The effect of a multimodal fast-track programme on outcomes in laparoscopic liver surgery: a multicentre pilot study

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH with open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1 day. A sample size of 86 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1-day reduction in LOS [90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)]. The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short- and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programmes. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Robotic approach together with an enhanced recovery programme improve the perioperative outcomes for complex hepatectomy

Objective

Robotic surgery has more advantages than traditional surgical approaches to complex liver resection; however, the robotic approach is invariably associated with increased cost. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are beneficial in conventional surgeries.

Methods

The present study investigated the effects of robotic surgery combined with an ERAS protocol on perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs of patients undergoing complex hepatectomy. Clinical data from consecutive robotic and open liver resections (RLR and OLR, respectively) performed in our unit in the pre-ERAS (January 2019-June 2020) and ERAS (July 2020-December 2021) periods were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of ERAS and surgical approaches-alone or in combination-on LOS and costs.

Results

A total of 171 consecutive complex liver resections were analyzed. ERAS patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased total hospitalization cost, without a significant difference in the complication rate compared with the pre-ERAS cohort. RLR patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased major complications, but with increased total hospitalization cost, compared with OLR patients. Comparing the four combinations of perioperative management and surgical approaches, ERAS + RLR had the shortest LOS and the fewest major complications, whereas pre-ERAS + RLR had the highest hospitalization costs. Multivariate analysis found that the robotic approach was protective against prolonged LOS, whereas the ERAS pathway was protective against high costs.

Conclusions

The ERAS + RLR approach optimized postoperative complex liver resection outcomes and hospitalization costs compared with other combinations. The robotic approach combined with ERAS synergistically optimized outcome and overall cost compared with other strategies, and may be the best combination for optimizing perioperative outcomes for complex RLR.

Implementation of an ERAS protocol on elderly patients in liver resection

BACKGROUND

The increase of quality of life, the improvement in the perioperative care programs, the use of the frailty index, and the surgical innovation has allowed to access of complex abdominal surgery for elderly patients like liver resection. Despite of this, in patients aged 70 or older there is a limitation for the implementation ERAS protocolos. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation ERAS protocol on elderly patients (≥70 years) undergoing liver resection.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study of patients who underwent liver resection from December 2017 to December 2019 with an ERAS program. We compare the outcomes in patients ≥70 years (G ≥ 70) versus <70 years (G < 70). The frailty was measured with the Physical Frailty Phenotype score.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients were included. 32 of these (31.6%) were patients ≥70 years. 90% of the both groups had performed >70% of the ERAS. Oral diet tolerance and mobilization on the first postoperative day were quicker in <70 years group. The hospital stay was similar in both groups (3.07days/2.7days). Morbidity and mortality were similar; Clavien I-II(G ≥ 70:41% vs G < 70:30,5%) and Clavien ≥ III (G ≥ 70:6% vs G < 70:8.5%), like hospital readmissions. Mortality was <1%. ERAS protocol compliance was associated with a decrease in complications (ERAS < 70%:80% vs ERAS > 90%:20%; p = 0.02) and decrease in severity of complications in both study groups. Frailty was found in 6% of the elderly group; the only patient who died had a frailty index of 4.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of ERAS protocol for elderly patients is possible, with major improvements in perioperative outcomes, without an increase in morbidity, mortality neither readmissions.

The orange-III study: the use of preoperative laxatives prior to liver surgery in an enhanced recovery programme, a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the effect of preoperative macrogol on gastrointestinal recovery and functional recovery after liver surgery combined with an enhanced recovery programme in a randomized controlled setting.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to either 1 sachet of macrogol a day, one week prior to surgery versus no preoperative laxatives. Postoperative management for all patients was within an enhanced recovery programme. The primary outcome was recovery of gastrointestinal function, defined as Time to First Defecation. Secondary outcomes included Time to Functional Recovery.

RESULTS

Between August 2012 and September 2016, 82 patients planned for liver resection were included in the study, 39 in the intervention group and 43 in the control group. Median Time to First Defecation was 4.0 days in the intervention group (IQR 2.8-5.0) and 4.0 days in the control group (IQR 2.9-5.0), P = 0.487. Median Time to Functional Recovery was day 6 (IQR 4.0-8.0) in the intervention group and day 5 (IQR 4.0-7.5) in the control group, P = 0.752. No significant differences were seen in complication rate, reinterventions or mortality.

CONCLUSION

This randomized controlled trial showed no advantages of 1 sachet of macrogol preoperatively combined with an enhanced recovery programme, for patients undergoing liver surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for resectable HCC with BCLC stage B: a propensity score-matched analysis

To date, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B. Thus, this study was performed to assess the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for these patients by comparison with open liver resection (OLR). Between April 2015 and October 2018, a total of 217 resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into the LLR group and the OLR group according to different procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for known confounders. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. LLR was performed in 75 of the 217 included patients. After PSM, 72 patients with well-balanced baseline levels were enrolled into each group. Although the operative time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 237.5 vs. 210 min, P = 0.024), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 200 vs. 350 ml, P = 0.005). Patients in the LLR group had fewer complications than those in the OLR group (P = 0.035). Furthermore, overall survival (OS, P = 0.827) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, P = 0.694) were comparable between the two groups. LLR for resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B is safe and feasible in carefully selected patients and has superior perioperative outcomes and similar survival rates compared with OLR.

Enhanced Recovery Care vs. Traditional Care in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Enhanced recovery care could alleviate surgical stress and accelerate the recovery rates of patients. Previous studies showed the benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery program in liver surgery, but the exact role in laparoscopic hepatectomy is still unclear.

Aim

We aimed to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after a surgery program in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods

The relative studies from a specific search of PUBMED, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane database from June 2008 to February 2022 were selected and included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes included length of hospital stay, duration to functional recovery, and overall postoperative complication rate. The secondary outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, cost of hospitalization, readmission rate, Grade I complication rate, and Grade II–V complication rate.

