Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Guidelines for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. A systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Rectal/Pelvic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Fast‐track surgery: the next revolution in surgical care following laparoscopy Effect of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: A randomized controlled trial. Initial Experiences of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in Esophageal Surgery Eight years of experience with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in patients with colon cancer: Impact of measures to improve adherence. Observation of clinical efficacy of application of enhanced recovery after surgery in perioperative period on esophageal carcinoma patients. The effect of formalizing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy with a protocol. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Attenuates Stress and Accelerates Recovery in Patients After Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Improving recovery after elective degenerative spine surgery: 5-year experience with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. Laparoscopic-Assisted and Open High Anterior Resection within an ERAS Protocol Enhanced Recoveryafter Colorectal Surgery. Results from Aprospective Observational Two-Centre Study A prospective cohort study to investigate cost-minimisation, of Traditional open, open fAst track recovery and laParoscopic fASt track multimodal management, for surgical patients with colon carcinomas (TAPAS study) Safety and efficacy of an “enhanced recovery after surgery” protocol for patients undergoing colon cancer surgery: a multi-institutional controlled study Adherence to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols across a High-Volume Gastrointestinal Surgical Service The effect of enhanced recovery program for patients undergoing partial laparoscopic hepatectomy of liver cancer Two-day Hospital Stay After Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery under an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Methods for Development of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer Guidelines Does enhanced recovery reduce postoperative ileus after colorectal surgery?
Background Protocol s for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence -based guidelines for best perioperative care . Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and , as a result of this , also reduce length-of-stay in hospital . There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy . Methods An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ® ) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence -based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients . Data were retrieved from st and ard data bases and personal archives . Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group . The quality of evidence was rated “ high ” , “ moderate ” , “ low ” or “ very low ” . Recommendations were grade d as “ strong ” or “ weak ” . Results Comprehensive guidelines are presented . Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items . The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations . Conclusions The present evidence -based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy . A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders . It facilitates multi-institutional prospect i ve cohort registries and adequately powered r and omised trials BACKGROUND & AIMS Protocol s for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence -based guidelines for best perioperative care . Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and , as a result of this , also reduce length-of-stay in hospital . There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy . METHODS An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ® ) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence -based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients . Data were retrieved from st and ard data bases and personal archives . Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group . The quality of evidence was rated " high " , " moderate " , " low " or " very low " . Recommendations were grade d as " strong " or " weak " . RESULTS Comprehensive guidelines are presented . Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items . The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations . CONCLUSIONS The present evidence -based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy . A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders . It facilitates multi-institutional prospect i ve cohort registries and adequately powered r and omised trials INTRODUCTION Colorectal surgery has been associated with a complication rate of 15 - 20 % and mean post-operative inpatient stays of 6 - 11 days . The principles of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) are well established and have been developed to optimise peri-operative care and facilitate discharge . The purpose of this systematic review is to present an up date d