Lise Lode1, Erling Oma2, Nadia A Henriksen3, Kristian K Jensen2. 1. Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. lise_lode@hotmail.com. 2. Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, 2730, Herlev, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are evidence-based protocols associated with improved patient outcomes. The use of ERAS pathways is well documented in various surgical specialties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of ERAS protocols in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for original studies comparing ERAS with standard care in patients undergoing AWR. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were readmission and surgical site infection (SSI) and/or surgical site occurrences (SSO). RESULTS: Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. All were retrospective cohort studies including 453 patients treated according to ERAS protocols, and 494 patients treated according to standard care. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing AWR managed with ERAS had a mean 0.89 days reduction in LOS compared with patients treated with standard care (95% CI - 1.70 to - 0.07 days, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.87, p = 1.00) or SSI/SSO (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.11, p = 0.56) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ERAS in patients undergoing AWR was found to significantly reduce LOS without increasing the readmission rate or SSI/SSO. Based on the existing literature, ERAS protocols should be implemented for patients undergoing AWR.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are evidence-based protocols associated with improved patient outcomes. The use of ERAS pathways is well documented in various surgical specialties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of ERAS protocols in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for original studies comparing ERAS with standard care in patients undergoing AWR. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were readmission and surgical site infection (SSI) and/or surgical site occurrences (SSO). RESULTS: Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. All were retrospective cohort studies including 453 patients treated according to ERAS protocols, and 494 patients treated according to standard care. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing AWR managed with ERAS had a mean 0.89 days reduction in LOS compared with patients treated with standard care (95% CI - 1.70 to - 0.07 days, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.87, p = 1.00) or SSI/SSO (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.11, p = 0.56) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ERAS in patients undergoing AWR was found to significantly reduce LOS without increasing the readmission rate or SSI/SSO. Based on the existing literature, ERAS protocols should be implemented for patients undergoing AWR.
Authors: Elie A Akl; Xin Sun; Jason W Busse; Bradley C Johnston; Matthias Briel; Sohail Mulla; John J You; Dirk Bassler; Francois Lamontagne; Claudio Vera; Mohamad Alshurafa; Christina M Katsios; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Qi Zhou; Ed Mills; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2011-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Jeremy A Warren; Caroline Stoddard; Ahan L Hunter; Anthony J Horton; Carlyn Atwood; Joseph A Ewing; Steven Pusker; Vito A Cancellaro; Kevin B Walker; William S Cobb; Alfredo M Carbonell; Robert R Morgan Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Walker Ueland; Seth Walsh-Blackmore; Michael Nisiewicz; Daniel L Davenport; Margaret A Plymale; Mary Plymale; John S Roth Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Julian P T Higgins; Karla Soares-Weiser; José A López-López; Artemisia Kakourou; Katherine Chaplin; Hannah Christensen; Natasha K Martin; Jonathan A C Sterne; Arthur L Reingold Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-13
Authors: K K Jensen; B East; B Jisova; M López Cano; G Cavallaro; L N Jørgensen; V Rodrigues; C Stabilini; D Wouters; F Berrevoet Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.920
Authors: S T Adams; N H Bedwani; L H Massey; A Bhargava; C Byrne; K K Jensen; N J Smart; C J Walsh Journal: Hernia Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 2.920