Results

A total of six studies with 643 patients [enhanced recovery care (n = 274) vs. traditional care (n = 369)] were eligible for analysis. These comprised three randomized controlled trials and three retrospective studies. Enhanced recovery care group was associated with decreased hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.83~−0.28, p < 0.0001], shorter duration to functional recovery (SMD = −1.14, 95% CI = −1.92~−0.37, p = 0.004), and lower cost of hospitalization Mean Difference (MD) = −1,539.62, 95% CI = −1992.85~−1086.39, p < 0.00001). Moreover, a lower overall postoperative complication rate was observed in enhanced recovery care group [Risk ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.51~0.80, p < 0.0001] as well as lower Grade II–V complication rate (RR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.38~0.80, p = 0.002), while there was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (MD = −65.75, 95% CI = −158.47~26.97, p = 0.16), operative time (MD = −5.44, 95% CI = −43.46~32.58, p = 0.78), intraoperative blood transfusion rate [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.41~1.22, p = 0.22], and Grade I complication rate (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.53~1.03, p = 0.07).

Conclusion

Enhanced recovery care in laparoscopic hepatectomy should be recommended, because it is not only safe and effective, but also can accelerate the postoperative recovery and lighten the financial burden of patients.

Impact of introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol on the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections: A propensity-score matched study

BACKGROUND

Presently, data on the impact of enhanced recovery protocols on the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection remain limited. We performed propensity matched analysis comparing the outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection before and after the introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol.

METHODS

Between 2013 and 2019, 462 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection by 3 surgeons of which 360 met the study inclusion criteria. There were 89 patients who underwent surgery under an enhanced recovery protocol and 271 without an enhanced recovery protocol. One-to-one propensity matched analysis was performed for 84 enhanced recovery protocol patients and 84 nonenhanced recovery protocol patients.

RESULTS

Comparisons between propensity matched cohorts revealed that patients who received laparoscopic liver resection with enhanced recovery protocol had reduced median blood loss (200 vs 300 mL, P = .013), postoperative stay (3 vs 4 days, P = .003), and lower open conversion rates (0% vs 8.3%, P = .008). There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as operation time, postoperative morbidity, postoperative major morbidity, and 30-day readmission rates.

CONCLUSION

A combined approach of enhanced recovery protocol and laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved perioperative outcomes as opposed to laparoscopic liver resection alone.

Hospital Costs and Long-term Survival of Patients Enrolled in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Open Liver Resection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The clinical benefits of enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been extensively researched, but few studies have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our ERP for open liver resection is based closely on the guidelines produced by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (2016). This study follows on from a previous randomized controlled trial. We also undertook a long-term follow-up of the patients enrolled in the original trial alongside an analysis of the associated health economics.

Objective

We aimed to undertake a health economic and long-term survival analysis as part of a trial investigating the implementation of an ERP for open liver resection.

Methods

The enhanced recovery elements utilized included extra preoperative education, carbohydrate loading, oral nutritional supplements, postresection goal-directed fluid therapy (LiDCOrapid), early mobilization, and physiotherapy (twice a day compared with once per day in the standard care group). A decision-analytic model was used to compare the study endpoints for ERP versus standard care provided to patients undergoing open liver resection. Outcomes obtained included costs per life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed using results from our earlier trial and augmented by external data from other published clinical trials. Long-term follow-up was also undertaken for up to 5 years after the surgery, and data were analyzed to ascertain if the ERP conferred any benefit on long-term survival.

Results

Patients receiving ERP had an average life expectancy of 6.9 years versus 6.1 years in the standard care group. The overall costs were £9538.279 (£1=US $1.60) for ERP and £14,793.05 for standard treatment. This results in a cost-effectiveness ratio of –£6748.33/QALY. Patients receiving ERP required fewer visits to their general practitioner (P=.006) and required lesser help at home with day-to-day activities (P=.04) than patients in the standard care group. Survival was significantly improved at 2 years at 91% (42/46) for patients receiving ERP versus 73% (33/45) for the standard care group (P=.03). There was no statistically significant difference at 5 years after the surgery.

Conclusions

ERPs for patients undergoing open liver resection can improve their medium-term survival and are cost-effective for both hospital and community settings.

Safety and Efficacy of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol After Hepatic Resection

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) have shown to improve outcomes in multiple specialties and were recently applied to hepatic resections. The objective of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of ERP in hepatic resection. Between 2013-2017, 208 patients underwent hepatectomy. The ERP included early ambulation, early oral intake, and multimodal analgesia. Primary study end points were hospital length of stay (LOS) and overall morbidity; secondary end points were return of bowel function (ROBF), 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality. Major hepatectomies were selected for separate analysis. Overall, pre-ERP (N = 99) and ERP (N = 109) were similar in demographics. ERP patients had earlier oral intake and ROBF with similar overall morbidity. Although median LOS was 5 days, 43% of ERP patients had LOS ≤4 days vs. 27% in the pre-ERP cohort (P = .02). 30-day readmission was similar (12%), and 90-day mortality was 2.8% vs. 3.0% (pre-ERP vs. ERP, P = .90). In major hepatectomies, pre-ERP (N = 41) and ERP (N = 33) demographics and operative characteristics were similar. ERP patients had earlier oral intake and ROBF with similar morbidity and mortality. There was no significant difference in median LOS; however, 36% of the major hepatectomy ERP patients had LOS ≤4 days vs. 17% of pre-ERP patients, P = .06. In conclusion, ERP can be safely implemented in hepatectomy, with earlier oral intake and ROBF, shorter LOS in some patients, and no increase in morbidity or mortality.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODOLOGY

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

ERAS in minimally invasive hepatectomy

Open hepatectomy is associated with significant post-operative morbidity and mortality profile. The use of minimally invasive approach for hepatectomy can reduce the post-operative complication profile and total length of hospital stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs involve evidence-based multimodal care pathways designed to achieve early recovery for patients undergoing major surgery. This review will discuss the published evidence, challenges and future directions for ERAS in minimally invasive hepatectomy.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in patients undergoing liver transplantation: A retrospective comparative cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress, and has been applied to different surgeries including liver resection surgery. Explorative studies have shown the safety of some ERAS measures in liver transplantation patients, although no consensus was reached. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ERAS protocols compared with conventional care in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

METHOD

All patients (aged 16-70) undergoing liver transplantation for their first time in our centers between January 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively reviewed and included into this cohort study. They were divided into ERAS group and conventional group depending on the perioperative protocols. Operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative hypothermia, Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) stay, postoperative complications, pain score, postoperative hospital stay, and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 40 and 53 patients were included in the ERAS and conventional groups, respectively. The ERAS group had shorter SICU stay (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (14.5 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001) compared with the conventional group. Intraoperative hypothermia rate, postoperative pulmonary complications rate, and postoperative pain score were lower in the ERAS group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in operative time, anhepatic phase time, blood loss, mortality, reintubation, lower extremity venous thrombosis and other complications incidence between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ERAS procedures effectively improved the patients' recovery, alleviated the suffering and pulmonary complications, and reduced SICU stay and postoperative hospital stay, without increasing incidence of other complications or reintubation. As a safe and feasible choice, ERAS protocols may also have some socioeconomic advantages, which should be addressed in further prospective cohort or clinical trial studies.

