foster success, process improvement must be driven on a local level and backed up by appropriate understanding, education, and multidisciplinary involvement.

Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses in the literature show that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is associated with lower morbidity rate and shorter hospital stay after elective colorectal surgery. However, a recent Cochrane review did not indicate the ERAS pathway as being the new standard of care due to the limited number of published trials, together with their poor quality. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the impact of the ERAS pathway on overall morbidity, single postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate following colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched BioMedCentral, PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for RCTs comparing the ERAS pathway to conventional perioperative care. No language restrictions were considered. A quality score was calculated for each trial included.

RESULTS

A total of 2,376 patients in 16 RCTs were included in the analysis. The ERAS pathway was associated with a reduction of overall morbidity [relative ratio (RR) = 0.60, (95 % CI 0.46-0.76)], particularly with respect to nonsurgical complications [RR = 0.40, (95 % CI 0.27-0.61)]. The reduction of surgical complications was not significant [RR = 0.76, (95 % CI 0.54-1.08)]. The ERAS pathway shortened hospital stay (WMD = -2.28 days [95 % CI -3.09 to -1.47]), without increasing readmission rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS pathway reduced overall morbidity rates and shortened the length of hospital stay, without increasing readmission rates. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was evident, while no significant reduction was found for surgical complications.