review of peri-operative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and ERAS group recommendations . METHODS Systematic search es of the PubMed and Embase ™ data bases and the Cochrane library were conducted . A h and search of bibliographies of identified studies was conducted to identify any additional articles missed by the initial search strategy . RESULTS A total of 59 relevant studies were identified . These included six r and omised controlled trials and seven clinical controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria . These studies showed reductions in duration of inpatient stays in the ERAS groups compared with more traditional care as well as reductions in morbidity and mortality rates . CONCLUSIONS Review ing the data reveals that ERAS protocol s have a role in reducing post-operative morbidity and result in an accelerated recovery following colorectal surgery . Similarly , both primary and overall hospital stays are reduced significantly . However , the available evidence suggests that ERAS protocol s do not reduce hospital readmissions or mortality . These findings help to confirm that ERAS protocol s should now be implemented as the st and ard approach for peri-operative care in colorectal surgery Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in rectal/pelvic surgery , and to provide grade d recommendations for items for an evidence d-based enhanced recovery protocol . Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses , r and omized controlled trials and large prospect i ve cohorts . For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway , available English- language literature was examined , review ed and grade d. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group . Results For most of the protocol items , recommendations are based on good- quality trials or meta-analyses of good- quality trials ( evidence grade : high or moderate ) . Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway , the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Society , European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ( ESPEN ) and International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition ( IASMEN ) present a comprehensive evidence -based consensus review of perioperative care for rectal surgery Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide grade d recommendations for items for an evidence d-based enhanced perioperative protocol . Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses , r and omised controlled trials and large prospect i ve cohorts . For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway , available English- language literature was examined , review ed and grade d. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group . Results For most of the protocol items , recommendations are based on good- quality trials or meta-analyses of good- quality trials ( quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system ) . Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway , the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Society , International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition ( IASMEN ) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ( ESPEN ) present a comprehensive evidence -based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery Fast-track surgery , also named enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) , is in my opinion the most important innovation after the advent of laparoscopy ( in the 1990s ) in the field of  colorectal surgery  ( as in other fields of surgery ) . It is defined as a multimodal pathway aim ing to reduce surgical stress by using pain-free procedures with less organ dysfunction , less morbidity and better recovery . ERAS has been popularized by Henrik Kehlet and his team since the early 2000s [ 1 ] and has rapidly gained popularity around the world because of its remarkable benefits and safety . The concept of ERAS is to make use of the improvement of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques , the development of minimally invasive surgery and evidence -based perioperative care . It involves a number of items , beginning from the first medical visit before surgery to discharge . The items are all evidence based being derived from r and omized controlled trials or meta-analyses . The reader can find the references related to the ERAS items in the valuable consensus review published by the European ERAS group [ 2 ] and the paper of Kehlet and Wilmore [ 3 ] . Through this pathway , the patient can benefit from the best available evidence in anaesthesia , analgesia , perioperative fluid management , surgical procedures , nutrition and ambulation . I will focus in this editorial on the role of ERAS in colorectal surgery , but readers should be aware that ERAS has been applied and vali date d in other abdominal procedures , and in urology , gynaecology , vascular sugery , endocrine surgery , orthopaedic surgery , etc . [ 3 ] . The numerous items or components ( Figure 1 ) involve the preoperative , intra-operative and postoperative periods , necessitating