Gaëtan-Romain Joliat1, Ismaïl Labgaa1, Martin Hübner1, Catherine Blanc2, Anne-Claude Griesser3, Markus Schäfer1, Nicolas Demartines4. 1. Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Medical Directorate, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. demartines@chuv.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to ease the postoperative recovery and improve clinical outcomes for various surgery types. ERAS cost-effectiveness was demonstrated for colorectal surgery but not for liver surgery. The present study aim was to analyze the implementation costs and benefits of a specific ERAS program in liver surgery. METHODS: A dedicated ERAS protocol for liver surgery was implemented in our department in July 2013. The subsequent year all consecutive patients undergoing liver surgery were treated according to this protocol (ERAS group). They were compared in terms of real in-hospital costs with a patient series before ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS group). Mean costs per patient were compared with a bootstrap T test. A cost-minimization analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-four ERAS patients were compared with 100 pre-ERAS patients. There were no significant pre- and intraoperative differences between the two groups, except for the laparoscopy number (n = 18 ERAS, n = 9 pre-ERAS, p = 0.010). Overall postoperative complications were observed in 36 (49 %) and 64 patients (64 %) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively (p = 0.046). The median length of stay was significantly shorter for the ERAS group (8 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006). The total mean costs per patient were €38,726 and €42,356 for ERAS and pre-ERAS (p = 0.467). The cost-minimization analysis showed a total mean cost reduction of €3080 per patient after ERAS implementation. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation for liver surgery induced a non-significant decrease in cost compared to standard care. Significant decreased complication rate and hospital stay were observed in the ERAS group.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to ease the postoperative recovery and improve clinical outcomes for various surgery types. ERAS cost-effectiveness was demonstrated for colorectal surgery but not for liver surgery. The present study aim was to analyze the implementation costs and benefits of a specific ERAS program in liver surgery. METHODS: A dedicated ERAS protocol for liver surgery was implemented in our department in July 2013. The subsequent year all consecutive patients undergoing liver surgery were treated according to this protocol (ERAS group). They were compared in terms of real in-hospital costs with a patient series before ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS group). Mean costs per patient were compared with a bootstrap T test. A cost-minimization analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-four ERAS patients were compared with 100 pre-ERAS patients. There were no significant pre- and intraoperative differences between the two groups, except for the laparoscopy number (n = 18 ERAS, n = 9 pre-ERAS, p = 0.010). Overall postoperative complications were observed in 36 (49 %) and 64 patients (64 %) in the ERAS and pre-ERAS groups, respectively (p = 0.046). The median length of stay was significantly shorter for the ERAS group (8 vs. 10 days, p = 0.006). The total mean costs per patient were €38,726 and €42,356 for ERAS and pre-ERAS (p = 0.467). The cost-minimization analysis showed a total mean cost reduction of €3080 per patient after ERAS implementation. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS implementation for liver surgery induced a non-significant decrease in cost compared to standard care. Significant decreased complication rate and hospital stay were observed in the ERAS group.
Authors: Massimiliano Greco; Giovanni Capretti; Luigi Beretta; Marco Gemma; Nicolò Pecorelli; Marco Braga Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ksenija Slankamenac; Nina Nederlof; Patrick Pessaux; Jeroen de Jonge; Bas P L Wijnhoven; Stefan Breitenstein; Christian E Oberkofler; Rolf Graf; Milo A Puhan; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
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: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
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: Jun-Jie Xiong; Kiran Altaf; Muhammad A Javed; Wei Huang; Rajarshi Mukherjee; Gang Mai; Robert Sutton; Xu-Bao Liu; Wei-Ming Hu Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-12-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Florence E Turrentine; Chaderick E Denlinger; Virginia B Simpson; Robert A Garwood; Stephanie Guerlain; Abhinav Agrawal; Charles M Friel; Damien J LaPar; George J Stukenborg; R Scott Jones Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Nicolai A Schultz; Peter N Larsen; B Klarskov; L M Plum; Hans-Jørgen Frederiksen; Henrik Kehlet; Jens G Hillingsø Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Catherine Chiu; Pedram Aleshi; Laura J Esserman; Christina Inglis-Arkell; Edward Yap; Elizabeth L Whitlock; Monica W Harbell Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 2.217