Enhanced recovery programme in gynaecology: outcomes of a hysterectomy care pathway

Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for women with gynaecological cancers

BACKGROUND

Gynaecological cancers account for 15% of newly diagnosed cancer cases in women worldwide. In recent years, increasing evidence demonstrates that traditional approaches in perioperative care practice may be unnecessary or even harmful. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme has therefore been gradually introduced to replace traditional approaches in perioperative care. There is an emerging body of evidence outside of gynaecological cancer which has identified that perioperative ERAS programmes decrease length of postoperative hospital stay and reduce medical expenditure without increasing complication rates, mortality, and readmission rates. However, evidence-based decisions on perioperative care practice for major surgery in gynaecological cancer are limited. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 3, 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes in gynaecological cancer care on length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, bowel functions, quality of life, participant satisfaction, and economic outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for the literature published from inception until October 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, and four Chinese databases including the China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), WanFang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Weipu Database. We also searched four trial registration platforms and grey literature databases for ongoing and unpublished trials, and handsearched the reference lists of included trials and accessible reviews for relevant references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ERAS programmes for perioperative care in women with gynaecological cancer to traditional care strategies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted the data and assessed methodological quality for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 (RoB 2) for RCTs. Using Review Manager 5.4, we pooled the data and calculated the measures of treatment effect with the mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) to reflect the summary estimates and uncertainty.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs with 747 participants. All studies compared ERAS programmes with traditional care strategies for women with gynaecological cancer. We had substantial concerns regarding the methodological quality of the included studies since the included RCTs had moderate to high risk of bias in domains including randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, and measurement of outcomes. ERAS programmes may reduce length of postoperative hospital stay (MD -1.71 days, 95% CI -2.59 to -0.84; I2 = 86%; 6 studies, 638 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may result in no difference in overall complication rates (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05; I2 = 42%; 5 studies, 537 participants; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low regarding the effect of ERAS programmes on all-cause mortality within 30 days of discharge (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.14 to 6.68; 1 study, 99 participants). ERAS programmes may reduce readmission rates within 30 days of operation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.90; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 385 participants; low-certainty evidence). ERAS programmes may reduce the time to first flatus (MD -0.82 days, 95% CI -1.00 to -0.63; I2 = 35%; 4 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the time to first defaecation (MD -0.96 days, 95% CI -1.47 to -0.44; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 228 participants; low-certainty evidence). The studies did not report the effects of ERAS programmes on quality of life. The evidence on the effects of ERAS programmes on participant satisfaction was very uncertain due to the limited number of studies. The adoption of ERAS strategies may not increase medical expenditure, though the evidence was of very low certainty (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.25; I2 = 54%; 2 studies, 167 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-certainty evidence suggests that ERAS programmes may shorten length of postoperative hospital stay, reduce readmissions, and facilitate postoperative bowel function recovery without compromising participant safety. Further well-conducted studies are required in order to validate the certainty of these findings.

Evaluate the Effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Versus Conventional Approach in Benign Gynecological Surgeries: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) model versus conventional approach in benign gynecological surgeries (incorporating various routes of surgery).

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial wherein patients undergoing gynecological surgery for benign indications from January 2019 to July 2020 were recruited and randomized into ERAS and conventional protocol groups using block randomization. The intended primary outcome was to compare the median length of hospital stay in both groups. “Fit for discharge” criteria were used to assess the length of stay as patients who belonged to hilly terrain with limited transportation facilities stayed for a longer duration.

Results

A total of 180 patients were recruited and 90 each was randomized into ERAS and conventional protocol groups. The difference in length of hospital stay between ERAS (36 hours, range 24-96 hours) and conventional group (72 hours, range: 24-144 hours) was significant (p<0.01). A statistically significant difference was noted in the time for recovery of bowel function and tolerance for diet in the ERAS group. No significant difference in complications and readmission (within 30 days) rate was seen between the two groups. Quality of life as assessed by the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Version (WHO-QOL BREF) on the day of discharge and day 30 was higher in the ERAS group in physical and psychological domains, while no difference was seen in environmental and social domains.

Conclusion

This study as an institutional experience strengthens the existing evidence regarding the efficacy of ERAS in reducing hospital stay and improving quality of life compared to the conventional perioperative management protocol.

Early Outcome of Enhanced Recovery Programs Versus Conventional Perioperative Care in Elective Open Left Side Colonic Carcinoma Surgery: Analysis of 80 Cases

According to recent clinical practice guidelines, enhanced recovery programs (ERP) have been practiced to improve surgical outcomes and decrease cost. However, these are still opposed by the traditional measures in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma that is still practiced with the concept of protection of anastomosis and decrease postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to report our experience in ERP in elective open left side colonic carcinoma surgery in comparison with the conventional perioperative care. The current prospective multicenter randomized controlled study included a total of 80 adult patients with left side colonic cancer who were eligible for elective colonic resection. Included patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group (A) where conventional perioperative care was performed and group (B) where ERP were applied. Follow-up was designed for at least 1 month to evaluate and compare hospital stay and postoperative complications. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups as regards demographic data and preoperative comorbidities. There were statistically significant less pain (P = 0.24), less postoperative nausea and vomiting (P = 0.045), and less hospital stay (P < 0.001) in group B than group A. Otherwise, there was no statistically significant difference in comparing the rest of postoperative surgical or non-surgical complications or rates of readmissions between the two groups. ERP are safe, reliable, simple, and applicable in open left side cancer colon surgery with no negative impact over the postoperative complications in comparison with the conventional care.