close collaboration between surgeons ( no bowel preparation , no routine nasogastric tube , minimally invasive surgery , no routine abdominal drainage and early postoperative diet ) , anaesthesiologists ( fasting duration of two hours for liquids and six hours for solids , carbohydrate loading , no routine preoperative sedation , avoiding long-acting opioids , epidural analgesia , preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting , preventing intra-operative hypothermia , perioperative fluid restriction and postoperative analgesia ) and nurses and physiotherapists ( early nutrition and mobilisation ) . Several r and omized trials and four meta-analyses [ 4–7 ] have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ERAS , not only in reducing total length of hospital stay and morbidity , but also in improving patient satisfaction when compared with conventional care . The metaanalyses included both r and omized and non-r and omized studies , the most recent and the largest [ 6 ] showing a reduction of 2.5 days in total hospital stay and significantly less morbidity ( OR 0.54 [ 0.45–0.69 ] ) in favour of the ERAS group , with no difference in readmission rate . A recent meta- analysis focusing on major colorectal surgery demonstrated that the ERAS programme can reduce morbidity by up to 50 % [ 7 ] . ERAS raises three questions . ( i ) What is the respective role of each ERAS item ? ( ii ) Does the ERAS protocol increase the workload of ward nursing staff ? ( iii ) How should this new paradigm be implemented ? Several anaesthesiologists are reluctant to use epidural analgesia in daily practice , mainly when patients are undergoing laparoscopic surgery . Epidural analgesia ( well known to be associated with less pain ) during laparoscopic surgery has been assessed in meta-analyses and r and omized trials but the conclusions are not concordant [ 8,9 ] . In my own daily practice , epidural analgesia is safe and efficacious in relieving pain and allowing early oral intake and mobilization , but it is obvious that its proper role in the ERAS protocol compared with other analgesic regimens such as non-opioid multimodal analgesia , local anaesthesia and continuous wound perfusion , in the era of laparoscopic surgery needs further evaluation . The roleof laparoscopyhas also been debated [ 10 ] . Two small r and omized trials have shown conflicting results [ 11,12 ] , but a recent large r and omized trial [ 13 ] involving four arms ( laparoscopy with ERAS vs laparoscopy with conventional care , vs open surgery with ERAS vs open surgery with conventional care ) has demonstrated a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopic colonic surgery with ERAS , the other outcomes being similar . The conclusion of the authors was that ‘ the most optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for coloncancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in an ERAS program ’ , suggesting that laparoscopic surgery is an important component of ERAS . The same team has performed a futher multivariate linear regression analysis on the same data and showed that the components significantly associated with a successful ERAS programme were laparoscopic surgery , normal diet at postoperative days one , two and three and enforced mobilization at postoperative days one , two and three ( Vlug M , personal communication ) . There is a feeling that the ERAS programme could increase the workload of nursing staff . The nursing BACKGROUND & AIMS Evidence of the advantages of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol s following pancreaticoduodenectomy ( PD ) is limited . The aim of this study was to examine the efficiency of ERAS protocol s in patients following PD . METHODS Between June 2014 and October 2016 , patients undergoing PD were r and omly assigned to receive ERAS protocol s or st and ard care . The primary endpoint was the postoperative length of stay . Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications , postoperative quality -of-life ( QoR-40J ) , readmission , and medical cost . RESULTS Of 80 eligible patients , 74 were analyzed in intention-to-treat principles : 37 in the control group and 37 in the ERAS group . The mean length of stay in the ERAS group was significantly shorter than that in the control group ( 20.1 ± 5.4 vs 26.9 ± 13.5 days , P < 0.001 ) . The ERAS group had a significantly lower percentage of postoperative complications ( 32.4 % vs 56.8 % , P = 0.034 ) and readmissions ( 0 % vs 8.1 % , P = 0.038 ) . Quality -of-life was also significantly better in the ERAS group ( 184 ± 12.4 vs 177 ± 14.5 , P = 0.022 ) . The total medical cost was lower in the ERAS group , but not significantly ( $ 25,445 ± 5065 vs $ 28,384 ± 9999 , P = 0.085 ) . CONCLUSIONS The optimization of ERAS protocol s in patients undergoing PD  is safe and accelerates perioperative recovery and quality -of-life , thereby reducing the length of stay . Morbidity was significantly decreased in the ERAS group without compromising surgical outcome . REGISTRATION NUMBER UMIN000014068 Background A recent development in gastrointestinal surgery is