AIM: To compare the safety of fast-track rehabilitation protocols (FT) and conventional care strategies (CC), or FT and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) and FT and open surgery (OFT) after gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, WHO International Trial Register, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FT and CC or comparing LFT and OFT, with 10 or more randomized participants and about 30 d follow-up. Two reviewers independently extracted data on complications, anastomotic leak, obstruction, wound infection, re-admission between FT and CC or LFT and OFT after gastrointestinal surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs of FT vs CC or LFT vs OFT were included. Compared with CC, FT reduced overall complications and wound infection. However, anastomotic leak, obstruction and re-admission were not significantly reduced. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.60-0.78; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.71 (95%CI: 0.57-0.88; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.68-1.25; P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.67-1.15; P > 0.05) and pooled RR of 0.94 (95%CI: 0.73-1.22; P > 0.05) respectively. Compared with OFT, LFT reduced complications, with a pooled RR of 0.66 (95%CI: 0.54-0.81; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FTs are safe after gastrointestinal surgery. Additional large, prospective RCTs should be conducted to establish further the safety of this approach.
AIM: To compare the safety of fast-track rehabilitation protocols (FT) and conventional care strategies (CC), or FT and laparoscopic surgery (LFT) and FT and open surgery (OFT) after gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, WHO International Trial Register, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing FT and CC or comparing LFT and OFT, with 10 or more randomized participants and about 30 d follow-up. Two reviewers independently extracted data on complications, anastomotic leak, obstruction, wound infection, re-admission between FT and CC or LFT and OFT after gastrointestinal surgery. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTs of FT vs CC or LFT vs OFT were included. Compared with CC, FT reduced overall complications and wound infection. However, anastomotic leak, obstruction and re-admission were not significantly reduced. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of 0.69 (95%CI: 0.60-0.78; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.71 (95%CI: 0.57-0.88; P < 0.001), pooled RR of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.68-1.25; P > 0.05), a pooled RR of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.67-1.15; P > 0.05) and pooled RR of 0.94 (95%CI: 0.73-1.22; P > 0.05) respectively. Compared with OFT, LFT reduced complications, with a pooled RR of 0.66 (95%CI: 0.54-0.81; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION:FTs are safe after gastrointestinal surgery. Additional large, prospective RCTs should be conducted to establish further the safety of this approach.
Authors: Christopher D Raeburn; Forest Sheppard; Katherine A Barsness; Jyoti Arya; Alden H Harken Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Jörg C Kalff; Andreas Türler; Nicolas T Schwarz; Wolfgang H Schraut; Kenneth K W Lee; David J Tweardy; Timothy R Billiar; Richard L Simmons; Anthony J Bauer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Robert B Steinberg; Spencer S Liu; Christopher L Wu; David C Mackey; Jeffrey A Grass; Kjell Ahlén; Lennart Jeppsson Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 9.452