Increased postoperative day one discharges after implementation of a hysterectomy enhanced recovery pathway: a retrospective cohort study

Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional postoperative care in patients undergoing hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Hysterectomy is a common gynecological surgery associated with significant postoperative discomfort and extended hospital stays. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), a multidisciplinary approach, has emerged as a strategy aimed at improving perioperative outcomes and promoting faster patient recovery and satisfaction. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of ERAS protocols on clinical outcomes, such as hospital stay length, readmission rates, and postoperative complications, in patients undergoing gynecological hysterectomy.

METHODS

Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched for relevant studies published up to January 31, 2023. A total of seventeen studies were selected based on predefined eligibility and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random-effects model with the STATA SE 14.0 software, focusing on outcomes like length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and readmission rates.

RESULTS

ERAS protocols significantly reduced the length of hospital stays and incidence of postoperative complications such as ileus, without increasing readmission rates or the level of patient-reported pain. Notable heterogeneity was observed among included studies, attributed to the variation in patient populations and the specificity of the documented study protocols.

CONCLUSION

The findings underscore the effectiveness of ERAS protocols in enhancing recovery trajectories in gynecological hysterectomy patients. This reinforces the imperative for broader, standardized adoption of ERAS pathways as an evidence-based approach, fostering a safer and more efficient perioperative care paradigm.

The impact of enhanced recovery after gynaecological surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs have become the gold standard of care in many surgical specialities.

OBJECTIVES

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate how an ERAS program can impact outcomes across both benign and oncological gynaecological surgery to inform standard surgical practice.

SEARCH STRATEGY

An electronic search of the SCOPUS, Embase and PubMed Medline databases was performed for relevant studies assessing the use of ERAS in patients undergoing gynaecological surgery compared with those without ERAS.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The studies included were all trials using ERAS programs in gynaecological surgery with a clearly outlined protocol which included at least four items from the most recent guidelines and recorded one primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Meta-analysis was performed on two primary endpoints; post-operative length of stay and readmission rate and one secondary endpoint; rates of ileus. Further subgroup analyses was performed to compare benign and oncological surgeries.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty studies (7885 patients) were included in the meta-analysis; 15 randomised controlled trials and 25 cohort studies. 21 studies (4333 patients) were included in meta-analyses of length of stay. Patients in the ERAS group (2351 patients) had a shortened length of stay by 1.22 days (95% CI: -1.59 - -0.86, P < 0.00001) compared to those in the control group (1982 patients). Evaluation of 27 studies (6051 patients) in meta-analysis of readmission rate demonstrated a 20% reduction in readmission rate (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.97). Analysis of our secondary outcome, demonstrated a 47% reduction in rate of ileus compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS pathways significantly reduce length of stay without increasing readmission rates or rates of ileus across benign and oncological gynaecological surgery.

Impact of enhanced recovery implementation in women undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) with and without liposomal bupivacaine (LB) on opioid use, hospital length of stay (LOS), costs, and morbidity of women undergoing sacrocolpopexy.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of women who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy between April 1, 2009 and November 30, 2017. Costs for relevant healthcare services were determined by assigning 2017 charges multiplied by 2017 Medicare Cost Report's cost to charge ratios. Outcomes were compared among periods with multivariable regression models adjusted for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and concurrent hysterectomy and posterior repair.

RESULTS

Patients were subdivided into pre-ERAS (G1, n = 128), post-ERAS (G2, n = 83), and post-ERAS plus LB (G3, n = 91). The proportion of patients needing opioids during postoperative days 0-2 was significantly less for G3 (75.8%) compared with G1 (97.7%) and G2 (92.8%); P < 0.001). The median morphine equivalent units (MEU) with interquartile ranges, mean LOS, and adjusted mean standardized costs were significantly lower in G3 compared with the other two groups (35 [20-75] vs. 67 [31-109], and 60 [30-122] MEUs; 1.8 vs. 2.3 vs. 2.9 days; and $2391, $2975, and $3844, for G3, G2, and G1, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS pathway led to significant decreases in opioid use, LOS, and costs. Supplementation with LB further improved these measures.

