Xiao Liang1, Hanning Ying1, Hongwei Wang2, Hongxia Xu3, Minjun Liu3, Haiyan Zhou2, Huiqing Ge4, Wenbin Jiang1, Lijun Feng5, Hui Liu6, Yingchun Zhang7, Zhiying Mao3, Jianhua Li8, Bo Shen1, Yuelong Liang1, Xiujun Cai9. 1. The Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 2. The Department of Anesthesiology, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 3. The Department of Nursing, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 4. The Department of Respiratory Therapy, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 5. The Department of Clinical Nutrition, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 6. Institution of Minimally Invasive Surgery of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 7. The Department of Mental Health, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 8. The Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 9. The Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 0094417@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia. RESULTS: The study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000). CONCLUSION:ERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia. RESULTS: The study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000). CONCLUSION: ERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS); Laparoscopic liver resection; Length of hospital stay; Pain control; Randomized controlled trial
Authors: David B Auyong; Cindy Jo Allen; Joshuel A Pahang; Jonathan J Clabeaux; Kevin M MacDonald; Neil A Hanson Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Sebastiaan W Polle; Jan Wind; Jan W Fuhring; Jan Hofland; Dirk J Gouma; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Sven C Schmidt; Susanne Hamann; Jan M Langrehr; Conny Höflich; Jens Mittler; Dictmar Jacob; Peter Neuhaus Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2007-09-28
Authors: Ronald M van Dam; Edgar M Wong-Lun-Hing; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jan H M B Stoot; Joost R van der Vorst; Marc H A Bemelmans; Steven W M Olde Damink; Kristoffer Lassen; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Trials Date: 2012-05-06 Impact factor: 2.279