Factors associated with failure of enhanced recovery after surgery program in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is an evidence-based perioperative care program aimed at reducing surgical stress response and accelerating recovery. However, a small proportion of patients fail to benefit from the ERAS program following pancreaticoduodenectomy. This study aimed to identify the risk factors associated with failure of ERAS program in pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

Between May 2014 and December 2017, 176 patients were managed with ERAS program following pancreaticoduodenectomy. ERAS failure was indicated by prolonged hospital stay, unplanned readmission or unplanned reoperation. Demographics, postoperative recovery and compliance were compared of those ERAS failure groups to the ERAS success group.

RESULTS

ERAS failure occurred in 59 patients, 33 of whom had prolonged hospital stay, 18 were readmitted to hospital within 30 days after discharge, and 8 accepted reoperation. Preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of ≥III (OR = 2.736; 95% CI: 1.276-6.939; P = 0.028) and albumin (ALB) level of <35 g/L (OR = 3.589; 95% CI: 1.403-9.181; P = 0.008) were independent risk factors associated with prolonged hospital stay. Elderly patients (>70 years) were on a high risk of unplanned reoperation (62.5% vs. 23.1%, P = 0.026). Patients with prolonged hospital stay and unplanned reoperation had delayed intake and increased intolerance of oral foods. Prolonged stay patients got off bed later than ERAS success patients did (65 h vs. 46 h, P = 0.012). Unplanned reoperation patients tended to experience severer pain than ERAS success patients did (3 score vs. 2 score, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high ASA score, low ALB level or age >70 years were at high risk of ERAS failure in pancreaticoduodenectomy. These preoperative demographic and clinical characteristics are important determinants to obtain successful postoperative recovery in ERAS program.

Safety and Efficacy of Early Oral Feeding after Liver Transplantation with Roux-en-Y Choledochojejunostomy: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Early oral feeding, as one of the most important components of multimodal strategies referred to as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS), is now widely adopted for optimization of post-operative recovery of surgical patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess ERAS outcome in patients who underwent liver transplantation in our center.

METHODS

In a prospective study, patients who underwent liver transplantation from April 2015 to June 2018 at Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, were enrolled in this study. Serum albumin, total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), and course of hospital stay were assessed.

RESULTS

39 (23 male) patients who underwent choledochojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis for liver transplantation were enrolled. The mean±SD pre-operative serum albumin and TIBC levels of patients were 3.0±0.6 (range: 1.9-4.1) g/dL and 304±75 (range: 154.0-437.0) µg/dL, respectively. The mean±SD time between the end of operation and starting oral feeding was 11.6±1.8 (range: 9.0-15.0) hours. All patients tolerated early oral feeding with liquids followed by solid foods; no vomiting reported in patients. Overall, patient survival rates at one month and three months were 89.7% and 89.7%, respectively. In our study, no leak of anastomosis was reported.

CONCLUSION

There was no major harm for ERAS after liver transplantation and it might be even helpful as in colorectal surgeries. As seen in our study, oral feeding was started as soon as possible after the end of operation in almost all patients and all of them tolerated early oral feeding. No one had vomiting or nausea.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Reduces Hospital Costs and Improve Clinical Outcomes in Liver Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their perioperative pathway. It has been shown to be effective in reducing length of hospital stay and improving clinical outcomes. However, evidence on its effective in liver surgery remains weak. The aim of this review is to investigate clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness and compliance to ERAS protocols in liver surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane for randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published between 2008 and 2019, comparing effect of ERAS protocols and standard care on hospital cost, LOS, complications, readmission, mortality and compliance.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 6 RCTs and 21 cohort studies of 3739 patients (1777 in ERAS and 1962 in standard care group). LOS was reduced by 2.22 days in ERAS group (MD = -2.22; CI, -2.77 to -1.68; p < 0.00001) compared to the standard care group. Fewer patients in ERAS group experienced complications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; p = < 0.00001). Hospital cost was significantly lower in the ERAS group (SMD = -0.98; CI, -1.37 to - 0.58; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our review concluded that the introduction of ERAS protocols is safe and feasible in hepatectomies, without increasing mortality and readmission rates, whilst reducing LOS and risk of complications, and with a significant hospital cost savings. Laparoscopic approach may be necessary to reduce complication rates in liver surgery. However, further studies are needed to investigate overall compliance to ERAS protocols and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: A single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

With growing popularity and experience in laparoscopic liver surgery, the options for more difficult procedures increase. Only small case series have been published regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumours in proximity to major vessels (MVs). The aim was to compare outcomes of LLR for tumours located less or more than 15 mm from MVs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive LLR (October 2011-August 2017). Proximity to MVs (PMV) was defined as lesions located within 15 mm to the caval vein, hepatic veins and portal vein (main trunk and first branches). The control group were all lesions located more than 15 mm from MVs.

RESULTS

Some 60/235 LLR were performed for lesions in proximity to major vasculature (24%). In the PMV group, median IWATE Difficulty Score was higher (8.5 (IQR: 6.0-9.0) VS 5.0 (IQR: 3.0-6.0), p < 0.001) as was the use of CUSA® (45.0% VS 8.6%, p < 0.001) and Pringle manoeuvre (8.3% VS 1.7%; p = 0.028). Operative time was longer (180min (IQR: 140-210) VS 120min (IQR: 75-150), p < 0.001) and blood loss was higher (190 ml (IQR: 100-325) VS 75 ml (IQR: 50-220), p < 0.001) in the PMV group. There was no difference in perioperative blood transfusion (3.3% VS 1.7%, p = 0.60) or postoperative morbidity (15.0% VS 14.3%, p = 0.89). There was no mortality in both groups. On mean follow-up of 21 months, no significant differences could be found in disease free (p = 0.77) and overall survival (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR of lesions in proximity to MVs is safe and feasible with acceptable short and long-term results.

Outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements of surgical instruments and surgeons' experience, laparoscopic liver resection has been applied for recurrent tumors. However, the value of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is still controversial nowadays, which compelled us to conduct this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evidence about the efficacy of LRLR for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed to identify all eligible trials published up to April 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the perioperative data and oncological outcomes of LRLR by compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR). A fixed or random-effect modal was established to collect the data.

RESULTS

A total of 1232 patients were included in this meta-analysis (LRLR: n = 364; ORLR: n = 396; LPLR: n = 472). LRLR did not increase the operative time compared to ORLR (WMD = 15.92 min; 95%CI: -33.53 to 65.37; P = .53). Conversely, LRLR for patients with recurrent tumors was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -187.33 mL; 95%CI: -249.62 to -125.02; P < .00001), lower transfusion requirement (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-1.03; P = .05), fewer major complications (OR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.23-0.76; P = .004), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -2.31; 95%CI: -3.55 to -1.07; P = .0003). In addition, the oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. However, as for the safety of LRLR compared with LPLR, although the operative time in LRLR group was longer than LPLR group (WMD = 58.63 min; 95%CI: 2.99-114.27; P = .04), the blood loss, transfusion rates, R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications, and mortality were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR for recurrent liver cancer could be safe and feasible in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Patients with Multiple Hepatocellular Carcinomas Meeting the Milan Criteria: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background: Until now, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for patients with multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). This study was performed to assess the efficacy and outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria.

Methods: One hundred fifteen patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria who underwent liver resection from April 2015 to March 2018 were enrolled into this study. According to the different surgical procedures, patients were divided into LLR group and OLR group. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups after propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 match.

Results: Thirty three patients were included into each group after PSM with well-balanced basic level. The intraoperative blood loss in LLR group was less than OLR group before PSM (median, 200 vs. 300 mL, P = .004), but the difference was not statistically significant after PSM (median, 200 vs. 300 mL, P = .064). LLR group showed shorter postoperative hospital stay when compared with OLR group (median, 7 vs. 8 days, respectively, P = .014). The perioperative complications and early mortality were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in the term of overall survival (OS. P = .502) or recurrence-free survival (RFS. P = .887) between the two groups after PSM.

Conclusions: LLR could be safely and feasibly performed for patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria in selected patients. It does not increase the risks of postoperative complications and has a similar oncological outcomes compared to OLR.

Fast-Track Recovery Program After Major Liver Resection: A Randomized Prospective Study

The objective of this study was to compare fast-track (FT) recovery protocol with the conventional one in patients treated with major liver resection by evaluating perioperative morbidity, length of hospitalization, and readmission rate. Sixty-two patients suffering from malignant liver tumors were surgically treated from May 2012 to April 2014. After randomization, they were prospectively divided into two groups: Group A patients (n = 32) followed FT recovery protocol and Group B patients (n = 30) were treated with the conventional (CON) protocol. Postoperative morbidity, readmission rate, and median hospital stay in the two groups were studied. Fast-track protocol was associated with a decreased complication (25%, p = .002), whereas the risk of postoperative morbidity was 2.4 times higher in patients treated with the CON protocol (60%, p = .002). Readmission rate was not significantly different between the two groups (6.25%, p = .35). Age (p = .382) and body mass index (p = .818) were not a suspending factor for following the FT protocol. Overall length of stay (postoperative days) in the FT group was (mean ± SD) 5.75 ± .5 and in the CON group was 13.5 ± 6.7 (p < .001). Fast-track recovery protocol seems to be safe and particularly efficient in patients undergoing major liver resections.

Postoperative stress and pain response applying fast-track protocol in patients undergoing hepatectomy

Aim

To assess the clinical parameters and compare the stress and pain response between fast-track recovery protocol and conventional treatment in patients undergoing major liver resection.

Methods

Eighty-eight patients suffering from malignant liver tumours were surgically treated from May 2012 to March 2015. After randomisation, they were prospectively divided into two groups: group fast-track patients (n = 46) and group conventional treatment patients (n = 42). Demographic and clinical data were collected and patients were assessed with pain scale (behavioural observation scale and visual analog scale), while depression levels were evaluated with Zung self-rating depression scale and three Numeric Analog Scale self-reported questions. Peripheral blood samples were collected at time points: T1 on the admission day, T2 on the day of surgery and T3 on the day of discharge examining serum levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol.

Conclusion

Fast-track recovery protocols seem to be associated with improvement in several clinical parameters, without compromising, biologic or emotional stress in patients undergoing major liver resection.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs for Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols or laparoscopic technique has been applied in various surgical procedures. However, the clinical efficacy of combination of the two methods still remains unclear. Thus, our aim was to assess the role of ERAS protocols in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1990 to October 2017. The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the present meta-analysis, the outcomes of 34 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled studies and 19 non-randomized controlled studies) enrolling 3615 patients (1749 in the ERAS group and 1866 in the control group) were pooled. ERAS group was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD - 2.37 days; 95% CI - 3.00 to - 1.73; P 0.000) and earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.63 days; 95% CI - 0.90 to - 0.36; P 0.000). Meanwhile, lower overall postoperative complication rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.51-0.76; P 0.000) and less hospital cost (WMD 801.52 US dollar; 95% CI - 918.15 to - 684.89; P 0.000) were observed in ERAS group. Similar readmission rate (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, P 0.070) and perioperative mortality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.53-3.34; P 0.549) were found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol for laparoscopic abdominal surgery is safe and effective. ERAS combined with laparoscopic technique is associated with faster postoperative recovery without increasing readmission rate and perioperative mortality.

Second Generation of a Fast-track Liver Resection Programme

BACKGROUND

Recent developments in perioperative pathophysiology and care have documented evidence-based, multimodal rehabilitation (fast-track) to hasten recovery and decrease morbidity and hospital stay in several major surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect over time of a modified previously published fast-track programme in unselected patients undergoing open or laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

A prospective study includes the first 121 consecutive patients following an updated fast-track programme for liver resection. High-dose methylprednisolone was given to all patients before surgery, catheters and drains were systematically removed early, and patients were mobilized and started eating and drinking from the day of surgery. An opioid-sparing multimodal pain treatment was given for the first week. The discharge criteria were (1) pain sufficiently controlled by oral analgesics only; (2) patient comfortable with discharge; (3) no untreated complications.