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.

Enhanced recovery after posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis surgery: a national study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the implementation of a national enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for posterior deep infiltrating endometriosis (DIE) surgery on the length of hospital stay, the rate of postoperative complications, and readmission within 30 days.

DESIGN

Comparative exposed/nonexposed observational study.

SETTING

Study based on the French national medicoeconomic database of the Program of Medicalization of Information System.

PATIENTS

Seven hundred and sixty-four women who underwent DIE surgery were involved and matched (1:3 ratio) into two groups: ERAS group for the year 2019 and non-ERAS group for the year 2015.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgical management for posterior DIE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The length of hospital stay, the rate of postoperative complications during the initial hospital stay, and readmission within 30 days.

RESULTS

The ERAS group included 191 women, and the non-ERAS group included 573 women. The mean length of hospital stay was shorter in the ERAS group than in the non-ERAS group (4.28 ± 3.80 days vs. 5.42 ± 4.04 days, respectively). The rate of postoperative abdominal or pelvic pain syndromes was lower in the ERAS group than in the non-ERAS group (5/191 (2.62%) vs. 48/573 (8.38%), respectively; relative risk, 0.31 [0.125-0.7969]). The rate of postoperative complication and the rate of readmission within 30 days were not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ERAS has a significant positive impact on patient outcomes after DIE surgery. The length of hospital stay and abdominal or pelvic pain syndromes were reduced without increasing complications or readmission within 30 days.

Optimizing Robotic Hysterectomy for the Patient Who Is Morbidly Obese with a Surgical Safety Pathway

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Obesity is a growing worldwide epidemic, and patients classified as obese undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery are at increased risk for surgical complications. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of a surgical safety protocol known as the High BMI [Body Mass Index] Pathway (HBP) for patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m² undergoing planned robotic hysterectomy. Our primary outcome was the rate of all-cause perioperative complications in patients undergoing surgery with the use of the HBP.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

An academic teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 138 patients classified as morbidly obese (BMI ≥40 kg/m²) undergoing robotic hysterectomy.

INTERVENTIONS

The HBP was developed by a multidisciplinary team and was instituted on January 1, 2016, as a quality improvement project. Patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing robotic hysterectomy after this date were compared with consecutive historical controls.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-two patients underwent robotic hysterectomies on the HBP and were compared with 66 controls. There were no differences in age, BMI, blood loss, number of comorbidities, or cancer diagnosis. Since the implementation of the HBP, there has been a decrease in anesthesia time (-57.0 minutes; p = .001) and total operating room time (-47.0 min; p = .020), as well as lower estimated blood loss (median 150 mL [interquartile range 100-200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 100-300]; p = .002) and reduction in overnight hospital admissions (33.3% vs 63.6%; p <.001). In the HBP group, there were fewer all-cause complications (19.4% vs 37.9%; p = .023) and infectious complications (8.3% vs 33.3%; p = .001), and there was no increase in the readmission rates (p = .400). In multivariable analysis, the HBP reduced all-cause complications (odds ratio 0.353; p = .010) after controlling for the covariate (total time in the operating room).

CONCLUSION

The HBP is a feasible method of optimizing the outcome for patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing major gynecologic surgery. Initiation of the HBP can lead to decreased anesthesia and operating times, all-cause complications, and overnight hospital admissions without increasing readmission rates.

Outcomes of an Overnight-Stay Unit for Urogynecologic Surgery: Feasibility and Risk Factors for Failure of Next-Day Discharge

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of patients undergoing urogynecologic procedures with postoperative care in an overnight-stay unit at a tertiary care center.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 1644 women admitted to an overnight-stay unit at a Canadian tertiary care center after urogynecologic surgery between 2014 and 2018 was completed. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to identify risk factors for failed next-day discharge, defined as a delayed discharge of more than 24 hours, readmission within 30 days of surgery, or emergency room assessment within 7 days of surgery.

