4.5 Review

Failure of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 1007-1014

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-020-03600-3

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery; ERAS; Failure; Colorectal surgery; Systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Enhanced recovery after surgery programs has been applied extensively in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, several studies have found that some patients fail from ERAS programs. It is important to identify these patients so that remedial action can be taken in a timely manner. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of ERAS failure and related risk factors following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods A literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases was performed. The search strategy involved terms related to ERAS, failure, and colorectal surgery. The main outcomes were definitions of ERAS failure and related risk factors. Results Seven studies including 1463 patients were analyzed. The definition of ERAS failure was mostly associated with a prolonged postoperative length-of-stay (poLOS). Twenty-four kinds of identified risk factors were divided into three parts, the operative part, the pathophysiological part, and the ERAS elements, of which operative factors including more intraoperative blood loss and longer operative duration were the most frequently identified. Conclusions ERAS failure was mostly related to a prolonged poLOS, and operative factors were the most frequently identified risk factors for ERAS failure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These findings will help physicians to take remedial action in a timely manner. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials following a standardized framework for evaluating ERAS programs are needed in the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available