BACKGROUND: The worldwide introduction of multimodal enhanced recovery programs has also changed perioperative care in patients who undergo liver resection. This study was performed to assess current perioperative practice in liver surgery in 11 European HPB centers and compare it to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. METHODS: In each unit, 15 consecutive patients (N = 165) who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Compliance was classified as "full," "partial," or "poor" whenever ≥ 80, ≥ 50, or <50 % of the 22 ERAS protocol core items were met. The primary study end point was overall compliance with the ERAS core program per unit and per perioperative phase. RESULTS: Most patients were operated on for malignancy (91 %) and 56 % were minor hepatectomies. The median number of implemented ERAS core items was 9 (range = 7-12) across all centers. Compliance was partial in the preoperative (median 2 of 3 items, range = 1-3) and perioperative phases (median 5 of 10 items, range: 4-7). Median postoperative compliance was poor (median 2 of 9 items, range = 0-4). A statistically significant difference was observed between median length of stay and median time to recovery (7 vs. 5 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative care among centers that perform liver resections varied substantially. In current HPB surgical practice, some elements of the ERAS program, e.g., preoperative counselling and minimal fasting, have already been implemented. Elements in the perioperative phase (avoidance of drains and nasogastric tube) and postoperative phase (early resumption of oral intake, early mobilization, and use of recovery criteria) should be further optimized.
BACKGROUND: The worldwide introduction of multimodal enhanced recovery programs has also changed perioperative care in patients who undergo liver resection. This study was performed to assess current perioperative practice in liver surgery in 11 European HPB centers and compare it to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles. METHODS: In each unit, 15 consecutive patients (N = 165) who underwent hepatectomy between 2010 and 2012 were retrospectively analyzed. Compliance was classified as "full," "partial," or "poor" whenever ≥ 80, ≥ 50, or <50 % of the 22 ERAS protocol core items were met. The primary study end point was overall compliance with the ERAS core program per unit and per perioperative phase. RESULTS: Most patients were operated on for malignancy (91 %) and 56 % were minor hepatectomies. The median number of implemented ERAS core items was 9 (range = 7-12) across all centers. Compliance was partial in the preoperative (median 2 of 3 items, range = 1-3) and perioperative phases (median 5 of 10 items, range: 4-7). Median postoperative compliance was poor (median 2 of 9 items, range = 0-4). A statistically significant difference was observed between median length of stay and median time to recovery (7 vs. 5 days, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Perioperative care among centers that perform liver resections varied substantially. In current HPB surgical practice, some elements of the ERAS program, e.g., preoperative counselling and minimal fasting, have already been implemented. Elements in the perioperative phase (avoidance of drains and nasogastric tube) and postoperative phase (early resumption of oral intake, early mobilization, and use of recovery criteria) should be further optimized.
Authors: P Brustia; A Renghi; L Gramaglia; C Porta; R Cassatella; R De Angelis; F Tiboldo Journal: J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 1.888
Authors: J Maessen; C H C Dejong; J Hausel; J Nygren; K Lassen; J Andersen; A G H Kessels; A Revhaug; H Kehlet; O Ljungqvist; K C H Fearon; M F von Meyenfeldt Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Kristoffer Lassen; Marielle M E Coolsen; Karem Slim; Francesco Carli; José E de Aguilar-Nascimento; Markus Schäfer; Rowan W Parks; Kenneth C H Fearon; Dileep N Lobo; Nicolas Demartines; Marco Braga; Olle Ljungqvist; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Ronald M van Dam; Edgar M Wong-Lun-Hing; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jan H M B Stoot; Joost R van der Vorst; Marc H A Bemelmans; Steven W M Olde Damink; Kristoffer Lassen; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Trials Date: 2012-05-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Andrew J Page; Aslam Ejaz; Gaya Spolverato; Tiffany Zavadsky; Michael C Grant; Daniel J Galante; Elizabeth C Wick; Matthew Weiss; Martin A Makary; Christopher L Wu; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-12-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Bobby V M Dasari; Rasha Rahman; Shakeeb Khan; Davinia Bennett; James Hodson; John Isaac; Ravi Marudanayagam; Darius F Mirza; Paolo Muiesan; Keith J Roberts; Robert P Sutcliffe Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Emad Ali Ahmed; Roberto Montalti; Daniele Nicolini; Paolo Vincenzi; Martina Coletta; Andrea Vecchi; Federico Mocchegiani; Marco Vivarelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Anna Lee; Chun Hung Chiu; Mui Wai Amy Cho; Charles David Gomersall; Kit Fai Lee; Yue Sun Cheung; Paul Bo San Lai Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Judene Mavrikis; Jan Witowski; Alexandros Adamos; Piotr Major; Michał Nowakowski; Andrzej Budzyński Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.064