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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Perioperative Regional Anesthesia Pain Outcomes in Children: A Retrospective Study of 3160 Regional Anesthetics in Routine Practice

OBJECTIVE

Randomized controlled trials indicate regional anesthesia (RA) improves postoperative outcomes with reduced pain and opioid consumption. Therefore, we hypothesized children who received RA, regardless of technique, would have reduced pain/opioid use in routine practice.

METHODS

Using a retrospective cohort, we assessed the association of RA with perioperative outcomes in everyday practice at our academic pediatric hospital. Patients 18 years or below undergoing orthopedic, urologic, or general surgeries with and without RA from May 2014 to September 2021 were categorized as single shot, catheter based, or no block. Outcomes included intraoperative opioid exposure and dose, preincision anesthesia time, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) opioid exposure and dose, PACU antiemetic/antipruritic administration, PACU/inpatient pain scores, PACU/inpatient lengths of stay, and cumulative opioid exposure. Regression models estimated the adjusted association of RA with outcomes, controlling for multiple variables.

RESULTS

A total of 11,292 procedures with 3160 RAs were included. Compared with no-block group, single-shot and catheter-based blocks were associated with opioid-free intraoperative anesthesia and opioid-free PACU stays. Post-PACU (ie, while inpatient), single-shot blocks were not associated with improved pain scores or reduced opioid use. Catheter-based blocks were associated with reduced PACU and inpatient opioid use until 24 hours postop, no difference in opioid use from 24 to 36 hours, and a higher probability of use from 36 to 72 hours. RA was not associated with reduced cumulative opioid consumption.

DISCUSSION

Despite adjustment for confounders, the association of RA with pediatric pain/opioid use outcomes was mixed. Further investigation is necessary to maximize the benefits of RA.

Long-term oncological outcome of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (single-incision plus one port) as a technical option for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to clarify the oncological safety of reduced-port laparoscopic surgery (single-incision plus one port) (RPS) for patients with rectal cancer.

METHODS

The clinicopathological data of 63 selected patients with clinical Stage I-III (T1-3 and N0-2) rectal cancer who underwent RPS of radical anterior resection between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The median distance of tumor from anal verge was 11 cm. Ordinarily, a multiport platform with three channels was placed in the 3-cm umbilical incision, and another 5- or 12-mm port was placed in the right lower abdomen.

RESULTS

The median operative time, amount of intraoperative bleeding, number of harvested lymph nodes, and length of distal margin were 272 min, 10 mL, 22 nodes, and 4.0 cm, respectively, and there was one (2%) patient with involvement of the radial margin. There were eight patients (13%) who required additional ports, and one patient (2%) who converted to open surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications occurred in one (2%) and 12 patients (19%), respectively. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 8 days. The median follow-up period was 79 months, and incisional hernia was observed in 3 (5%) patients at the platform site not the port site, and cancer recurrence occurred in four patients (6%). The 5-year relapse-free and overall survival rates were 100% and 100% in the patients with pathological Stage I disease, 94% and 100% in the patients with pathological Stage II disease, and 83% and 89% in the patients with pathological Stage III disease, respectively.

CONCLUSION

RPS in the selected patients with rectal cancer, performed by an expert laparoscopic surgeon, may be technically safe and oncologically acceptable as well as multiport laparoscopic surgery.

Knowledge, Implementation, and Perception of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Amongst Surgeons in Pakistan: A Survey Analysis

INTRODUCTION

An increasing shift towards non-communicable diseases and an existing high surgical burden of disease in low-middle-income countries (LMICs), such as Pakistan, has driven the need for implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS), a safe and cost-effective surgical service aimed at improving patient recovery and reducing post-operative complications. Despite countless benefits, there are few ERAS programs throughout Pakistan and sparse literature on healthcare professionals' views regarding ERAS. Without a deep understanding of healthcare professionals' perspectives on ERAS, underlying barriers and facilitators to a long-term ERAS implementation cannot be addressed and improved upon. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to better understand the knowledge, implementation, and perception of ERAS from the perspective of healthcare professionals across Pakistan.

