| Literature DB >> 29169362 |
Zhengyan Li1, Qian Wang1, Bofei Li1, Bin Bai1, Qingchuan Zhao2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis is aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in gastric cancer patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy (LAG).Entities:
Keywords: Enhanced recovery after surgery; Fast track surgery; Gastric cancer; Laparoscopy-assisted gastrectomy
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29169362 PMCID: PMC5701340 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-017-1271-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1Flow chart for the selection of eligible studies
Characteristics of included studies
| Reference | Year | Type of study | Sample size | Surgery method | Outcomes | Follow-up duration | Age | BMI | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTS | CC | FTS | CC | FTS | CC | ||||||
| Kim et al. | 2012 | RCT | 22 | 22 | LAG | 1.2.4.5.6.7 | 2 weeks | 52.64 ± 11.5 | 57.45 ± 14.54 | 23.40 ± 3.17 | 23.77 ± 3.54 |
| Hu et al. | 2012 | RCT | 19 | 22 | LAG | 1.2.4.5.6.7 | 4 weeks | 59 (49–71) | 62.5(45–72) | 22.94 ± 2.23 | 22.99 ± 2.24 |
| Abdikarim et al. | 2015 | RCT | 30 | 31 | LAG | 1.4.7 | 30 days | 63 ± 12 | 62 ± 11 | NR | NR |
| Li et al. | 2016 | RCT | 67 | 60 | LAG | 1.4.7.8 | 2–21 months | 72.9 ± 6.7 | 71.8 ± 8.0 | 21.1 ± 2.5 | 20.4 ± 2.3 |
| Liu et al. | 2016 | RCT | 21 | 21 | LAG | 1.2.3.4.5.7.8 | NR | 69.2 ± 5.1 | 70.3 ± 5.8 | 21.5 ± 2.0 | 21.9 ± 2.3 |
RCT randomized controlled trials, FTS fast track surgery, CC conventional care, NR not reported, 1 time to first flatus, 2 C-reaction protein, 3 interleukin-6, 4 length of postoperative hospital stay, 5 hospitalization expenditure, 6 readmission rate, 7 postoperative complications, 8 albumin
EARS/FTS elements applied in the included studies
| Element | Kim et al. | Hu et al. | Abdikarim et al. | Li et al. | Liu et al. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preoperative counseling | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Avoid preoperative bowel preparation | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Preoperative carbohydrate loading | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| No pre-anesthetic medication | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Prophylaxis against thromboembolism | |||||
| Antimicrobial prophylaxis | |||||
| Standard anesthetic | √ | ||||
| Postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis | |||||
| Minimal invasive surgery | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Avoid nasogastric tube | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Prevent hypothermia | √ | √ | |||
| Perioperative fluid management | √ | √ | |||
| Avoid peritoneal drainage | √ | ||||
| Early urinary removal | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Postoperative analgesia | √ | √ | √ | √ | |
| Early oral feeding | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Early mobilization | √ | √ | √ | √ | √ |
| Audit |
Fig. 2Risk of bias summary of all included studies. Plus low risk of bias, minus high risk of bias, question mark unclear risk of bias
Fig. 3Meta-analyses of primary outcomes. a Postoperative hospital stay. b Cost of hospitalization. c Postoperative complications. d Readmission rate
Fig. 4Meta-analyses of secondary outcomes. a Time to first flatus. b Ambulation time. c Time to start diet. d C-reaction protein. e Albumin