Julio F Fiore1, Jimmy Bejjani1, Kate Conrad1, Petru Niculiseanu1, Tara Landry2, Lawrence Lee1, Lorenzo E Ferri3, Liane S Feldman4. 1. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Montreal General Hospital Medical Library, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 3. Division of Thoracic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 4. Steinberg-Bernstein Centre for Minimally Invasive Surgery and Innovation, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Electronic address: liane.feldman@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Enhanced-recovery pathways aim to accelerate postoperative recovery and facilitate early hospital discharge. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence regarding the influence of this intervention in patients undergoing lung resection. METHODS: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Eight bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies comparing postoperative outcomes in adult patients treated within an enhanced-recovery pathway or traditional care. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled our selection criteria (1 randomized and 5 nonrandomized studies). All the nonrandomized studies reported shorter length of stay in the intervention group (difference, 1.2-9.1 days), but the randomized study reported no differences. There were no differences between groups in readmissions, overall complications, and mortality rates. Two nonrandomized studies reported reduction in hospital costs in the intervention group. Risk of bias favoring enhanced recovery pathways was high. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of low-quality comparative studies have evaluated the influence of enhanced-recovery pathways in patients undergoing lung resection. Some studies suggest that this intervention may reduce length of stay and hospital costs, but they should be interpreted in light of several methodologic limitations. This review highlights the need for well-designed trials to provide conclusive evidence about the role of enhanced-recovery pathways in this patient population.
OBJECTIVE: Enhanced-recovery pathways aim to accelerate postoperative recovery and facilitate early hospital discharge. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence regarding the influence of this intervention in patients undergoing lung resection. METHODS: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement. Eight bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for studies comparing postoperative outcomes in adult patients treated within an enhanced-recovery pathway or traditional care. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Six studies fulfilled our selection criteria (1 randomized and 5 nonrandomized studies). All the nonrandomized studies reported shorter length of stay in the intervention group (difference, 1.2-9.1 days), but the randomized study reported no differences. There were no differences between groups in readmissions, overall complications, and mortality rates. Two nonrandomized studies reported reduction in hospital costs in the intervention group. Risk of bias favoring enhanced recovery pathways was high. CONCLUSIONS: A small number of low-quality comparative studies have evaluated the influence of enhanced-recovery pathways in patients undergoing lung resection. Some studies suggest that this intervention may reduce length of stay and hospital costs, but they should be interpreted in light of several methodologic limitations. This review highlights the need for well-designed trials to provide conclusive evidence about the role of enhanced-recovery pathways in this patient population.
Authors: S M Schellong; H Riess; M Spannagl; H Omran; M Schwarzbach; F Langer; W Gogarten; P Bramlage; R M Bauersachs Journal: Internist (Berl) Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 0.743
Authors: S M Schellong; H Riess; M Spannagl; H Omran; M Schwarzbach; F Langer; W Gogarten; P Bramlage; R M Bauersachs Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: Teodora-Cristiana Dumitra; Juan-Carlos Molina; Jack Mouhanna; Ioana Nicolau; Stephane Renaud; Ludovic Aubin; Aya Siblini; David Mulder; Lorenzo Ferri; Jonathan Spicer Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 2.089