METHODS

Upon receiving ethical approval from the McGill University Health Center (MUHC), a previously validated questionnaire was modified and a 29-question survey was developed and disseminated to healthcare professionals practising in Pakistan. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and potential correlations that exist between the implementation of ERAS and the participants' gender, employment setting, and surgical specialty were investigated using the chi-squared analysis with a p-value of 0.05 as the cutoff.

RESULTS

A total of 49 participants responded to this survey of whom 34 (69%) worked at a tertiary care teaching hospital whereas 15 (31%) worked at a private hospital. Surprisingly, 42 (85%) participants expressed being aware of the ERAS guidelines with only 30 (61%) either strongly agreeing or agreeing to successfully implementing ERAS into practice. The largest discrepancies in implementation were seen when discussing specific elements of the ERAS guidelines such as preoperative carbohydrate loading, practicing prolonged preoperative fasting, performing mechanical bowel preparation, performing active patient warming, and early postoperative removal of Foley's catheter. Surgeons employed at a private institution were more likely to discuss postoperative pain management and control, less likely to utilize prolonged fasting, more likely to perform regular body temperature monitoring, more likely to practice providing chewing gum to patients postoperatively, and more likely to perform early removal of the Foley's catheter.

CONCLUSION

An understanding of ERAS, the implementation of various elements, and a positive attitude toward its benefits definitely seem to be prevalent among healthcare professionals in Pakistan. However, key barriers and enablers specific to the underlying healthcare environment seem to be hindering the long-term successful implementation of ERAS across Pakistan. It is crucial for future studies to explore these barriers in further detail and involve the perspective of these key stakeholders to help enhance long-term ERAS adoption.

Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven valuable for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received traditional surgery. While for those receiving minimally invasive surgery (MIS), its efficacy and safety remain debatable. Materials and Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and Web of science, were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 23, 2022. Eligible articles were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. The comparison between ERAS and traditional care (TC) was performed. Primary outcomes of this study were postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, time to the first anal exhaust, and defecation. Results: Thirteen cohort studies covering 4308 patients were included. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS (weight mean differences [WMD]: -1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.33 to -1.45; P < .001), lower incidence of postoperative complications (risk ratios [RR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5-0.88; P < .001), lower 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; P < .05), and shorter time to the first defecation (WMD: -1.93; 95% CI: -3.26 to -0.59; P < .001), but unimproved mortality, reoperation rate, and time to the first anal exhaust (P > .05) compared with those in the TC group. Conclusions: ERAS was effective and safe for CRC patients receiving MIS from a real-world perspective. Hence, the implementation of ERAS should be recommended for minimally invasive CRC surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CRD42022321333.

Association of Hospital Bed Turnover With Patient Outcomes in Digestive Surgery

To determine the influence of hospital bed turnover rate (BTR) on the occurrence of complications following minor or major digestive surgery.

Background

Performance improvement in surgery aims at increasing productivity while preventing complications. It is unknown whether this relationship can be influenced by the complexity of surgery.

Methods

A nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted, based on generalized estimating equation modeling to determine the effect of hospital BTR on surgical outcomes, adjusting for patient mix and clustering within 631 public and private French hospitals. All patients who underwent minor or major digestive surgery between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018 were included. Hospital BTR was defined as the annual number of stays per bed for digestive surgery and categorized into tertiles. The primary endpoint was a composite measurement of events occurring within 30 days after surgery: inpatient death, extended intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and reoperation.

Results

Rate of adverse events was 2.51% in low BTR hospitals versus 2.25% in high BTR hospitals for minor surgery, and 16.79% versus 16.83% for major surgery. Patients who underwent minor surgery in high BTR hospitals experienced lower complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.97; P = 0.009), mortality (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98, P = 0.02), ICU admission (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99; P = 0.03), and reoperation (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.97; P = 0.002) compared to those in low BTR hospitals. Such differences were not consistently observed among patients admitted for major surgery.

Conclusions

High turnover of patients in beds is beneficial for minor procedures, but questionable for major surgeries.

