Early rehabilitation after surgery program versus conventional care during perioperative period in patients undergoing laparoscopic assisted total gastrectomy

Perioperative Care Pathways in Low- and Lower-Middle-Income Countries: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Safe and effective care for surgical patients requires high-quality perioperative care. In high-income countries (HICs), care pathways have been shown to be effective in standardizing clinical practice to optimize patient outcomes. Little is known about their use in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where perioperative mortality is substantially higher.

METHODS

Systematic review and narrative synthesis to identify and describe studies in peer-reviewed journals on the implementation or evaluation of perioperative care pathways in LMICs. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, WHO Global Index, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and SciELO alongside citation searching. Descriptive statistics, taxonomy classifications and framework analyses were used to summarize the setting, outcome measures, implementation strategies, and facilitators and barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included. The majority of pathways were set in tertiary hospitals in lower-middle-income countries and were focused on elective surgery. Only six studies were assessed as high quality. Most pathways were adapted from international guidance and had been implemented in a single hospital. The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were cost of interventions and lack of available resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies from a geographically diverse set of low and lower-middle-income countries demonstrate increasing use of perioperative pathways adapted to resource-poor settings, though there is sparsity of literature from low-income countries, first-level hospitals and emergency surgery. As in HICs, addressing patient and clinician beliefs is a major challenge in improving care. Context-relevant and patient-centered research, including qualitative and implementation studies, would make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of an Enhanced Recovery Program for Gastrectomy A Retrospective Controlled Analysis

Background

Enhanced recovery programs (ERP) demonstrated decreased postoperative complication rate and reduced length of stay (LOS). Recently, data on the financial impact revealed cost reduction for colorectal, liver and pancreatic surgery. The present study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of ERP in gastric surgery.

Methods

ERP based on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society guidelines was implemented in our institution, in June 2014. Consecutive patients undergoing gastric surgery after ERP implementation (n = 71) were compared to a control group of consecutive patients operated before ERP implementation (n = 58). Primary endpoint was cost-effectiveness including detailed perioperative costs. Secondary endpoints were postoperative complications and LOS. Standard statistical testing (means, Mann–Whitney Fisher’s exact T test or Pearson Chi-square test) was used.

Results

Both groups were comparable regarding demographic details. Mean (SD) overall costs per patient were lower in the ERP group (€33,418 (17,901) vs €39,804 (27,288), P = 0.027). Lower costs were found for anesthesia and operating room (−€2 356), intensive or intermediate care (−€8 629), medication (−€1 196)), physiotherapy (−€611), laboratory (−€1 625)) and blood transfusion (−€977). Overall complication rates in ERP and control group (51% vs 62%, P = 0.176) were similar. Mean length of stay (SD) (14(13) days vs 17(11) days, P = 0.037) was shorter in the ERP group.

Conclusion

ERP significantly reduces overall, preoperative and postoperative costs in patients undergoing major gastric surgery.

Post-operative analgesia techniques after total knee arthroplasty: A narrative review

Post-operative knee pain management has become a challenge to provide early relief and pain-free postoperative care to the patient. The major objectives of post-operative analgesic treatment are to reduce opioid requirements, post-operative pain, and adverse events related to opioid intake. This narrative review aimed to document post-operative analgesia techniques after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The traditional approach involved high-dose opioid-based regimen, though opioid is considered strong analgesic, but are associated with a number of unwanted side effects to seek for alternative techniques. The role of sciatic nerve block in TKA pain is doubtful. Femoral Nerve Block (FNB) is still considered as the gold standard; however, FNB is associated with quadriceps weakness and risk of fall and sciatic block with foot drop. To overcome these drawback more distal nerve block techniques has evolved, namely saphenous nerve block in adductor canal, selective tibial which are claimed to provide comparable analgesia to that of femoral and sciatic nerve block. The combination of pre-emptive and multi-modal analgesia and technically well-delivered regional nerve blocks and postoperative physical therapy are an essential component which not only minimize the side effects of traditional opioid-based analgesia but also speed up functional recovery, increases patient satisfaction, and reduces the overall length of hospitalization and cost.

Enhanced recovery versus conventional care in gastric cancer surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been successfully integrated into peri-operative management of different cancer surgeries such as colorectal cancer. Their value for gastric cancer surgery, however, remains uncertain.

METHODS

A search for randomized and observational studies comparing ERAS versus conventional care in gastric cancer surgery was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Random-effects meta-analyses with inverse variance weighting were conducted, and quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale (PROSPERO: CRD42017080888).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies involving 2686 patients were included. ERAS was associated with reduced length of hospital stay (WMD-2.47 days, 95% CI - 3.06 to - 1.89, P < 0.00001), time to flatus (WMD-0.70 days, 95% CI - 1.02 to - 0.37, P < 0.0001), and hospitalization costs (WMD-USD$ 4400, 95% CI - USD$ 5580 to - USD$ 3210, P < 0.00001), with consistent results across open and laparoscopic surgery. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day mortality were similar, although a higher rate of readmission was observed in the ERAS group (RR = 1.95, 95% CI 1.03-3.67, P = 0.04). Patients in the ERAS arm had significantly attenuated C-reactive protein levels on days 3/4 and 7, interleukin-6 levels on days 1, and 3/4, and tumor necrosis factor-α levels on days 3/4 postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional care, ERAS reduces hospital stay, costs, surgical stress response and time to return of gut function, without increasing post-operative morbidity in gastric cancer surgery. However, precaution is necessary to reduce the increased risk of hospital readmission when adopting ERAS.

