Types of surgical patients enrolled in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in the USA

Impact of "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" (ERAS) protocols vs. traditional perioperative care on patient outcomes after colorectal surgery: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgery is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications, including technical complications, surgical site infections, and other adverse events affecting patient safety and overall patient experience. "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" (ERAS) is considered a new standard of care for streamlining the perioperative care of surgical patients with the goal of minimizing complications and optimizing timely patient recovery after surgery. This systematic review was designed to investigate the evidence-based literature pertinent to comparing patient outcomes after ERAS versus conventional perioperative care.

METHODS

This systematic review evaluates the performance of ERAS protocols against conventional care in colorectal surgery, focusing on various postoperative outcome measures. An extensive search was conducted across multiple electronic databases and registers from July 2 to July 5, 2024, complemented by citation searching on November 30, 2024. This approach led to the identification of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the past decade, involving 1,476 adult participants. To ensure methodological rigor and transparency, the review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024583074).

RESULTS

The implementation of ERAS protocols resulted in a notable decrease in hospital stay duration compared to conventional care, with reductions varying between 3 and 8 days across studies. ERAS patients also had faster gastrointestinal recovery, including quicker times to bowel movement, defecation, and resumption of normal diet. Furthermore, patients in ERAS groups showed notably reduced postoperative complications and opioid consumption, with patients experiencing lower pain scores on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and reduced reliance on opioids. Additionally, nutritional recovery in ERAS patients was enhanced, with elevated albumin and total protein levels, alongside decreased inflammatory markers and improved immune function.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides compelling evidence supporting the integration of ERAS protocols into standard colorectal surgical practices. Future studies should aim to explore the variations in ERAS implementation, pinpoint the most impactful elements of ERAS, and work towards personalizing and standardizing these protocols across clinical settings. Additionally, evaluating long-term outcomes will help refine ERAS strategies, ensuring their enduring impact on patient recovery.

"Opioid free colorectal surgery: Outcomes of successful non-opiate colorectal surgery in a rural community teaching hospital"

BACKGROUND

Opiates present challenges due to side effects, including prolonged hospitalization and delayed bowel function. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols advocate for multimodal pain management, yet few studies explore entirely non-opiate approaches.

METHODS

134 elective ERAS colorectal surgery patients were reviewed from January 2019 to June 2020 ​at a single institution, with surgery performed by a single surgeon. Endpoints were pain scores, length of stay (LOS), and mortality.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the non-opiate cohort. Mann Whitney-U test found that postoperatively, non-opiate patients spent significantly less time in moderate or severe pain (p ​< ​.001). There was no significant difference between study groups (non-opiate and opiate) for the no or mild pain categories, LOS, or mortality. Risk factors for opiate use were younger age and prior opiate use. Gender, ASA class, stoma creation, malignancy, and surgical approach were not associated with increased opiates.

CONCLUSION

Non-opiate approaches in colorectal surgery are feasible and comparable to opiate regimens in our patient cohort.

Evaluating Implementation Costs of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been well documented in the current literature to improve healthcare outcomes by decreasing length of stay, resource utilization, and morbidity without increasing readmission rates or complications. This subsequently leads to a net decrease in hospital costs. However, the initial costs of implementing such a program have not been well described, which is crucial information for hospitals with less resources. The aim of this study was to provide a cohesive review of the current literature for the costs of implementing a colorectal surgery ERAS protocol.

METHODS

A comprehensive review was conducted on five databases (Google Scholar, Web of Science, PROSPERO, PubMed, and Cochrane) with the assistance of a professional librarian. All relevant English articles published between 1995 and June 2021 were screened for eligibility prior to inclusion in the review. Cost data were converted to US dollars based on the exchange rate at the end time of the study period for standardization.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included for review. The studies evaluated a range of 50-1295 patients through their respective ERAS programs, which were followed for 5 to 22 months. ERAS implementation costs ranged from $57 to $1536 per patient. Components for each ERAS program varied for each study, but ultimately, the greatest costs were attributed to personnel.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite data heterogeneity and inconsistencies between cost breakdowns, a majority of the implementation cost was found to be secondary to personnel. This review demonstrates the need for a more standardized approach for reporting ERAS implementation costs through an open database as well as a potential streamlining of the ERAS protocol to facilitate implementation in institutions with less financial resources.

Preoperative carbohydrate loading before colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Preoperative carbohydrate loading has been introduced as a component of many enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Evaluation of current evidence for preoperative carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery has never been synthesized.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched until May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing patients undergoing colorectal surgery with and without preoperative carbohydrate loading were included. Primary outcomes were changes in blood insulin and glucose levels. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using inverse variance random effects.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3656 citations, from which 12 RCTs were included. In total, 387 patients given preoperative carbohydrate loading (47.2% female, age: 62.0 years) and 371 patients in control groups (49.4% female, age: 61.1 years) were included. There was no statistical difference for blood glucose and insulin levels between both patient groups. Patients receiving preoperative carbohydrate loading experienced a shorter time to first flatus (SMD: - 0.48 days, 95% CI: - 0.84 to - 0.12, p = 0.008) and stool (SMD: - 0.50 days, 95% CI: - 0.86 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). Additionally, length of stay was shorter in the preoperative carbohydrate loading group (SMD: - 0.51 days, 95% CI: - 0.88 to - 0.14, p = 0.007). There was no difference in postoperative morbidity and patient well-being between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative carbohydrate loading does not significantly impact postoperative glycemic control in patients undergoing colorectal surgery; however, it may be associated with a shorter length of stay and faster return of bowel function. It merits consideration for inclusion within colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocols.