Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Surg Endosc. 2018 Jun;32(6):2746-2757. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5973-3. Epub 2017 Dec 12.

Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care after laparoscopic liver resections: a randomized controlled trial.

Author information

1
The Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
2
The Department of Anesthesiology, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
3
The Department of Nursing, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
4
The Department of Respiratory Therapy, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
5
The Department of Clinical Nutrition, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
6
Institution of Minimally Invasive Surgery of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
7
The Department of Mental Health, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
8
The Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
9
The Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 0094417@zju.edu.cn.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care.

METHODS:

A randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia.

RESULTS:

The study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION:

ERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications.

KEYWORDS:

Complications; Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS); Laparoscopic liver resection; Length of hospital stay; Pain control; Randomized controlled trial

PMID:
29234943
DOI:
10.1007/s00464-017-5973-3

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center