RESULTS

The median length of stay (LOS) for all patients was 4 days, with 2 days after laparoscopic vs. 4 days for open resections. The median LOS after major hepatectomies (≥3 segments) was 5 days. The readmission rate was 6% and the 30-day mortality zero. The LOS decreased compared to our first-generation fast-track programme with LOS 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track principles for perioperative care and early discharge are safe even after major liver resection. The introduction of high-dose steroids preoperatively might have facilitated a shorter LOS. Routine discharge on POD 1 or 2 after laparoscopic resection and on POD 4 after open liver resection has proven to be feasible.

The clinical and biological impacts of the implementation of fast-track perioperative programs in complex liver resections: A propensity score-based analysis between the open and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the fast-track approach in patients undergoing complex liver procedures and to analyse factors that influence morbidity and functional recovery.

METHODS

Hepatic resections (2014-2016) were stratified according to difficulty score, obtaining a group of 215 complex resections (102 laparoscopic, 163 open). The laparoscopic group was matched by propensity score with open patients to obtain the minimally invasive liver surgery group (n = 102) and the open group (n = 102).

RESULTS

Groups were similar in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The postoperative morbidity was 31.4% in the minimally invasive liver surgery and 38.2% in the open group (P = .05), and functional recovery was shorter in the minimally invasive liver surgery (respectively 4 versus 6 days, P = .041). The adherence to fast-track was high in both groups, with several items with higher penetrance in the minimally invasive liver surgery group. Among factors associated with morbidity and functional recovery, a laparoscopic approach and strict adherence to a fast-track protocol resulted in protective factors.

CONCLUSION

The combination of minimally invasive approaches and fast-track protocols allows a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity and satisfactory functional recovery even in the setting of complex liver resections. When the laparoscopic approach is not feasible, strict adherence to a fast-track program is associated with the achievement of adequate results and should be implemented.

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.

The Effectiveness of a Clinical Pathway in Liver Surgery: a Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

In the field of liver surgery, evidence on the effectiveness of clinical pathways based on ERAS principles is limited.

METHODS

This is a single-center observational study from a prospectively maintained database. Two cohorts were formed of all patients undergoing liver surgery during a defined period before (traditional management) and after introduction of a clinical pathway. Additionally, a case-match analysis-based on approach, tumor location, and Brisbane classification of resection-was performed. A cost analysis and patient satisfaction questionnaire were carried out.

RESULTS

In both the overall analysis (n = 229) as well as the case-match analysis (n = 100), hospital stay was significantly reduced from 8 to 4 days and from 6.5 to 4 days, respectively (p < 0.05). Postoperative morbidity (traditional management 11/50 vs clinical pathway 5/50; p = 1.00) and readmission rate did not increase. Cost analysis showed a significant decrease in postoperative costs in favor of the clinical pathway (traditional management €3666.7 vs clinical pathway €1912.2; p < 0.001). Overall, 92.3% of the survey questions were answered with satisfied (86.0%) or very satisfied (6.3%).

DISCUSSION

Implementation of clinical pathway for liver surgery is feasible and safe. A clinical pathway significantly reduces hospital stay without increasing postoperative morbidity and readmission rates. Postoperative costs are significantly reduced. Patient satisfaction is high.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Noncolorectal Surgery?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Major Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols across noncolorectal abdominal surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND

ERAS programs have been studied extensively in colorectal surgery and adopted at many centers. Several studies testing such protocols have shown promising results in improving postoperative outcomes across various surgical procedures. However, surgeons performing major abdominal procedures have been slower to adopt these ERAS protocols.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using "enhanced recovery after surgery" or "fast track" as search terms and excluded studies of colorectal procedures. Primary endpoints for the meta-analysis include length of stay (LOS) and complication rate. Secondary endpoints were time to first flatus, readmission rate, and costs.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies (6511 patients) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Among them 14 studies were randomized trials, and the remaining 25 studies were cohort studies. Meta-analysis showed a decrease in LOS of 2.5 days (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.8-3.2, P < 0.001) and a complication rate of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.56-0.86, P = 0.001) for patient treated in ERAS programs. There was also a significant reduction in time to first flatus of 0.8 days (95% CI: 0.4-1.1, P < 0.001) and cost reduction of $5109.10 (95% CI: $4365.80-$5852.40, P < 0.001). There was no significant increase in readmission rate (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.84-1.26, P = 0.80) in our analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols decreased length of stay and cost by not increasing complications or readmission rates. This study adds to the evidence that ERAS protocols are safe to implement and are beneficial to surgical patients and the healthcare system across multiple abdominal procedures.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Program in Liver Surgery

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to ease the postoperative recovery and improve clinical outcomes for various surgery types. ERAS cost-effectiveness was demonstrated for colorectal surgery but not for liver surgery. The present study aim was to analyze the implementation costs and benefits of a specific ERAS program in liver surgery.

METHODS

A dedicated ERAS protocol for liver surgery was implemented in our department in July 2013. The subsequent year all consecutive patients undergoing liver surgery were treated according to this protocol (ERAS group). They were compared in terms of real in-hospital costs with a patient series before ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS group). Mean costs per patient were compared with a bootstrap T test. A cost-minimization analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Seventy-four ERAS patients were compared with 100 pre-ERAS patients. There were no significant pre- and intraoperative differences between the two groups, except for the laparoscopy number (n = 18 ERAS, n = 9 pre-ERAS, p = 0.010). Overall postoperative complications were observed in 36 (49 %) and 64 patients (64 %) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively (p = 0.046). The median length of stay was significantly shorter for the ERAS group (8 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006). The total mean costs per patient were €38,726 and €42,356 for ERAS and pre-ERAS (p = 0.467). The cost-minimization analysis showed a total mean cost reduction of €3080 per patient after ERAS implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS implementation for liver surgery induced a non-significant decrease in cost compared to standard care. Significant decreased complication rate and hospital stay were observed in the ERAS group.

