Yaxing Shen1,2, Xiaosang Chen1, Junyi Hou3, Youwen Chen3, Yong Fang1, Zhanggang Xue3, Xavier Benoit D'Journo4, Robert J Cerfolio5, Hiran C Fernando6, Alfonso Fiorelli7, Alessandro Brunelli8, Jing Cang3, Lijie Tan1, Hao Wang9. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 10021, China. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery and Diseases of Esophagus, Aix-Marseille University, North Hospital, Chemin des Bourrely, 13915, Marseille Cedex 20, France. 5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 7. Thoracic Surgery Unit, Università Della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy. 8. Department of Thoracic Surgery, St. James's University Hospital, Bexley Wing, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK. 9. Department of Anesthesiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Shanghai, China. wang.hao2@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) would improve outcomes for three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS: Patients with esophageal cancer undergoing MIE between March 2016 and August 2018 were consecutively enrolled, and were randomly divided into 2 groups: ERAS+group that received a guideline-based ERAS protocol, and ERAS- group that received standard care. The primary endpoint was morbidity after MIE. The secondary endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and time to ambulation after the surgery. The perioperative results including the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) and Visualized Analgesia Score (VAS) were also collected and compared. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients in the ERAS+ group and 58 patients in the ERAS- group were included. Postoperatively, lower morbidity and pulmonary complication rate were recorded in the ERAS+ group (33.3% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.04, 16.7% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.04), while the incidence of anastomotic leakage remained comparable (11.7% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.54). There was an earlier ambulation (3 [2-3] days vs. 3 [3-4] days, p = 0.001), but comparable LOS (10 [9-11.25] days vs. 10 [9-13] days; p = 0.165) recorded in ERAS+ group. The ERAS protocol led to close scores in both SAS (7.80 ± 1.03 vs. 8.07 ± 0.89, p = 0.21) and VAS (1.74 ± 0.85 vs. 1.78 ± 1.06, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing MIE resulted in earlier ambulation and lower pulmonary complications, without a change in anastomotic leakage or length of hospital stay. Further studies on minimizing leakage should be addressed in ERAS for MIE.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine if enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) would improve outcomes for three-stage minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). METHODS: Patients with esophageal cancer undergoing MIE between March 2016 and August 2018 were consecutively enrolled, and were randomly divided into 2 groups: ERAS+group that received a guideline-based ERAS protocol, and ERAS- group that received standard care. The primary endpoint was morbidity after MIE. The secondary endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and time to ambulation after the surgery. The perioperative results including the Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) and Visualized Analgesia Score (VAS) were also collected and compared. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients in the ERAS+ group and 58 patients in the ERAS- group were included. Postoperatively, lower morbidity and pulmonary complication rate were recorded in the ERAS+ group (33.3% vs. 51.7%; p = 0.04, 16.7% vs. 32.8%; p = 0.04), while the incidence of anastomotic leakage remained comparable (11.7% vs. 15.5%; p = 0.54). There was an earlier ambulation (3 [2-3] days vs. 3 [3-4] days, p = 0.001), but comparable LOS (10 [9-11.25] days vs. 10 [9-13] days; p = 0.165) recorded in ERAS+ group. The ERAS protocol led to close scores in both SAS (7.80 ± 1.03 vs. 8.07 ± 0.89, p = 0.21) and VAS (1.74 ± 0.85 vs. 1.78 ± 1.06, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERAS protocol for patients undergoing MIE resulted in earlier ambulation and lower pulmonary complications, without a change in anastomotic leakage or length of hospital stay. Further studies on minimizing leakage should be addressed in ERAS for MIE.
Authors: John M Findlay; Richard S Gillies; Julian Millo; Bruno Sgromo; Robert E K Marshall; Nicholas D Maynard Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Donald E Low; William Allum; Giovanni De Manzoni; Lorenzo Ferri; Arul Immanuel; MadhanKumar Kuppusamy; Simon Law; Mats Lindblad; Nick Maynard; Joseph Neal; C S Pramesh; Mike Scott; B Mark Smithers; Valérie Addor; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: J K Lovely; P M Maxson; A K Jacob; R R Cima; T T Horlocker; J R Hebl; W S Harmsen; M Huebner; D W Larson Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: K Valkenet; J C A Trappenburg; J P Ruurda; E M Guinan; J V Reynolds; P Nafteux; M Fontaine; H E Rodrigo; D L van der Peet; S W Hania; M N Sosef; J Willms; C Rosman; H Pieters; J J G Scheepers; T Faber; E A Kouwenhoven; M Tinselboer; J Räsänen; H Ryynänen; R Gosselink; R van Hillegersberg; F J G Backx Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 6.939