INTRODUCTION: Fast track methodology or enhanced recovery schemes have gained increasing popularity in perioperative care. While evidence is strong for colorectal surgery, its importance in gastric and oesophageal surgery has yet to be established. This article reviews the evidence of enhanced recovery schemes on outcome for this type of surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted up to March 2014. Studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria. RESULTS: From 34 articles reviewed, 18 eligible studies were identified: 7 on gastric and 11 on oesophageal resection. Three randomised controlled trials, five case-controlled studies and ten case series were identified. The reported protocols included changes to each stage of the patient journey from pre to postoperative care. The specific focus following oesophageal resections was on early mobilisation, a reduction in intensive care unit stay, early drain removal and early (or no) contrast swallow studies. Following gastric resections, the emphasis was on reducing epidural anaesthesia along with re-establishing oral intake in the first three postoperative days and early removal of nasogastric tubes. In the papers reviewed, mortality rates following fast track surgery were 0.8% (9/1,075) for oesophageal resection and 0% (0/329) for gastric resection. The reported morbidity rate was 16.5% (54/329) following gastric resection and 38.6% (396/1,075) following oesophageal resection. Length of stay was reduced in both groups compared with conventional recovery groups in comparative studies. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for enhanced recovery schemes following gastric and oesophageal resection is weak, with only three (low volume) published randomised controlled trials. However, the enhanced recovery approach appears safe and may be associated with a reduction in length of stay.
INTRODUCTION: Fast track methodology or enhanced recovery schemes have gained increasing popularity in perioperative care. While evidence is strong for colorectal surgery, its importance in gastric and oesophageal surgery has yet to be established. This article reviews the evidence of enhanced recovery schemes on outcome for this type of surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted up to March 2014. Studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria. RESULTS: From 34 articles reviewed, 18 eligible studies were identified: 7 on gastric and 11 on oesophageal resection. Three randomised controlled trials, five case-controlled studies and ten case series were identified. The reported protocols included changes to each stage of the patient journey from pre to postoperative care. The specific focus following oesophageal resections was on early mobilisation, a reduction in intensive care unit stay, early drain removal and early (or no) contrast swallow studies. Following gastric resections, the emphasis was on reducing epidural anaesthesia along with re-establishing oral intake in the first three postoperative days and early removal of nasogastric tubes. In the papers reviewed, mortality rates following fast track surgery were 0.8% (9/1,075) for oesophageal resection and 0% (0/329) for gastric resection. The reported morbidity rate was 16.5% (54/329) following gastric resection and 38.6% (396/1,075) following oesophageal resection. Length of stay was reduced in both groups compared with conventional recovery groups in comparative studies. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for enhanced recovery schemes following gastric and oesophageal resection is weak, with only three (low volume) published randomised controlled trials. However, the enhanced recovery approach appears safe and may be associated with a reduction in length of stay.
Authors: Peter Jüni; Franziska Holenstein; Jonathan Sterne; Christopher Bartlett; Matthias Egger Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Donald E Low; Sonia Kunz; Drew Schembre; Henry Otero; Tom Malpass; Alex Hsi; Guobin Song; Richard Hinke; Richard A Kozarek Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-08-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Robert James Cerfolio; Ayesha S Bryant; Cynthia S Bass; Jeana R Alexander; Alfred A Bartolucci Journal: Chest Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: David Cunningham; William H Allum; Sally P Stenning; Jeremy N Thompson; Cornelis J H Van de Velde; Marianne Nicolson; J Howard Scarffe; Fiona J Lofts; Stephen J Falk; Timothy J Iveson; David B Smith; Ruth E Langley; Monica Verma; Simon Weeden; Yu Jo Chua Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Christoph Treese; Pedro Sanchez; Patricia Grabowski; Erika Berg; Hendrik Bläker; Martin Kruschewski; Oliver Haase; Michael Hummel; Severin Daum Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-28 Impact factor: 3.240