Tackling Surgical Morbidity and Mortality through Modifiable Risk Factors in Cancer Patients

Despite advances in surgical techniques, surgical morbidity and mortality remain important public health problems. Postoperative complications often lead to greater morbidity and mortality, as well as increased length of hospital stay and medical costs. Therefore, a reduction in postoperative complications is particularly important with regard to positive long-term outcomes in patients with cancer. To improve patients’ postoperative prognosis, it is necessary to screen for and focus on modifiable risk factors and their subsequent resolution. Recently, it was reported that nutritional status, inflammation and surgical approaches are related to postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, in this review article, we describe the current evidence regarding modifiable risk factors influencing surgical morbidity and mortality as well as future directions for improved postoperative management in cancer patients.

Benefits of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program (ERAS) in Short-segment Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care that aims to reduce physiological and psychological stress, improve the quality of rehabilitation and speed up the recovery of patients. Our study aims to investigate the benefits of perioperative use of ERAS for short-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

We selected two 1-year periods: the first from before the establishment of the multidisciplinary ERAS team in January 2017 (pre-ERAS year 2016) and the second period when ERAS was applied widely in our hospital (ERAS year 2019). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of patients who had undergone short-level PLIF during these 2 periods. The primary outcomes were postoperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS) and off-bed time.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients were included; 95 patients in the pre-ERAS group were compared with 112 patients in the ERAS group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in baseline demographic. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS, bed-off time and earlier drainage tube and catheter removal time. The rate of postoperative complications differed significantly between the pre-ERAS and ERAS groups. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss, financial cost and opioid consumption than patients in the pre-ERAS group. The VAS and ODI scores, similar at baseline, were significantly lower in the ERAS group at postoperative day 3 (POD 3).

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of our ERAS protocol for patients undergoing short-level posterior lumbar fusion are evident in terms of reduced hospital stay and time to get out of bed, reduced incidence of postoperative complications, intraoperative blood loss, opioid use and hospital costs, and improved early postoperative pain and dysfunction.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery-Does the ERAS concept keep its promises]

INTRODUCTION

Perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concepts or fast-track are supposed to accelerate recovery after surgery, reduce postoperative complications and shorten the hospital stay when compared to traditional perioperative treatment.

METHODS

Electronic search of the PubMed database to identify systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SR) comparing ERAS and traditional treatment.

RESULTS

The presented SR investigated 70 randomized controlled studies (RCT) with 12,986 patients and 93 non-RCT (24,335 patients) concerning abdominal, thoracic and vascular as well as orthopedic surgery. The complication rates were decreased under ERAS following colorectal esophageal, liver and pulmonary resections as well as after implantation of hip endoprostheses. Pulmonary complications were reduced after ERAS esophageal, gastric and pulmonary resections. The first bowel movements occurred earlier after ERAS colorectal resections and delayed gastric emptying was less often observed after ERAS pancreatic resection. Following ERAS fast-track esophageal resection, anastomotic leakage was diagnosed less often as well as surgical complications after ERAS pulmonary resection. The ERAS in all studies concerning orthopedic surgery and trials investigating implantation of a hip endoprosthesis or knee endoprosthesis reduced the risk for postoperative blood transfusions. Regardless of the type of surgery, ERAS shortened hospital stay without increasing readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Numerous clinical trials have confirmed that ERAS reduces postoperative morbidity, shortens hospital stay and accelerates recovery without increasing readmission rates following most surgical operations.

Risk Factors and Clavien-Dindo Classification of Postoperative Complications After Laparoscopic and Open Gastrectomies for Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center, Large Sample, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Laparoscopy has been increasingly used for the surgery of gastric cancer. However, the postoperative complications are still under-investigated and the short-term results of laparoscopic gastrectomy remain controversial. This study aimed to explore the differences of postoperative complications between laparoscopic and open radical gastrectomies in patients with gastric cancer through the large sample size, retrospective cohort study, and evaluate the safety of laparoscopy in patients who underwent radical gastrectomy.

Patients and Methods

A total of 2,966 patients with gastric cancer (TNM I~III) who underwent laparoscopy or open gastrectomy from February 2009 to March 2016 were enrolled in this study. Complications were categorized according to the Clavien–Dindo classification. The incidence and severity of complications between laparoscopic and open gastrectomy were compared using one-to-three propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors related to postoperative complications.

