Riccardo Lemini1, Aaron C Spaulding2, James M Naessens2, Zhuo Li3, Amit Merchea1, Julia E Crook3, David W Larson4, Dorin T Colibaseanu5,6. 1. Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 2. Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for Science of Health Care Delivery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 3. Department of Health Sciences Research, Biostatistics Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. colibaseanu.dorin@mayo.edu. 6. Department of Health Sciences Research, Biostatistics Unit, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. colibaseanu.dorin@mayo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) provides many benefits. However, important knowledge gaps with respect to specific components of enhanced recovery after surgery remain because of limited validation data. The aim of the study was to validate a mature ERAS protocol at a different hospital and in a similar population of patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery from 2009 through 2016. Patients enrolled in ERAS are compared with those undergoing the standard of care. Patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, pain scores, and perioperative morbidity are described. RESULTS: Patients (1396) were propensity matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs non-ERAS). No significant difference was observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, sex, operative approach, and surgery duration. Median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 3 and 5 days (P < .001). Mean pain scores were lower in the ERAS group, measured at discharge from the postanesthesia unit (P < .001), on postoperative day 1 (P = .002) and postoperative day 2 (P = .02) but were identical on discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This ERAS protocol was validated in a similar patient population but at a different hospital. ERAS implementation was associated with an improved length of stay and pain scores similar to the original study. Different than most retrospective studies, propensity score matching ensured that groups were evenly matched. To our knowledge, this study is the only ERAS validation study in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) provides many benefits. However, important knowledge gaps with respect to specific components of enhanced recovery after surgery remain because of limited validation data. The aim of the study was to validate a mature ERAS protocol at a different hospital and in a similar population of patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery from 2009 through 2016. Patients enrolled in ERAS are compared with those undergoing the standard of care. Patient demographic characteristics, length of stay, pain scores, and perioperative morbidity are described. RESULTS:Patients (1396) were propensity matched into two equal groups (ERAS vs non-ERAS). No significant difference was observed for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, sex, operative approach, and surgery duration. Median length of stay in ERAS and non-ERAS groups was 3 and 5 days (P < .001). Mean pain scores were lower in the ERAS group, measured at discharge from the postanesthesia unit (P < .001), on postoperative day 1 (P = .002) and postoperative day 2 (P = .02) but were identical on discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This ERAS protocol was validated in a similar patient population but at a different hospital. ERAS implementation was associated with an improved length of stay and pain scores similar to the original study. Different than most retrospective studies, propensity score matching ensured that groups were evenly matched. To our knowledge, this study is the only ERAS validation study in a propensity-matched cohort of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.
Authors: Alexander B Stone; Michael C Grant; Claro Pio Roda; Deborah Hobson; Timothy Pawlik; Christopher L Wu; Elizabeth C Wick Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Arman Kahokehr; Tarik Sammour; Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Lisa Thompson; Andrew G Hill Journal: Int J Surg Date: 2008-12-03 Impact factor: 6.071
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: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Liane S Feldman; Scott R Steele Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: James P Moriarty; Paul R Daniels; Dennis M Manning; John G O'Meara; Narith N Ou; Tamara M Berg; Jordan D Haag; Daniel L Roellinger; James M Naessens Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Jan Wind; Jan Hofland; Benedikt Preckel; Markus W Hollmann; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Dirk J Gouma; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Jan Willem Fuhring; Cornelis H C Dejong; Ronald M van Dam; Miguel A Cuesta; Astrid Noordhuis; Dick de Jong; Edith van Zalingen; Alexander F Engel; T Hauwy Goei; I Erica de Stoppelaar; Willem F van Tets; Bart A van Wagensveld; Annemiek Swart; Maarten J L J van den Elsen; Michael F Gerhards; Laurens Th de Wit; Muriel A M Siepel; Anna A W van Geloven; Jan-Willem Juttmann; Wilfred Clevers; Willem A Bemelman Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Laura Ramirez-Caban; Akshaya Kannan; Emily R Goggins; Marie E Shockley; Lisa B Haddad; E Britton Chahine Journal: JSLS Date: 2020 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Giacomo Calini; Solafah Abdalla; Mohamed A Abd El Aziz; Hamedelneel A Saeed; Anne-Lise D D'Angelo; Kevin T Behm; Sherief Shawki; Kellie L Mathis; David W Larson Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-07-27