EVAN-G score in patients undergoing minimally invasive gynecology oncologic surgery in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been proven to decrease the length of hospital stay without increasing re-admission rates or complications. There are limited data on the satisfaction of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within ERAS programs. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction after minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within the ERAS program using the 'Evaluation du Vécu de l'Anésthésie Génerale (EVAN-G)' questionnaire.

METHODS

This observational retrospective study was conducted at the Paoli-Calmettes Institute between June 2016 and December 2018. All the included patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for a gynecologic malignancy. EVAN-G, a validated questionnaire, was used to measure peri-operative patient satisfaction. This questionnaire consists of 26 items assessing six elements: attention, privacy, information, pain, discomfort, and waiting time. Each element is assessed via a 5-step numerical scale and then transformed to a 0-100 scale according to the degree of satisfaction. The EVAN-G questionnaire was given to patients before surgery and collected during the post-operative consultation (2-3 weeks after surgery).

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery for gynecologic malignancy within the ERAS program. Of these, 92 patients were included in the study and 83 patients were excluded. The overall patient compliance rate with our ERAS program was 90%. The analysis of the EVAN-G score of all participants showed an overall high level of satisfaction with a mean score of 81.9 (range 41.6-100). Patients with peri-operative complications or having prolonged hospitalization also showed high levels of satisfaction with a mean score of 80.5 (41.6-100) and 83.2(55-100), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study we showed a high patient satisfaction with the ERAS program. When comparing length of stay and complications, neither extended length of stay nor development of complications after minimally invasive surgery impacted patient satisfaction.

Comparison of enhanced recovery protocol with conventional care in patients undergoing minor gynecologic surgery

Introduction

Data regarding the role of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in improving postoperative outcomes and postoperative compliance in patients undergoing gynecological surgery, in particular, minor laparoscopic and hysteroscopic gynecological procedures, are limited.

Aim

To investigate the impact of the ERAS protocol on time to ambulation, length of stay (LOS), readmissions and postoperative complications in patients undergoing minor gynecological surgical procedures.

Material and methods

A total of 104 patients undergoing minor laparoscopic and hysteroscopic gynecological procedures were randomized to the ERAS protocol or conventional care. Time to defecation, ambulation, and solid food intake, bleeding and LOS were recorded for each patient.

Results

The amount of intravenous fluid administered in the perioperative (p < 0.001) and postoperative period (p < 0.001) was significantly higher in the conventional care group than in the ERAS group. In addition, time to first defecation (p < 0.001), time to eating solid food (p < 0.001), and time to ambulation (p = 0.008) were shorter in the ERAS group compared to the conventional care group. Length of stay was also significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the conventional care group (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Implementation of ERAS protocols provides shorter LOS, less fluid intake, early return of bowel function and early mobilization without an increase in complication rate in women undergoing minor laparoscopic or hysteroscopic gynecologic surgery.

Short- and long-term outcomes following pelvic exenteration for gynae-oncological and colorectal cancers: A 9 year consecutive single-centre cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Radical pelvic exenteration can be undertaken for locally invasive or recurrent disease in both colorectal and gynaecological malignancies. In the UK this procedure is usually undertaken by the respective surgical specialties who have undergone divergent surgical training. This study describes and compares outcomes between colorectal and gynae-oncological teams following pelvic exenteration for primary and recurrent gynaecological and colorectal cancers in a single-centre multi-disciplinary team.

METHOD

A retrospective review of consecutive pelvic exenteration patients undertaken over a nine-year period in a tertiary referral centre. Analyses comparing short- and long-term morbidity and mortality outcomes were undertaken by chi-square test for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U for continuous variables. Cumulative survival rates were calculated according to the Kaplan-Meier method and factors associated with recurrence and survival determined using a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Thirty-four exenterations were undertaken; fourteen colorectal and twenty gynae-oncological. Morbidity was seen in 50% of colorectal and 75% of gynae-oncological patients. Recurrence was seen earlier and with greater frequency in the gynaeoncology group (44.4% and median time 11 months) than the colorectal group (21.4%, median time 41 months; p > 0.05). Survival in the gynae-oncology group was also lower than the colorectal group at 1-year (69.6% vs. 92.9%) and 5-years (58.0% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.115). The majority of gynae-oncological mortality occurred within 3-years of surgery, whilst the majority of mortality in the colorectal group was after 5-years.

CONCLUSION

Long-term patient outcome measures, including disease recurrence and 5-year survival, for colorectal exenteration appear better than for gynaeoncology patients, however, no statistical significant difference exists between short-term outcome measures between specialties. This is likely to be caused by different baseline pathologies and disease pattern influencing longer term prognosis but may also be a function of differing surgical thresholds and patient selection bias between specialties. Peri-operative and short-term morbidity appear equivalent despite divergent surgical backgrounds and training.