Guido H H Mannaerts1,2, Stefanie R van Mil3, Pieter S Stepaniak4, Martin Dunkelgrün5, Marcel de Quelerij6, Serge J Verbrugge7, Hans F Zengerink8, L Ulas Biter9. 1. Department of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. GMannaerts@tawamhospital.ae. 2. Department of Surgery, Tawam Hospital, PO Box 15258, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. GMannaerts@tawamhospital.ae. 3. Department of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.vanmil@sfvg.nl. 4. Operation room management, Catharina Ziekenhuis, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. pieter.stepaniak@gmail.com. 5. Department of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.dunkelgrun@sfvg.nl. 6. Department of Anesthesiology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.quelerij@sfvg.nl. 7. Department of Anesthesiology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.verbrugge@sfvg.nl. 8. Department of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. h.zengerink@sfvg.nl. 9. Department of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. u.biter@sfvg.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of morbid obesity and healthcare costs in general, interest is shown in safe, efficient, and cost-effective bariatric care. This study describes an Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) protocol and the results of implementing such protocol on procedural times, length of stay in hospital (LOS), and the number of complications, such as readmissions and reoperations. METHODS: Results of implementing an ERABS protocol were analyzed by comparing a cohort treated according to the ERABS protocol (2012-2014) with a cohort treated before implementing ERABS (2010-2012). Differences between both cohorts were analyzed using independent t tests and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: A total of 1.967 patients (mean age 43.3 years, 80% female) underwent a primary bariatric procedure between 2010 and 2014, of which 1.313 procedures were performed after implementation of ERABS. A significant decrease of procedural times and a significantly decreased LOS, from 3.2 to 2.0 nights (p < 0.001), were seen after implementation of ERABS. Significantly more complications were seen post-ERABS (16.1 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.013), although no significant differences were seen in the number of major complications. CONCLUSION: Implementation of ERABS can result in shorter procedural times and a decreased LOS, which may lead to more efficient and cost-effective bariatric care. The increase in complications was possibly due to better registration of complications. The main goal of an ERABS protocol is efficient, safe, and evidence-based bariatric care, which can be achieved by standardization of the total process.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing prevalence of morbid obesity and healthcare costs in general, interest is shown in safe, efficient, and cost-effective bariatric care. This study describes an Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) protocol and the results of implementing such protocol on procedural times, length of stay in hospital (LOS), and the number of complications, such as readmissions and reoperations. METHODS: Results of implementing an ERABS protocol were analyzed by comparing a cohort treated according to the ERABS protocol (2012-2014) with a cohort treated before implementing ERABS (2010-2012). Differences between both cohorts were analyzed using independent t tests and chi-squared tests. RESULTS: A total of 1.967 patients (mean age 43.3 years, 80% female) underwent a primary bariatric procedure between 2010 and 2014, of which 1.313 procedures were performed after implementation of ERABS. A significant decrease of procedural times and a significantly decreased LOS, from 3.2 to 2.0 nights (p < 0.001), were seen after implementation of ERABS. Significantly more complications were seen post-ERABS (16.1 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.013), although no significant differences were seen in the number of major complications. CONCLUSION: Implementation of ERABS can result in shorter procedural times and a decreased LOS, which may lead to more efficient and cost-effective bariatric care. The increase in complications was possibly due to better registration of complications. The main goal of an ERABS protocol is efficient, safe, and evidence-based bariatric care, which can be achieved by standardization of the total process.
Authors: Deborah S Main; William G Henderson; Katherine Pratte; Tia A Cavender; Tracy L Schifftner; Anne Kinney; Tamara Stoner; John F Steiner; Aaron S Fink; Shukri F Khuri Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J MacFie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Ronald H Clements; Kishore Yellumahanthi; Naveen Ballem; Mary Wesley; Kirby I Bland Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Guido H H Mannaerts; Rowaa E A Allatif; Fatima Y Al Hashmi; Arati Bhosale; Ahmad N Hammo; Sujoud H Isied; Warda A Qureshi; Omar S Al Hamad; Yasser Kayyal; Hmouda S T Al Afari Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Hugo Meunier; Yannick Le Roux; Anne-Lise Fiant; Yoann Marion; Adrien Lee Bion; Thomas Gautier; Nicolas Contival; Jean Lubrano; Fabienne Fobe; Marion Zamparini; Marie-Astrid Piquet; Véronique Savey; Arnaud Alves; Benjamin Menahem Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Ola S Ahmed; Ailín C Rogers; Jarlath C Bolger; Achille Mastrosimone; William B Robb Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 3.452