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

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway developed to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress after major surgery. In colorectal surgery, ERAS pathways reduced perioperative morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Similar concept should be applied for liver surgery. This study presents the specific ERAS Society recommendations for liver surgery based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ERAS for liver surgery by searching EMBASE and Medline. Five independent reviewers selected relevant articles. Quality of randomized trials was assessed according to the Jadad score and CONSORT statement. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the GRADE system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 157 full texts were screened. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review, and 16 of the 23 standard ERAS items were studied specifically for liver surgery. Consensus was reached among experts after 3 rounds. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation and prophylactic abdominal drainage should be omitted. The use of postoperative oral laxatives and minimally invasive surgery results in a quicker bowel recovery and shorter hospital stay. Goal-directed fluid therapy with maintenance of a low intraoperative central venous pressure induces faster recovery. Early oral intake and mobilization are recommended. There is no evidence to prefer epidural to other types of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The current ERAS recommendations were elaborated based on the best available evidence and endorsed by the Delphi method. Nevertheless, prospective studies need to confirm the clinical use of the suggested protocol.

Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols on postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing routine hepatectomy: review of the current evidence

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols are widely used in many areas of general surgery but had a limited penetration in perioperative management of patients undergoing liver resection. Recently, multiple publications described application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program to hepatectomy patients but their definitive role is not established or accepted by hepatobiliary surgeons.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of published series in English language medical sources detailing ERAS program application for hepatectomy for the period of 2006-2016 is performed.

RESULTS

ERAS protocols are feasible and safe. They reduce length of stay in patients undergoing routine hepatectomy without negative impact on morbidity and mortality. There is potential for reduction of Clavien grade I-II complications, while major and surgical complications are similar to traditional care management group.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of ERAS program to patient undergoing hepatectomy reduces length of hospital stay without affecting perioperative morbidity or mortality and may represent a new standard of care for patients undergoing routine liver resection.

Effects of multimodal fast-track surgery on liver transplantation outcomes

BACKGROUND

Fast-track surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery have been applied to many surgical procedures; however, data on fast-track surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery following liver transplantation is limited. This study aimed to conduct a prospective study to determine the effects of fast-track surgery on prognosis after liver transplantation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized study. One hundred twenty-eight patients undergoing liver transplantation were selected for the fast-track (FT group, n=54) or conventional process (NFT group, n=74). The primary endpoints were intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were as follows: operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, postoperative complications, readmission rate, and postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative demographics between the two groups. The median ICU stay was 2 days (range 1-7 days) in the FT group and 5 days (range 3-12 days) in the NFT group (P<0.01). Furthermore, the hospital stay was also significantly reduced in the FT group (P<0.01). The operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative blood transfusion volume were decreased in the FT group compared with the NFT group (P<0.05). Based on Spearman correlation analysis, the ICU stay and hospital stay may be positively correlated with operative time, anhepatic phase time and intraoperative blood loss. There were no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications, readmissions, and postoperative mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Fast-track procedures effectively reduce the ICU stay and hospital stay without adversely affecting prognosis. This study demonstrated that fast-track protocols are safe and feasible in liver transplantation.

Enhanced recovery after surgery program reduces length of hospital stay and complications in liver resection: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines have already been established in several kinds of surgeries. But due to concerns of the specific complications, it has not yet been considered the standard of care in liver surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to assess the effect of ERAS in patients undergoing liver surgery.

METHODS

EMBASE, CNKI, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS with conventional care in patients undergoing liver surgery. Subgroup meta-analysis between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches to liver resection was also conducted.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included, representing 996 patients. Length of stay (LOS) (MD -3.17, 95% CI: -3.99 to -2.35, P < .00001, I = 89%) and time to first flatus (MD -0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.45, P = .0001, I = 98%) were both reduced in the ERAS group. There were also fewer complications in the ERAS group (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37-0.72, P < .0001, I = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The ERAS program can obviously enhance short-term recovery after liver resection. It is safe and worthwhile. A specific ERAS guideline for liver resection is recommended.

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

METHODS

In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m2 and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs for Liver Resection: a Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Due to the limited number of high-quality randomized controlled trials on enhanced recovery after surgery for hepatectomy, previous reviews have not been sufficiently comprehensive. Our objectives were to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery programs and traditional care in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery and to assess the optimized items for hepatectomy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. We performed a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, 19 original studies with 2575 patients, including four randomized controlled trials and 15 non-randomized controlled trials, were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated that enhanced recovery after surgery programs could reduce morbidity, hospital stays and cost, blood loss, and time to bowel function recovery for both open and laparoscopic surgery without increasing mortality, readmission rate, or transfusion rate. Twelve items were essential for liver surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs for hepatectomy are feasible and efficient. Further studies should optimize perioperative outcomes for liver surgery.

Use of activity tracking in major visceral surgery-the Enhanced Perioperative Mobilization (EPM) trial: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are aimed at minimizing postoperative stress and accelerating postoperative recovery by implementing multiple perioperative principles. “Early mobilization” is one such principle, but the quality of assessment and monitoring is poor, and evidence of improved outcome is lacking. Activity trackers allow precise monitoring and automatic feedback to the patients to enhance their motivation for early mobilization. The aim of the study is to monitor and increase the postoperative mobilization of patients by giving them continuous automatic feedback in the form of a step count using activity-tracking wristbands.

Methods/design

Patients undergoing elective open and laparoscopic surgery of the colon, rectum, stomach, pancreas, and liver for any indication will be included. Further inclusion criteria are age between 18 and 75 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status class less than IV, and a signed informed consent form. Patients will be stratified into two subgroups, laparoscopic and open surgery, and will be randomized 1:1 for automatic feedback of their step count using an activity tracker wristband. The control group will have no automatic feedback. The sample size (n = 30 patients in each of the four groups, overall n = 120) is calculated on the basis of an assumed difference in step count of 250 steps daily (intervention group versus control group). The primary study endpoint is the average step count during the first 5 postoperative days; secondary endpoints are the percentage of patients in the two groups who master the predefined mobilization (step count) targets, assessment of additional activity data obtained from the devices, assessment of preoperative mobility, length of hospital and intensive care unit stays, number of patients who receive physiotherapy, 30-day mortality, and overall 30-day morbidity.

Discussion

Early mobilization is a key element of ERAS. However, enhanced early mobilization is difficult to define, to assess objectively, and to implement in clinical practice. Consequently, there is a discrepancy between ERAS targets and actual practice, especially in patients undergoing major visceral surgery. This study is the first randomized controlled trial investigating the use and feasibility of activity tracking to monitor and enhance postoperative early mobilization.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02834338. Registered on 15 June 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1782-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparative Evaluation of Pain, Stress, Neuropeptide Y, ACTH, and Cortisol Levels Between a Conventional Postoperative Care Protocol and a Fast-Track Recovery Program in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Fast-track (FT) postoperative protocol in oncological patients after major abdominal surgery reduces complications and length of postoperative stay compared to the conventional (CON) protocol. However, stress and pain responses have not been compared between the two protocols.