the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs . Evidence regarding the benefit of these programs in patients undergoing esophageal surgery is scarce . We investigated the feasibility and possible benefit of a perioperative ERAS program in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignant disease . Methods The ERAS program was initiated in 2009 . Patients who underwent esophagectomy and were treated according to the ERAS program were included . Items of ERAS included preoperative nutrition , early extubation , early removal of nasogastric tube , and early mobilization . Primary outcome parameters were hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications . Outcome parameters in the ERAS cohort were compared to a cohort of patients who underwent surgical resection in the year prior to the implementation of the ERAS protocol . A feasibility analysis was performed among a sample of ERAS patients to determine the number of achieved items per patient . Results Between 2008 and August 2010 , 181 patients in our department underwent esophagectomy .  Of these , 103 patients were included in the ERAS program ( ERAS+ group ) and were compared to 78 patients who had undergone an esophagectomy in 2008 ( ERAS– group ) .  Overall hospital stay was 14 days versus 15 days ( ERAS+ and ERAS– , respectively ; p = 0.013 ) . There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in either group . The percentage of achieved items varied between 42 and 93 % per item . Conclusions The implementation of an ERAS program in esophageal surgery was feasible and result ed in a small but significant reduction in overall hospital stay , whereas overall morbidity was not affected BACKGROUND Perioperative treatment of patients with colorectal cancer according to the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) protocol has proven to reduce complications and duration of stay . However , strict adherence remains a challenge and the benefits may decrease with lower adherence . In this study , we report on 8 years of adherence to the ERAS protocol and its effect on postoperative outcome in patients with colon cancer . METHODS In 2006 , the ERAS protocol was introduced for treatment of colon cancer patients in the Medical Center Alkmaar , a large teaching hospital . Patients scheduled for elective colon cancer resection were included in this study . Adherence to ERAS items was monitored and along with clinical data prospect ively gathered in a data base . In 2011 , several measures to improve adherence were implemented . RESULTS In total , 816 patients were included .  Mean adherence rate was 73 % in 2006 and 2007 , 66 % in 2008 and 2009 , 63 % in 2010 and 2011 , and 82 % in 2012 and 2013 . There was a shorter duration of stay in the years with high adherence ( 5.7 days ) compared with the years with low adherence ( 7.3 days ; P < .001 ) . The ERAS items that were the strongest predictors for a shorter duration of stay were no nasogastric tube , early mobilization , early oral nutrition , early removal of epidural , early removal of catheter , and nonopioid oral analgesia . CONCLUSION It is possible to improve adherence to the ERAS protocol and related outcomes with specific measures . Adherence to the ERAS protocol was related inversely to duration of stay . Only postoperative items of the ERAS protocol were predictive for a shorter duration of stay . Keeping adherence optimal remains an ongoing challenge that requires repeated training and dedicated personnel PURPOSE To observe the clinical efficacy of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) in the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients . METHODS A total of 114 patients who were admitted to Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma between June 2012 and June 2016 were enrolled and r and omly divided into the intervention group and the regular group according to the difference of management procedures during the perioperative period . ERAS was carried out in 57 patients in the intervention group , while conventional management procedures were applied in 57 patients in the regular group . Thereafter , compared were the fluctuations in nutritional indicators and immunological indicators , postoperative complications , time to recovery of gastrointestinal function , length of stay ( LOS ) in hospital and cost of patients between the two groups . RESULTS Seven days post-operation in the intervention group , the evaluation indexes of nutrition status , including total protein ( TP ) , albumin ( ALB ) , prealbumin ( PA ) and transferrin ( TF ) , and of immunological functions , including immunoglobulin G ( IgG ) , immunoglobulin A ( IgA ) , immunoglobulin M ( IgM ) and total blood lymphocyte count ( TLC ) , were significantly higher than those in the regular group . As for postoperative complications , the incidence rate of the intervention group was remarkably lower than that of the regular group ; the recovery time of gastrointestinal function in the intervention group was shorter than that in the regular group ; the LOS in the intervention group was also shorter than that in the regular group ; the in-hospital cost in the intervention group was also lower than that in the regular group . All differences above were statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION During the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients , ERAS should be fully applied to sustain the good status , and promote the recovery of immunological functions and gastrointestinal functions ; at the same time , ERAS also reduces the incidence rate of postoperative complications , LOS and in-hospital cost , and we maintain that ERAS should be performed in clinical practice Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathways aim to accelerate functional return and discharge from hospital . They have proven effective in many forms of surgery , most notably colorectal . However , experience in esophagectomy has been limited . A recent study reported significant reductions in pulmonary complications , mortality , and length of stay following the introduction of an ERAS protocol alone , without the introduction of any clinical changes . We instituted a similar change 16 months ago , introducing a protocol to provide a formal framework , for our existing postoperative care . This retrospective analysis compared outcome following esophagectomy for the 16 months before and 20 months after this change . Data were collected from prospect ively maintained secure web-based multidisciplinary data bases . Complication severity was classified using the Clavien-Dindo scale . Operative mortality was defined as death within 30 days of surgery , or at any point during the same hospital admission . Lower respiratory tract infection was defined as clinical evidence of infection , with or without radiological signs . Respiratory complications included lower respiratory tract infection , pleural effusion ( irrespective of drainage ) , pulmonary collapse , and pneumothorax . Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21 . One hundred thirty-two patients underwent esophagectomy ( 55 protocol group ; 77 before ) . All were performed open . There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age , gender , operation , use of neoadjuvant therapy , cell type , stage , tumor site , or American Society of Anesthesiologists grade . Median length of stay was 14.0 days ( protocol ) compared with 12.0 before ( interquartile range 9 - 19 and 9.5 - 15.5 , respectively ; P = 0.073 , Mann-Whitney U-test ) . Readmission within 30 days of discharge occurred in five ( 9.26 % ) and six ( 8.19 % ; P = 1.000 , Fisher 's exact test ) . There were four in-hospital deaths ( 3.03 % ) : one ( 1.82 % ) and three ( 3.90 % ) , respectively ( P = 0.641 ) . There were no differences in the severity of complications ( P = non-significant ; Pearson 's chi-squared ) . There were no differences in the type of complications occurring in either group . The protocol was completed successfully by 26 ( 47.3 % ) . No baseline factors were predictive of this . In contrast to previous studies , we did not demonstrate any improvement in outcome by formalizing our existing pathway using a written protocol . Consequently , improvements in short-term outcome from esophagectomy within ERAS would seem to be primarily due to improvements in components of perioperative care . Consequently , we would recommend that centers introducing new ( or review ing existing ) ERAS pathways for esophagectomy focus on optimizing clinical aspects of such st and ardized pathways Background The aim of this trial was to compare the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) program with conventional perioperative management in patients who underwent radical resection for colorectal cancer . Methods A combination of evidence -based and consensus methodology was used to develop the ERAS protocol . Five hundred ninety-seven consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal resection were r and omized to either the ERAS ( n = 299 ) or the  control group ( n = 298 ) . Outcomes relating to nutrition and metabolism index , stress index , and recovery index were measured and recorded . Results Demographic and operative data were similar between the two groups . Patients in the ERAS group showed improved nutritional status when compared with those of the control group . On postoperative day ( POD ) 1 , the HOMA-IR ( insulin resistance index ) of the ERAS group was lower than that of the control group ( p < 0.001 ) . The cortisol level of the control group was elevated on both POD 1 ( p = 0.007 ) and POD 5 ( p = 0.002 ) compared to the preoperative level . However , the cortisol level of the ERAS group was not increased until POD 5 ( p = 0.001 ) . Reduced levels of TNF-α , IL-1β , IL-6 , and IFN-γ in the ERAS group indicated less postoperative stress responses . In addition , ERAS was associated with accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function . The postoperative length of stay ( p < 0.001 ) and expense ( p < 0.001 ) for the ERAS group were reduced in comparison to the controls . Twenty-eight cases in the control group and twenty-nine in the ERAS group suffered