Results

A total of 2,966 patients were included in the study, including 687 (23.2%) in the LG (Laparoscopy gastrectomies) group and 2,279 (76.8%) in the OG (open gastrectomies) group. After PSM, a well-balanced cohort of 2,373 patients (676 cases in the LG group and 1,697 cases in the OG group) was further analyzed. The results showed that the incidence of overall complications in the LG group was significantly less than the OG group (15.4% vs 20.8%, P=0.003). However, the severe complications of the LG group showed no difference towards the OG group (5.8% vs 5.8%, P=0.952). Multivariate analysis revealed that laparoscopic surgery is a protective factor for the reduction of postoperative complications. Age ≥60 years, ASA classification IIIc and estimated blood loss ≥200 mL were confirmed as independent risk factors of overall complications.

Conclusion

Compared with traditional open gastrectomy, LG is safe and feasible with less trauma and fewer complications for patients with gastric cancer.

Enhanced recovery after surgery on multiple clinical outcomes: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Previously, many meta-analyses have reported the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs on many surgical specialties.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the effects of ERAS pathways on multiple clinical outcomes in surgery.

DESIGN

An umbrella review of meta-analyses.

DATE SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

The umbrella review identified 23 meta-analyses of interventional study and observational study. Consistent and robust evidence shown that the ERAS programs can significantly reduce the length of hospital stay (MD: -2.349 days; 95%CI: -2.740 to -1.958) and costs (MD: -$639.064; 95%CI:: -933.850 to -344.278) in all the surgery patients included in the review compared with traditional perioperative care. The ERAS programs would not increase mortality in all surgeries and can even reduce 30-days mortality rate (OR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.23 to 0.67) in orthopedic surgery. Meanwhile, it also would not increase morbidity except laparoscopic gastric cancer surgery (RR: 1.49; 95%CI: 1.04 to 2.13). Moreover, readmission rate was increased in open gastric cancer surgery (RR: 1.92; 95%CI: 1.00 to 3.67).

CONCLUSION

The ERAS programs are considered to be safe and efficient in surgery patients. However, precaution is necessary for gastric cancer surgery.

Clinical efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has been identified to be beneficial in the amount of operations such as gastrointestinal surgery. However, the efficacy and safety in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy/laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP/LRP) still remain controversial.

Method

We searched randomized controlled trials and retrospective cohort studies comparing ERAS versus conventional care for prostate cancer patients who have undergone RALP/LRP. ERAS-related data were extracted, and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and the Jadad scale.

Result

As a result, seven trials containing 784 prostate cancer patients were included. ERAS was observed to be significantly associated with shorter length of hospital stay (SMD − 2.55, 95%CI − 3.32 to − 1.78, P < 0.05), shorter time to flatus (SMD − 1.55, 95%CI − 2.26 to − 0.84, P < 0.05), shorter time to ambulate (SMD − 6.50, 95%CI − 10.91 to − 2.09, P < 0.05), shorter time to defecate (SMD − 2.80, 95%CI − 4.56 to − 1.04, P < 0.05), and shorter time to remove drainage tube (SMD − 2.72, 95%CI − 5.31 to − 0.12, P < 0.05). Otherwise, no significant difference was reported in other measurements.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ERAS can reduce length of hospital stay, time to flatus, time to defecate, time to ambulate, and time to remove drainage tube in prostate cancer patients who have undergone RALP/LRP compared with conventional care.

Modern perioperative medicine - past, present, and future

Modern perioperative medicine has dramatically altered the care for patients undergoing major surgery. Anaesthetic and surgical practice has been directed at mitigating the surgical stress response and reducing physiological insult. The development of standardised enhanced recovery programmes combined with minimally invasive surgical techniques has lead to reduction in length of stay, morbidity, costs, and improved outcomes. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society and its national chapters provide a means for sharing best practice in this field and developing evidence based guidelines. Research has highlighted persisting challenges with compliance as well as ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of ERAS. There is also a growing need for increasingly personalised care programmes as well as complex geriatric assessment of frailer patients. Continuous collection of outcome and process data combined with machine learning, offers a potentially powerful solution to delivering bespoke care pathways and optimising individual management. Long-term data from ERAS programmes remain scarce and further evaluation of functional recovery and quality of life is required.