Integrating perioperative medicine with anaesthesia in India: Can the best be achieved? A review

Integrating perioperative medicine with anaesthesia is the need of the hour. Evolution of a new superspeciality called perioperative anaesthesia can improve surgical outcomes by quality perioperative care and guarantee imminent escalation of influence and power for anaesthesiologists. All original peer-reviewed manuscripts pertaining to surgery-specific perioperative surgical home models involving preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative initiatives spanning the past 5 years have been reviewed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Whether the perioperative surgical home model is feasible or still a distant dream in the Indian perspective has been analysed.

Body composition assessment and sarcopenia in patients with gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has recently been increased interest in the assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancer for the purpose of prognostication. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the current literature on body composition assessment in patients with gastric cancer and its impact on peri-operative outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting assessment of body composition in patients with gastric cancers. Meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes (overall and major complications, anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications) and survival was performed using random effects models.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies reported the assessment of body composition in 8402 patients. Methods used to assess body composition in patients with gastric cancers were computerized tomography (n = 26), bioelectrical impedance analysis (n = 9), and dual-energy-X-ray-absorptiometry (n = 3). Only 21 studies reported the impact of pre-operative sarcopenia on post-operative outcomes. Sarcopenic patients have significantly higher rates of postoperative major complications (n = 12, OR 1.67, CI_95% 1.14-2.46, p = 0.009), and pulmonary (n = 8, OR 4.01, CI_95% 2.23-7.21, p < 0.001) complications after gastrectomy. Meta-analysis of nine studies reporting overall survival after gastrectomy identified significantly worse survival in patients with pre-operative sarcopenia (HR 2.12, CI_95% 1.89-2.38, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of body composition has the potential to become a clinically useful tool that could support decision-making in patients with gastric cancer. However, variation in methods of assessing and reporting body composition in this patient group limits assessment of current post-operative outcomes.

Mesenteric Ischemia: Concepts of Care for the Bedside Nurse

Bedside nurses require excellent observational and assessment skills. Being knowledgeable about common diseases that often affect the population is essential; however, it is often more challenging to be informed about life-threatening conditions that rarely develop. Such is the case with mesenteric ischemia, a rare but complicated condition, which is difficult to diagnose, carries a degree of mortality of about 40%-70%, and is more common in people older than 50 years. Mesenteric ischemia requires that nurses be aware of the different etiologies and presentations of this uncommon disease to alert physicians of changes in a patient's condition and detect clues that may assist with an accurate and prompt diagnosis. Being educated about the diagnostic procedures, possible outcomes, and anticipated care and needs of patients affected by this medical complication is imperative to maintain the health status and well-being of these patients and their families.

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.

The impact of fast track protocols in upper gastrointestinal surgery: A meta-analysis of observational studies

BACKGROUND

Fast track surgery has been implemented in colorectal procedures during the last decade and is accompanied by significant improvement in patient outcomes during the early postoperative period. However, to date, its adoption in upper gastrointestinal surgery remains a matter of debate. In this context, we aimed to summarize the existing evidence in the international literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register databases for published randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis was performed with the RevMan 5.3.5 software.

MAIN FINDINGS

Thirty studies were finally included in the present meta-analysis. The post-operative morbidity was not influenced by the implementation of fast track surgery (FTS) (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.64-1.09). However, in cases treated with laparoscopic surgery fast track surgery seemed to reduce morbidity by 50% (p = .006). The overall mortality of patients was low in the majority of included studies and was not influenced by fast track surgery (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.50-2.52). The duration of postoperative hospitalization was significantly reduced with the adoption of FTS (MD -2.24, 95% CI -2.63 to -1.85 days). Concurrently, the overall cost was significantly reduced in cases treated with FTS (MD -982.30, 95% CI -1367.68 to -596.91 U.S dollars).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of our meta-analysis suggest that FTS seems to be safe in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery and reduce both the days of postoperative hospitalization and the overall cost. This observation should be taken into account in future recommendations to enhance the implementation of FTS protocols in current clinical practice.

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.

Why have we embraced minimally invasive surgery and ignored enhanced recovery after surgery?

