Xiaofei Ni1, Dan Jia2, Yan Chen1, Lei Wang1, Jian Suo3. 1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Hospital of Jilin University, 71Xinmin Street, Chaoyang District, Changchun, 130021, Jilin Province, China. 2. Department of Third Operation Room, First Hospital of Jilin University, 71Xinmin Street, Chaoyang District, Changchun, Jilin Province, China. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, First Hospital of Jilin University, 71Xinmin Street, Chaoyang District, Changchun, 130021, Jilin Province, China. suojian24@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has shown a few advantages in colorectal cancer surgery. However, the effectiveness of the ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery is still unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with traditional perioperative care (TC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for eligible RCTs comparing ERAS program with TC in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. The main outcomes included the average length of postoperative hospital stay (PHS), time to first flatus and defecation, overall complication, readmission, and mortality rates were undertaken. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs involving 1298 patients were included in our study (639 in ERAS group and 659 in TC group). ERAS group had shorter average length of PHS (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 2.00 day, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.52 to - 1.48, p = 0.00), time to first flatus (WMD - 12.18 h, 95%CI - 16.69 to - 7.67, p = 0.00), and time to first defecation (WMD - 32.93 h, 95%CI - 45.36 to - 20.50, p = 0.00) than TC group. In addition, the overall complication rates (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.86, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in ERAS group compared with TC group. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that ERAS program is a much better effective and safe protocol for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with TC. Hence, ERAS program should be recommended in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has shown a few advantages in colorectal cancer surgery. However, the effectiveness of the ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery is still unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with traditional perioperative care (TC). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for eligible RCTs comparing ERAS program with TC in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. The main outcomes included the average length of postoperative hospital stay (PHS), time to first flatus and defecation, overall complication, readmission, and mortality rates were undertaken. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs involving 1298 patients were included in our study (639 in ERAS group and 659 in TC group). ERAS group had shorter average length of PHS (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 2.00 day, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.52 to - 1.48, p = 0.00), time to first flatus (WMD - 12.18 h, 95%CI - 16.69 to - 7.67, p = 0.00), and time to first defecation (WMD - 32.93 h, 95%CI - 45.36 to - 20.50, p = 0.00) than TC group. In addition, the overall complication rates (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.86, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in ERAS group compared with TC group. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that ERAS program is a much better effective and safe protocol for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with TC. Hence, ERAS program should be recommended in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer; Enhanced recovery after surgery; Laparoscopic surgery; Meta-analysis
Authors: K C H Fearon; O Ljungqvist; M Von Meyenfeldt; A Revhaug; C H C Dejong; K Lassen; J Nygren; J Hausel; M Soop; J Andersen; H Kehlet Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2005-04-21 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Denise E Yeung; Elizabeth Peterknecht; Shahab Hajibandeh; Shahin Hajibandeh; Andrew W Torrance Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Piotr Małczak; Michał Wysocki; Hanna Twardowska; Alicja Dudek; Justyna Tabiś; Piotr Major; Magdalena Pisarska; Michał Pędziwiatr Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 4.129