Impact of 2016 Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations on Outcomes after Hepatectomy in Cirrhotic and Non-Cirrhotic Patients

Implementation of an ERAS protocol on cirrhotic patients in liver resection: a cohort study

The development of laparoscopic liver surgery, the improvement in the perioperative care programs, and the surgical innovation have allowed liver resections on selected cirrhotic patients. However, the great majority of ERAS studies for liver surgery have been conducted on patients with normal liver parenchyma, while its application on cirrhotic patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an ERAS protocol in cirrhotic patients who underwent liver surgery. We present an analytical observational prospective cohort study, which included all adult patients who underwent a liver resection between December 2017 and December 2019 with an ERAS program. We compare the outcomes in patients cirrhotic (CG)/non-cirrhotic (NCG). A total of 101 patients were included. Thirty of these (29.7%) were patients ≥ 70 cirrhotic. 87% of the both groups had performed > 70% of the ERAS. Oral diet tolerance and mobilization on the first postoperative day were similar in both groups. The hospital stay was similar in both groups (2.9 days/2.99 days). Morbidity and mortality were similar; Clavien I-II (CG: 44% vs NCG: 30%) and Clavien ≥ III (CG: 3% vs NCG: 8%). Hospital re-entry was higher in the NCG. Overall mortality of the study 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. The application of the ERAS program in cirrhotic patients who undergo liver surgery is feasible, safe, and reproducible. It allows postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, and readmission rates comparable to those in standard patients.

Enhanced recovery after liver surgery in cirrhotic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have assessed enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in liver surgery for cirrhotic patients. The present meta-analysis assessed the impact of ERAS pathways on outcomes after liver surgery in cirrhotic patients compared to standard care.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing ERAS protocols versus standard care in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery were included. The primary outcome was post-operative complications, while secondary outcomes were mortality rates, length of stay (LoS), readmissions, reoperations, and liver failure rates.

RESULTS

After evaluating 41 full-text manuscripts, 5 articles totaling 646 patients were included (327 patients in the ERAS group and 319 in the non-ERAS group). Compared to non-ERAS care, ERAS patients had less risk of developing overall complications (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31-0.61, p < 0.001). Hospitalization was on average 2 days shorter for the ERAS group (mean difference - 2.04, 95% CI - 3.19 to - 0.89, p < 0.001). Finally, no difference was found between both groups concerning 90-day post-operative mortality and rates of reoperations, readmissions, and liver failure.

CONCLUSION

In cirrhotic patients, ERAS protocol for liver surgery is safe and decreases post-operative complications and LoS. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the results of the present analysis.

Enhanced recovery after surgery care to reduce surgical site wound infection and postoperative complications for patients undergoing liver surgery

This study comprehensively assessed the effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on wound infection and postoperative complications in patients undergoing liver surgery. The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, and Wanfang electronic databases were searched to collect published studies on the use of ERAS in liver surgery until December 2022. Literature selection was performed independently by two investigators according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality evaluation and data extraction were performed. RevMan 5.4 software was used in this study. Compared with the control group, the ERAS group showed a significantly lower incidence of postoperative wound infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41-0.84, P = .004) and overall postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.57, P < .001) and significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay (mean difference: -2.30, 95% CI: -2.92 to -1.68, P < .001). Therefore, ERAS was safe and feasible when applied to liver resection, reducing the incidence of wound infection and total postoperative complications, and shortening the length of hospital stay. However, further studies are required to investigate the impact of ERAS protocols on clinical outcomes.

Textbook Outcomes in Liver Surgery: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Assessment of the quality of care among patients undergoing hepatectomy may be inadequate using traditional "siloed" postoperative surgical outcome metrics. In turn, the combination of several quality metrics into a single composite Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS) may be more representative of "ideal" surgical care.

METHODS

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search for primary articles on post-operative TOLS evaluation after hepatectomy was performed. Studies that did not present hepatectomy outcomes, pediatric or transplantation populations, duplicated series, and editorials were excluded. Studies were evaluated in aggregate for methodological variation, TOLS rates, factors associated with TOLS, hospital variation, and overall findings.

RESULTS

Among 207 identified publications, 32 observational cohort studies were selected for inclusion in the review. There was a total of 90,077 hepatic resections performed from 1993 to 2020 in the analytic cohort. While TOLS definitions varied widely, all studies used an "all-or-none" composite structure combining a median of 5 (range: 4-7) discrete parameters. Observed TOLS rates varied in the different reported populations from 11.2 to 77.0%. TOLS was associated with patient, hospital, and operative factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review summarizes the contemporary international experience with TOLS to assess surgical performance following hepatobiliary surgery. TOLS is a single composite metric that may be more patient-centered, as well as better suited to quantify "optimal" care and compare performance among centers performing liver surgery.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been widely applied in liver surgery since the publication of the first ERAS guidelines in 2016. The aim of the present article was to update the ERAS guidelines in liver surgery using a modified Delphi method based on a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A modified Delphi method including 15 international experts was used. Consensus was judged to be reached when >80% of the experts agreed on the recommended items. Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system.

RESULTS

A total of 7541 manuscripts were screened, and 240 articles were finally included. Twenty-five recommendation items were elaborated. All of them obtained consensus (>80% agreement) after 3 Delphi rounds. Nine items (36%) had a high level of evidence and 16 (64%) a strong recommendation grade. Compared to the first ERAS guidelines published, 3 novel items were introduced: prehabilitation in high-risk patients, preoperative biliary drainage in cholestatic liver, and preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation at least 4 weeks before hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines based on the best available evidence allow standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver surgery. Specific studies on hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients following an ERAS program are still needed.

Liver drains after surgery: what is the real practice? An international snapshot from the Li.DR.A.S. survey

Despite current evidence, the use of drains in liver surgery is still controversial. We conducted an international survey to investigate the clinical use of drains in the E-AHPBA, A-HPBA and A-PHPBA communities. An open survey of 30 questions was prepared on Google-Form and distributed by email to all members. One hundred and ninety-one HPB surgeons responded to the survey. One hundred and twelve surgeons (58.6%) reported routine use of abdominal drains after liver resections. Eighty-eight (46.1%) responded that removal was driven by low volume and low bilirubin levels in the drains. For minor liver resection, 97 (50.8%) surgeons reported using drains selectively; in contrast, 134 (70.2%) surgeons prefer to use a drain always after major procedures. Among patients with cirrhosis, 87 (45.5%) surgeons reported routine drains placement, while 84 (44.0%) considered drains selectively. A no-drain policy was most prevalent among surgeons from North America (80%) versus Asian-Pacific (70.0%), European and African (60.8%), and South American (61.5%) surgeons. Among minimally invasive surgeons, 74.2% reported drain use only in selected cases versus 35.0% among surgeons who performed open surgery. The practice of draining after liver surgery is still highly variable among centers and surgeons around the world, with a high variability according to the underlying liver condition and planned surgical approach.

Implementation of multi-mode nursing insulation program for patients receiving surgery for spine tumor: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Spinal tumor surgery usually involved long operation time, large area of soft tissue resection and long wound, and was prone to hypothermia during the operation. Therefore, actively promoting insulation and optimizing the intraoperative insulation program have great potential in reducing the incidence of hypothermia and reducing the incidence of postoperative complications. In this study, we compared patients who did not implement multi-mode nursing insulation program (MNIP) with those who implemented MNIP, observing and comparing clinical outcomes, and complications in both groups, with the aim of developing an optimal management plan for the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods, respectively.

METHODS

We selected 2 periods of 1 year, before (n = 120 patients) and after MINP implementation (n = 120 patients). Data were collected on patient demographics, operative, perioperative details, temperature changes, anesthesia recovery effect, incidence of postoperative wound infection, length of hospital stay and complications. PS analyses were used for dealing with confounding bias in this retrospective observational study.

RESULTS

After PS matching, the outcomes of 120 well-balanced pairs of patients were compared (No-MNIP vs MNIP). There was no significant difference concerning the satisfaction survey. The results indicated that the MNIP had better insulation effect at 90 min, 120 min, 150 min after anesthesia induction and after surgery. There were 16 cases of complications in the No-MNIP group and 5 cases in the MNIP group postoperative, which have significant statistical difference.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia was effectively reduced by adopting the multi-mode insulation scheme, thus reducing the incidence of incision infection and shortening the length of hospital stay of patients.