OBJECTIVES

To compare stress, pain, and related neuropeptidic responses (adrenocorticotropic hormone [ACTH], cortisol, and neuropeptide Y [NPY]) between FT and CON protocols.

METHOD

A clinical trial with repeated measurements was conducted (May 2012 to May 2014) with a sample of 63 hepatectomized or pancreatectomized patients randomized into two groups: FT ( n = 29) or CON ( n = 34). Demographic and clinical data were collected, and pain (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] and Behavioral Pain Scale [BPS]) and stress responses (3 self-report questions) assessed. NPY, ACTH, and cortisol plasma levels were measured at T1 = day of admission, T2 = day of surgery, and T3 = prior to discharge.

RESULTS

ACTH_T1 and ACTH_T2 levels were positively correlated with self-reported stress levels (ρ = .43 and ρ = .45, respectively, p < .05) in the FT group. NPY levels in the FT group were higher than those in the CON group at all time points ( p ≤ .004); this difference remained significant after adjusting for T1 levels through analysis of covariance for age, gender, and body mass index ( F = .003, F = .149, F = .015, respectively, p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Neuropeptidic levels were higher in the FT group. Future research should evaluate this association further, as these biomarkers might serve as objective indicators of postoperative pain and stress.

Implementation of Enhanced Recovery (ERAS) in Colorectal Surgery Has a Positive Impact on Non-ERAS Liver Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) reduces complications and hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Thereafter, ERAS principles were extended to liver surgery. Previous implementation of an ERAS program in colorectal surgery may influence patients undergoing liver surgery in a non-ERAS setting, on the same ward. This study aimed to test this hypothesis.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis based on prospective data of the adherence to the institutional ERAS-liver protocol (compliance) in three cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing elective liver surgery, between June 2010 and July 2014: before any ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS n = 50), after implementation of ERAS in colorectal (intermediate n = 50), and after implementation of ERAS in liver surgery (ERAS-liver n = 74). Outcomes were functional recovery, postoperative complications, hospital stay, and readmissions.

RESULTS

The three groups were comparable for demographics; laparoscopy was more frequent in ERAS-liver (p = 0.009). Compliance with the enhanced recovery protocol increased along the three periods (pre-ERAS, intermediate, and ERAS-liver), regardless of the perioperative phase (pre-, intra-, or postoperative). ERAS-liver group displayed the highest overall compliance rate with 73.8 %, compared to 39.9 and 57.4 % for pre-ERAS and intermediate groups (p = 0.072/0.056). Overall complications were unchanged (p = 0.185), whereas intermediate and ERAS-liver groups showed decreased major complications (p = 0.034). Consistently, hospital stay was reduced by 2 days (p = 0.005) without increased readmissions (p = 0.158).

CONCLUSIONS

The previous implementation of an ERAS protocol in colorectal surgery may induce a positive impact on patients undergoing non-ERAS-liver surgery on the same ward. These results suggest that ERAS is safely applicable in liver surgery and associated with benefits.

Fast track for open hepatectomy: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Liver resection (LR) is preferred treatment for malignancies or benign masses of liver. Using multiple elements, fast track (FT) program was introduced to abdominal surgery associating with fast functional recovery and shorter hospital length of stay (LoS). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effect of FT program for patients following liver resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase for trials up to December 2015 to compare the FT program to the conventional group. The main outcome was assessed of complication rate (including liver specific or general complication rate), thirty-day postoperative mortality, readmission rate and the length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Four randomized control trials (RCTs) and three cohort trials (CTs) were to make a quantitative synthesis including 1027 patients. The LoS was reduced following FT groups (weighted mean difference [WMD], 2.24 days; 95% CI 3.69-0.79; P < 0.005). No significant differences were noted in overall complication (risk ratio [RR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12; p = 0.49), mortality (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.19-2.15; p = 0.46) and readmission rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.54-1.79; p = 0.97). However, the general complication showed a difference favoring FT group (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.95; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

This review, firstly using the quantitative synthesis in FT program following LR, indicates that FT program can shorten the length of hospital stay and accelerate the postoperative recovery in a safe and effective ways without increasing in mortality, morbidity and readmission rate.

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic hepatectomy: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are a series of measures being taken during the perioperation to alleviate surgical stress and accelerate the recovery rate of patients. Although several studies reported the efficacy of ERAS in liver surgery, the role of ERAS in laparoscopic hepatectomy is still unclear. This meta-analysis is aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ERAS programs versus traditional care in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wang Fang Database and VIP Database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials (CCTs) concerning using ERAS in laparoscopic hepatectomy. Data collection ended in June 1st, 2016. The main end points were intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, operative time, the cost of hospitalization, time to first flatus, the time to first diet after surgery, duration of postoperative hospital stay, total postoperative complication rate, gradeⅠcomplication rate, grade Ⅱ-Ⅴcomplication rate.

RESULTS

8 studies with 580 patients were eligible for analysis. There were 292 cases in ERAS group and 288 cases in traditional perioperative care (CTL) group. Compared with CTL group, ERAS group was associated with significantly accelerated of time to first diet after surgery (SMD = -1.79, 95%CI: -3.19 ∼ -0.38, P = 0.01), time to first flatus (MD = -0.51, 95%CI: -0.91 ∼ -0.12, P = 0.01). Meanwhile, it was associated with significantly decreased of duration of the postoperative hospital stay (MD = -3.31, 95%CI: -3.95 ∼ -2.67, P < 0.00001), cost of hospitalization (MD = -1.0, 95%CI: -1.49 ∼ -0.51, P < 0.0001), total postoperative complication rate (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.15-0.75, P = 0.008), gradeⅠcomplication rate (OR = 0.37, 95%CI: 0.22-0.64, P = 0.0003) and gradeⅡ-Ⅴcomplication rate (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.32-0.77, P = 0.002). Whereas there was no significantly difference in intraoperative blood loss (P > 0.05), intraoperative blood transfusion (P > 0.05), operative time (P > 0.05) between ERAS group and CTL group.