RESULTS

One thousand five hundred seventy-eight patients (96%) were discharged within 24 hours of surgery. Mean patient age was 53.7 ± 15.1 years, with 21.2% 70 years or older. Surgical approaches included laparotomies (8.9%), major vaginal surgery (70.9%), and open retropubic procedures (2.1%). Hysterectomies were performed in 1120 patients (68.1%). One hundred one patients (6.1%) were assessed in the emergency department within 7 days of surgery, and 57 (3.5%) were readmitted to hospital within 30 days of their procedure. Multivariable regression identified the following as risk factors for failed next-day discharge: pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-8.06; P = 0.010), longer operating time (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.79; P = 0.006, per 60 minutes), and intraoperative hemorrhagic complications (OR, 22.64; 95% CI, 5.83-88.00, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Admission to an overnight-stay unit with next-day discharge is feasible for most patients undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Factors associated with requiring a longer hospital stay, presentation to an emergency department, or readmission to hospital within 7 days include pulmonary disease, longer operating times, and intraoperative hemorrhagic complications.

Less is more: clinical impact of decreasing pneumoperitoneum pressures during robotic surgery

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of decreasing insufflation pressure during robotic gynecologic surgery. The primary outcomes were patient-reported postoperative pain scores and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include surgical time, blood loss, and intraoperative respiratory parameters. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing robotic surgery for benign gynecologic conditions by a single minimally invasive surgeon at an academic hospital between 2014 and 2017. Patients were categorized by the maximum insufflation pressure reached during the surgery as either 15, 12, 10, or 8 mmHg. Continuous variables were compared using analysis of variance and χ² test was used for categorical variables. 598 patients were included in this study with no differences in age, BMI, race, prior abdominal surgeries, or specimen weight between the four cohorts. When comparing cohorts, each decrease in insufflation pressure correlated with a significant decrease in initial pain scores (5.9 vs 5.4 vs 4.4 vs. 3.8, p ≤ 0.001), and hospital length of stay (449 vs 467 vs 351 vs. 317 min, p ≤ 0.001). There were no differences in duration of surgery (p = 0.31) or blood loss (p = 0.09). Lower operating pressures were correlated with significantly lower peak inspiratory pressures (p < 0.001) and tidal volumes (p < 0.001). Surgery performed at lower-pressure pneumoperitoneum (≤ 10 mmHg) is associated with lower postoperative pain scores, shorter length of stay, and improved intraoperative respiratory parameters without increased duration of surgery or blood loss. Operating at lower insufflation pressures is a low-cost, reversible intervention that should be implemented during robotic surgery as it results in the improved pain scores and shorter hospital stays.

Hospital-Associated Cost of Endometriosis in Canada: A Population-Based Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe the hospital-associated cost of endometriosis in Canada from April 2008 to March 2013.

DESIGN

Population-based descriptive study.

SETTING

Canada, with the exception of the province of Quebec.

PATIENTS

All women aged 15 to 59 years discharged with endometriosis between April 2008 and March 2013.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Over 5 years, 47 021 women were admitted for endometriosis, resulting in a total hospital cost of Canadian dollars (CaD) $152.21 million (US dollars [US $] 147.79 million) and per-case cost of CaD $3237 (US $3143). Uterine endometriosis accounted for 28.29% of cases, ovarian endometriosis 27.44%, and other endometriosis 44.27%. Cost for uterine endometriosis was the highest at CaD $4137 (US $4017) per case, followed by ovarian endometriosis (CaD $3506; US $3404) and other endometriosis (CaD $2495; US $2422). The highest number of cases were in the groups aged 35 to 39 years (20.77%) and 40 to 44 years (20.44%). Hysterectomy accounted for 29.57% of surgical procedures. Encounters with hysterectomy were the costliest at CaD $5062 (US $4915) per case, followed by the ones with other surgical procedures at CaD $2477 (US $2405) per case, and admissions with no surgical procedure at CaD $2164 (US $2101) per case.

