ERAS and Gastrointestinal Site Infections: Insights from a Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are proposed to enhance perioperative care, but their impact on various surgical outcomes requires further insight. Objective: This extensive meta-analysis aimed to systematically estimate the effectiveness of ERAS in reducing postoperative complications and improving recovery metrics. Materials and Methods: We meticulously searched multiple databases and rigorously screened studies, ultimately including 16 high-quality research articles in our meta-analysis. We carefully assessed heterogeneity using the Cochran Q test and I2 index. Results were visualized using forest plots, displaying effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The current meta-analysis reveals compelling evidence of ERAS protocols' impact on postoperative effects. Lung infection rates were significantly reduced, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.4393 (95% CI: 0.2674; 0.7216, p = 0.0012), highlighting the protocols' effectiveness. Although the reduction in surgical site infections (SSIs) was not significant, with an OR of 0.8003 (95% CI: 0.3908; 1.6389, p = 0.5425), the data suggests a trend toward benefit. Urinary tract infections (UTI) also showed a promising decrease, with an OR of 0.4754 (95% CI: 0.2028; 1.1143, p = 0.0871), revealing ERAS protocols may mitigate UTI risks. No significant effects were observed on postoperative anastomotic leakage or ileus, with ORs indicating neutrality. The incidence of readmission was similarly unaffected, with an OR of 1.4018 (95% CI: 0.6860; 2.8647, p = 0.3543). These outcomes underscore the selective efficacy of ERAS protocols, advocating for their strategic implementation to optimize surgical recovery. Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers compelling evidence supporting the implementation of ERAS in mitigating specific post-surgical conditions. It underscores the potential of ERAS to enhance recovery experiences and improve healthcare efficiency. Further targeted research is warranted to fully understand the impact of ERAS on SSI, anastomotic leakage, ileus, and readmissions and to optimize its benefits across diverse surgical populations.

Impact of enhanced recovery pathways on patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supports that enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) reduce length of stay and complications; however, these measures may not reflect the perspective of patients who are the main stakeholders in the recovery process. This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence regarding the impact of ERPs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Five databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of ERPs on PROs after abdominal surgery. We focused on distinct periods of recovery: early (within 7 days postoperatively) and late (beyond 7 days). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2.0. Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity hindered meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Fifty-six RCTs were identified [colorectal (n = 18), hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) (n = 11), upper gastrointestinal (UGI) (n = 10), gynecological (n = 7), urological (n = 7), general surgery (n = 3)]. Most trials had 'some concerns' (n = 30) or 'high' (n = 25) risk of bias. In the early postoperative period, ERPs improved patient-reported general health (colorectal, HPB, UGI, urological; very low to low certainty), physical health (colorectal, gynecological; very low to low certainty), mental health (colorectal, gynecological; very low certainty), pain (all specialties; very low to moderate certainty), and fatigue (colorectal; low certainty). In the late postoperative period, ERPs improved general health (HPB, UGI, urological; very low certainty), physical health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low to low certainty), mental health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low certainty), social health (gynecological; very low certainty), pain (gynecological, urological; very low certainty), and fatigue (gynecological; very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

This review supports that ERPs may have a positive impact on patient-reported postoperative health status (i.e., general, physical, mental, and social health) and symptom experience (i.e., pain and fatigue) after abdominal surgery; however, data were largely derived from low-quality trials. Although these findings contribute important knowledge to inform evidence-based ERP implementation, there remains a great need to improve PRO assessment in studies focused on postoperative recovery.

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery for upper gastrointestinal surgery: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has made great progress in the field of surgery, the guidelines point to the lack of high-quality evidence in upper gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials in four electronic databases that involved ERAS protocols for upper gastrointestinal surgery were searched through December 12, 2018. The primary endpoints were lung infection, urinary tract infection, surgical site infection, postoperative anastomotic leakage and ileus. The secondary endpoints were postoperative length of stay, the time from end of surgery to first flatus and defecation, and readmission rates. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that there was a decrease in rates of lung infection (RR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33 to 0.75), postoperative length of stay (MD = -2.53, 95%CI: - 3.42 to - 1.65), time until first postoperative flatus (MD = -0.64, 95%CI: - 0.84 to - 0.45) and time until first postoperative defecation (MD = -1.10, 95%CI: - 1.74 to - 0.47) in patients who received ERAS, compared to conventional care. However, other outcomes were not significant difference. There was no significant difference between ERAS and conventional care in rates of urinary tract infection (P = 0.10), surgical site infection (P = 0.42), postoperative anastomotic leakage (P = 0.45), readmissions (P = 0.31) and ileus (P = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocols can reduce the risk of postoperative lung infection and accelerating patient recovery time. Nevertheless, we should also consider further research ERAS should be performed undergoing gastrectomy and esophagectomy.