AIM: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been shown to reduce length of stay and peri-operative morbidity. However, there are comparatively few data on their cost effectiveness. The object of this systematic review was to appraise the current literature to determine the cost effectiveness of ERAS and to characterize how cost is reported and evaluated. METHOD: An electronic database search identified studies comparing ERAS with standard peri-operative care in colorectal surgery where an evaluation of cost effectiveness was a primary or secondary outcome. Cost data were converted to euros to enable a more standardized comparison of the studies. There were no limits on study design. RESULTS: Seven articles were included in the analysis. The reporting and evaluation of cost data were inconsistent. Reported cost for ERAS ranged from €1989 to €12,805 per patient. Although not all statistically significant, all studies demonstrated cost reductions with ERAS compared with non-ERAS although they were highly variable, ranging from €153 to €6537 per patient. CONCLUSION: Although the review has shown ERAS to be cost effective, there are some important inconsistencies and deficiencies regarding the reporting of data. Authors should therefore be encouraged to report cost data to supplement the literature detailing clinical efficacy. Colorectal Disease
AIM: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes have been shown to reduce length of stay and peri-operative morbidity. However, there are comparatively few data on their cost effectiveness. The object of this systematic review was to appraise the current literature to determine the cost effectiveness of ERAS and to characterize how cost is reported and evaluated. METHOD: An electronic database search identified studies comparing ERAS with standard peri-operative care in colorectal surgery where an evaluation of cost effectiveness was a primary or secondary outcome. Cost data were converted to euros to enable a more standardized comparison of the studies. There were no limits on study design. RESULTS: Seven articles were included in the analysis. The reporting and evaluation of cost data were inconsistent. Reported cost for ERAS ranged from €1989 to €12,805 per patient. Although not all statistically significant, all studies demonstrated cost reductions with ERAS compared with non-ERAS although they were highly variable, ranging from €153 to €6537 per patient. CONCLUSION: Although the review has shown ERAS to be cost effective, there are some important inconsistencies and deficiencies regarding the reporting of data. Authors should therefore be encouraged to report cost data to supplement the literature detailing clinical efficacy. Colorectal Disease
Authors: Hanan Goldberg; Chen Shenhar; Hadar Tamir; Roy Mano; Jack Baniel; David Margel; Daniel Kedar; David Lifshitz; Ofer Yossepowitch Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jason W Denbo; Morgan Bruno; Whitney Dewhurst; Michael P Kim; Ching-Wei Tzeng; Thomas A Aloia; Jose Soliz; Barbara Bryce Speer; Jeffrey E Lee; Matthew H G Katz Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Raed A Azhar; Bernard Bochner; James Catto; Alvin C Goh; John Kelly; Hiten D Patel; Raj S Pruthi; George N Thalmann; Mihir Desai Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 20.096