CONCLUSION

The hospital cost associated with endometriosis was approximately CaD $30 million (US $29.56 million) per year, whereas uterine endometriosis, hysterectomy, and older age were found to have a higher average cost per case. Although this study focuses specifically on hospital admission and does not account for outpatient costs or indirect costs, it nonetheless highlights the economic burden of this debilitating disease on Canadian society during the study period.

Periprocedural outcomes comparing fibroid embolization and focused ultrasound: a randomized controlled trial and comprehensive cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

Uterine fibroids are a common problem for reproductive-aged women, yet little comparative effectiveness research is available to guide treatment choice. Uterine artery embolization and magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound surgery are minimally invasive therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treating symptomatic uterine fibroids. The Fibroid Interventions: Reducing Symptoms Today and Tomorrow study is the first randomized controlled trial to compare these 2 fibroid treatments.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to summarize treatment parameters and compare recovery trajectory and adverse events in the first 6 weeks after treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids seen at 3 US academic medical centers were enrolled in the randomized controlled trial (n = 57). Women meeting identical criteria who declined randomization but agreed to study participation were enrolled in a nonrandomized parallel cohort (n = 34). The 2 treatment groups were analyzed by using a comprehensive cohort design. All women undergoing focused ultrasound and uterine artery embolization received the same postprocedure prescriptions, instructions, and symptom diaries for comparison of recovery in the first 6 weeks. Return to work and normal activities, medication use, symptoms, and adverse events were captured with postprocedure diaries. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or χ² test. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline pain levels and fibroid load when comparing opioid medication, adverse events, and recovery time between treatment groups because these factors varied at baseline between groups and could affect outcomes. Adverse events were also collected.

RESULTS

Of 83 women in the comprehensive cohort design who underwent treatment, 75 completed postprocedure diaries. Focused ultrasound surgery was a longer procedure than embolization (mean [SD], 405 [146] vs 139 [44] min; P <.001). Of women undergoing focused ultrasound (n = 43), 23 (53%) underwent 2 treatment days. Immediate self-rated postprocedure pain was higher after uterine artery embolization than focused ultrasound (median [interquartile range], 5 [1-7] vs 1 [1-4]; P = .002). Compared with those having focused ultrasound (n = 39), women undergoing embolization (n = 36) were more likely to use outpatient opioid (75% vs 21%; P < .001) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications (97% vs 67%; P < .001) and to have a longer median (interquartile range) recovery time (days off work, 8 [6-14] vs 4 [2-7]; P < .001; days until return to normal, 15 [10-29] vs 10 [10-15]; P = .02). There were no significant differences in the incidence or severity of adverse events between treatment arms; 86% of adverse events (42 of 49) required only observation or nominal treatment, and no events caused permanent sequelae or death. After adjustment for baseline pain and uterine fibroid load, uterine artery embolization was still significantly associated with higher opioid use and longer time to return to work and normal activities (P < .001 for each). Results were similar when restricted to the randomized controlled trial.

CONCLUSION

Women undergoing uterine artery embolization have longer recovery times and use more prescription medications, but women undergoing focused ultrasound have longer treatment times. These findings were independent of baseline pain levels and fibroid load.

Enhanced Recovery Pathways in Gynecology and Gynecologic Oncology

IMPORTANCE

Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) are considered standard of care across a variety of surgical disciplines, but ERPs have not been widely adopted in gynecology.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe ERP principles and the role of ERPs in gynecology and gynecologic oncology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Collaboration Database, and PubMed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses of a substantial number of randomized controlled trials have shown that implementation of ERP protocols is associated with decreased length of hospital stay, a decrease in rates of postoperative complication, decreased morbidity, and cost savings while preserving patient satisfaction and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

High-quality evidence exists for improved outcomes among patients in ERPs. Enhanced recovery programs save resources and costs across the health care system. As quality metrics and bundled payments increase in health care, ERPs will have increasing prominence.