There has been a lot of enthusiasm about minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in the surgical community in recent times. Some of the main reasons for this are an unmatched appeal to patients, doctors and healthcare systems alike. Push from the industry also serves as an important reason for its popularity. 'Enhanced recovery after surgery' (ERAS) is a programme of implementing multimodal interventions in the perioperative period to promote faster recovery. Even though MIS is an important component of ERAS protocols, the latter has not seen the reception the former has received. In this article, the authors present their personal viewpoint on the matter. The authors intend to highlight issues surrounding an increasing emphasis on MIS and to caution against the MIS operative technique superseding comprehensive perioperative care.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-benefit analysis of an enhanced recovery protocol for pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been shown to decrease complications and hospital stay. The cost-effectiveness of such programmes has been demonstrated for colorectal surgery. This study aimed to assess the economic outcomes of a standard ERAS programme for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

ERAS for pancreaticoduodenectomy was implemented in October 2012. All consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy until October 2014 were recorded. This group was compared in terms of costs with a cohort of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy between January 2010 and October 2012, before ERAS implementation. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative real costs were collected for each patient via the hospital administration. A bootstrap independent t test was used for comparison. ERAS-specific costs were integrated into the model.

RESULTS

The groups were well matched in terms of demographic and surgical details. The overall complication rate was 68 per cent (50 of 74 patients) and 82 per cent (71 of 87 patients) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·046). Median hospital stay was lower in the ERAS group (15 versus 19 days; P = 0·029). ERAS-specific costs were €922 per patient. Mean total costs were €56 083 per patient in the ERAS group and €63 821 per patient in the pre-ERAS group (P = 0·273). The mean intensive care unit (ICU) and intermediate care costs were €9139 and €13 793 per patient for the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups respectively (P = 0·151).

CONCLUSION

ERAS implementation for pancreaticoduodenectomy did not increase the costs in this cohort. Savings were noted in anaesthesia/operating room, medication and laboratory costs. Fewer patients in the ERAS group required an ICU stay.

Systematic review of anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy after laparoscopic total gastrectomy

AIM: To investigate the anastomotic complications of esophagojejunostomy (EJS) after laparoscopic total gastrectomy (LTG), we reviewed retrospective studies.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed for studies published from January 1, 1994 through January 31, 2015. The search terms included “laparoscopic,”“total gastrectomy,” and “gastric cancer.” First, we selected 16 non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LTG with open total gastrectomy (OTG) and conducted an updated meta-analysis of anastomotic complications after total gastrectomy. The Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the non-RCTs included in this study. Next, we reviewed anastomotic complications in 46 case studies of LTG to compare the various procedures for EJS.

RESULTS: The overall incidence of anastomotic leakage associated with EJS was 3.0% (30 of 984 patients) among LTG procedures and 2.1% (31 of 1500 patients) among OTG procedures in the 16 non-RCTs. The incidence of anastomotic leakage did not differ significantly between LTG and OTG (odds OR = 1.42, 95%CI: 0.86-2.33, P = 0.17, I² = 0%). Anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was reported in 72 (2.9%) of 2484 patients, and the incidence was 3.2% among LTG procedures and 2.7% among OTG procedures. The incidence of anastomotic stenosis related to EJS was slightly, but not significantly, higher in LTG than in OTG (OR = 1.55, 95%CI: 0.94-2.54, P = 0.08, I² = 0%). The various procedures for LTG were classified into six categories in the review of case studies of LTG. The incidence of EJS leakage was similar (1.1% to 3.2%), although the incidence of EJS stenosis was relatively high when the OrVil^TM device was used (8.8%) compared with other procedures (1.0% to 3.6%).

CONCLUSION: The incidence of anastomotic complications associated with EJS was not different between LTG and OTG. Anastomotic stenosis was relatively common when the OrVil^TM device was used.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in gastric cancer surgery

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the influence of enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) on outcomes after gastric cancer surgery. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies on outcomes of gastrectomy in enhanced recovery or fast-track programmes. The primary outcome measure was post-operative duration of hospital stay (LOHS), and secondary outcome measures were selected based inclusion in two or more studies. Statistical analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) and odds ratio (OR) as the summary statistics. Fourteen studies, totalling 1676 patients with gastric cancer were analysed, including nine randomized trials. LOHS was significantly shorter after ERP when compared with control patients (CON, SMD -1.10, 95% confidence interval -1.56 to -0.65, p < 0.001), but with significant heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 93%, p < 0.001). ERP was also associated with reduced serum inflammatory response (CRP: SMD -0.68 (-1.16 to -0.19), p = 0.007; IL-6: SMD -0.62 (-0.94 to -0.29), p < 0.001), less weight loss (SMD -0.79 (-1.11 to -0.46), p < 0.001), and lower cost (SMD -1.02 (-1.59 to -0.45), p < 0.001), as well as a trend toward shorter duration of intravenous infusion (SMD -2.70 (-5.35 to -0.05), p = 0.05). Inclusion in an ERP was not associated with increased post-operative morbidity (OR 0.83 (0.65 to 1.06), p = 0.13) or hospital readmission (OR 1.67 (0.88 to 3.19), p = 0.12). From this review the authors concluded that multimodal, standardized perioperative gastrectomy care appears feasible, safe and cost effective.