CONCLUSION

Application of ERAS in laparoscopic hepatectomy is safe and effective, and it could accelerate the postoperative recovery and lighten the financial burden of patients.

Impact of ERAS approach and minimally-invasive techniques on outcome of patients undergoing liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Aim of the study was to assess the impact of ERAS approach ("fluid restrictive and drainless") on open liver resections for HCC comparing their outcome with open resections in pre-ERAS period and with laparoscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

207 patients undergoing minor liver resection for HCC were divided into three groups: Group A, open minor resections in pre-ERAS period (95 patients); Group B, laparoscopic ERAS resections (55 patients); Group C, open ERAS resections (57 patients).

RESULTS

Blood loss was lower in group C and B compared with group A. Postoperative morbidity was 26.5% in group A, 16.3% in group B and 12.1% in group C (p<0.05). Ascites was less frequent in group B (7.5%) and C (6.2%) compared with group A (12%). Median time for functional recovery in group B (3 days) and C (3 days) was shorter compared with group A (5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach confirms to be associated with reduced blood loss and postoperative morbidity. In patients who cannot be candidates to minimally-invasive approach, ERAS management seems to allow blood loss and postoperative morbidity reduction: indeed, results achieved in this group of patients are more similar to those of laparoscopy than to pre-ERAS open surgery.

Anesthetic and operative considerations for laparoscopic liver resection

We enumerate the broad range of anesthetic considerations that affect the outcome of patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Key elements for excellent outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection are careful patient selection and risk stratification, appropriate monitoring, techniques to reduce blood loss and transfusion, and active recovery management. Although some of these key elements are the same for open liver operation, there are specific anesthetic considerations of which both the surgical and anesthesia teams must be aware to achieve optimal patient outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection. While unique advantages of laparoscopic liver resection typically include decreased intraoperative bleeding, transfusion requirements, and a lower incidence of postoperative ascites, specific challenges include management of the complicated interplay between low-volume anesthesia and increased intraabdominal pressure due to pneumoperitoneum, with additional considerations regarding circulatory support to treat acute blood loss with need for emergent conversion in some cases. This article will address in detail the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative anesthetic considerations for patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection that both the surgical and anesthesia team should be aware of to optimize outcomes.

Adherence to early mobilisation: Key for successful enhanced recovery after liver resection

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been proven effective in liver surgery. Adherence to the ERAS pathway is variable. This study seeks to evaluate adherence to key components of an ERAS protocol in liver resection, and identify the components associated with successful clinical outcomes.

METHOD

All patients undergoing liver resections for two consecutive years were included in our ERAS pathway. Six key components of ERAS included preoperative assessment, nutrition and gastrointestinal function, postoperative analgesia, mobilisation and discharges. Successful accomplishment of ERAS was defined as hospital discharge by postop day (POD) 6. Adherences of these elements were compared between the successful and un-successful groups.

RESULTS

During the studied period, 223 patients underwent liver resections, among which 103 had major hepatectomies. N = 147 patients (66%) were discharged within our ERAS protocol target (6 days). On multivariable analysis, sitting out of bed by POD 1 (p < 0.03), walking by POD 3 (p = 0.03), removal of urinary catheter by POD 3 (p < 0.01), and avoiding major complications (p < 0.01) were factors associated with successful completion to our ERAS protocol; whereas advanced age (p = 0.34) and discontinuation of PCA/epidural by POD 3 (p = 0.50) were not significant parameters. There was a significant difference in the length of stay (p < 0.01) following major and minor liver resection, of which the indications for surgery also varied significantly. There was no difference in hospital re-admission rate, and morbidity and mortality between major and minor liver resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Facilitating early mobilisation and reducing postoperative complications are keys to successful outcomes of ERAS in liver resection.

Fast track program in liver resection: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

FT program (FT) is a multimodal approach used to enhance postoperative rehabilitation and accelerate recovery. It was 1st described in open heart surgery, then modified and applied successfully in colorectal surgery. FT program was described in liver resection for the 1st time in 2008. Although the program has become widely accepted, it has not yet been considered the standard of care in liver surgery.

OBJECTIVES

we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of using the FT program compared to the traditional care (TC), on the main clinical and surgical outcomes for patients who underwent elective liver resection.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Cochran databases were searched to identify eligible articles that compared FT with TC in elective liver resection to be included in this study. Subgroup meta-analysis between laparoscopic and open surgical approaches to liver resection was also conducted. Quality assessment was performed for all the included studies. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) were considered as a summary measure of evaluating the association in this meta-analysis for dichotomous and continuous data, respectively. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was reported for both measures. I was used to assess the heterogeneity across studies.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2015, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies were identified, including 394 and 416 patients in the FT and TC groups, respectively. The length of hospital stay (LoS) was markedly shortened in both the open and laparoscopic approaches within the FT program (P < 0.00001). The reduced LoS was accompanied by accelerated functional recovery (P = 0.0008) and decreased hospital costs, with no increase in readmission, morbidity, or mortality rates. Moreover, significant results were found within the FT group such as reduced operative time (P = 0.03), lower intensive care unit admission rate (P < 0.00001), early bowel opening (P ≤ 0.00001), and rapid normal diet restoration (P ≤ 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

FT program is safe, feasible, and can be applied successfully in liver resection. Future RCTs on controversial issues such as multimodal analgesia and adherence rate are needed. Specific FT guidelines should be developed for liver resection.

The implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program following pancreatic surgery in an academic medical center of China

INTRODUCTION

The experience of implementing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in pancreatic surgery is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of ERAS program in pancreatic surgery in an academic medical center of China.

METHODS

Between May 2014 and August 2015, 124 patients managed with an ERAS program following pancreatic surgery (ERAS group), were compared to a historical cohort of 63 patients, treated with traditional perioperative care between August 2013 and April 2014 (no-ERAS group). Postoperative hospital stay (POPH), unplanned reoperation, unplanned readmissions, mortality and complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Mean POPH of all patients was significantly reduced (p = 0.007) from 17.1 days (no-ERAS group) to 11.7 days (ERAS group). Especially, mean POPH was reduced significantly in ERAS group of patient with no (7.0 vs. 8.7, p = 0.020) or grade I-II (10.6 vs. 14.4, p = 0.001) complications. There was no difference of complication grades and types between two groups, as well as the rate of mortality, unplanned reoperation and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The ERAS program is safe and feasible for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery, and it can decrease the postoperative hospital stay.