complications , which was not significantly different . Conclusion The ERAS protocol attenuates the surgical stress response and accelerates postoperative recovery without compromising patient safety OBJECTIVE Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has led to a paradigm shift in various surgical specialties . Its application can result in substantial benefits in perioperative healthcare utilization through preoperative physical and mental patient optimization and modulation of the recovery process . Still , ERAS remains relatively new to spine surgery . The authors report their 5-year experience , focusing on ERAS application to a broad population of patients with degenerative spine conditions undergoing elective surgical procedures , including anterior lumbar interbody fusion ( ALIF ) . METHODS A multimodal ERAS protocol was applied between November 2013 and October 2018 . The authors analyze hospital stay , perioperative outcomes , readmissions , and adverse events obtained from a prospect i ve institutional registry .  Elective tubular microdiscectomy and mini-open decompression as well as minimally invasive ( MI ) anterior or posterior fusion cases were included . Their institutional ERAS protocol contains 22 pre- , intra- , and postoperative elements , including preoperative patient counseling , MI techniques , early mobilization and oral intake , minimal postoperative restrictions , and regular audits . RESULTS A total of 2592 consecutive patients were included , with 199 ( 8 % ) undergoing fusion . The mean hospital stay was 1.1 ± 1.2 days , with 20 ( 0.8 % ) 30-day and 36 ( 1.4 % ) 60-day readmissions . Ninety-four percent of patients were discharged after a maximum 1-night hospital stay . Over the 5-year period , a clear trend toward a higher proportion of patients discharged home after a 1-night stay was observed ( p < 0.001 ) , with a concomitant decrease in adverse events in the overall cohort ( p = 0.025 ) and without increase in readmissions . For fusion procedures , the rate of 1-night hospital stays increased from 26 % to 85 % ( p < 0.001 ) . Similarly , the average length of hospital stay decreased steadily from 2.4 ± 1.2 days to 1.5 ± 0.3 days ( p < 0.001 ) , with a notable concomitant decrease in variance , result ing in an estimated reduction in nursing costs of 46.8 % . CONCLUSIONS Application of an ERAS protocol over 5 years to a diverse population of patients undergoing surgical procedures , including ALIF , for treatment of degenerative spine conditions was safe and effective , without increase in readmissions . The data from this large case series stress the importance of the multidisciplinary , iterative improvement process to overcome the learning curve associated with ERAS implementation , and the importance of a dedicated perioperative care team . Prospect i ve trials are needed to evaluate spinal ERAS on a higher level of evidence IMPORTANCE Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) colorectal programs have shown to be successful at reducing length of stay in many international and academic centers ; however , their efficacy in a community hospital setting remains unclear . OBJECTIVE To determine if favorable results could be reproduced in a community hospital setting using our ERAS program , which was developed using core ERAS guidelines with the goal of accelerated recovery while also addressing other important outcomes affecting patient experience and safety . DESIGN , SETTING , AND PARTICIPANTS Prospect i ve study of ERAS program , a multidisciplinary effort involving anesthesia , preadmission staff , nursing , and surgery staff at a community hospital . The program was initiated in 2010 and was in full practice by 2011 . We assessed practice patterns and patient outcomes for all elective colon and rectal resection cases performed in 2009 ( prior to ERAS implementation ) , 2011 , and 2012 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Laparoscopic approach , narcotic use , length of stay , 30-day readmission , ileus ( defined as reinsertion of nasogastric tube ) , and intra-abdominal infection and association between colorectal cancer ( CRC ) diagnosis and these outcomes . RESULTS From 2009 to 2012 , the use of laparoscopy increased from 57.4 % to 88.8 % ( P < .001 ) . Length of stay decreased significantly ( 6.7 days vs 3.7 days , P < .001 ) , without an increase in 30-day readmission rate ( 17.6 % vs 12.5 % , P = .49 ) . Use of patient-controlled narcotic analgesia and duration of use decreased ( 63.2 % of patients vs 15 % , P < .001 ; 67.8 hours vs 47.1 hours , P = .02 ) . Ileus rate decreased from 13.2 % to 2.5 % ( P = .02 ) . Intra-abdominal infection decreased from 7.4 % to 2.5 % ( P = .24 ) . When comparing laparoscopic cases alone , similar results were observed . Following regression analysis , there were no statistically significant differences between CRC diagnosis and LOS , 30-day readmission rates , ileus , and intra-abdominal infection ( all P 's > .05 ) . Length of stay reductions result ed in an estimated cost savings of $ 3202 per patient ( 2011 ) and $ 4803 per patient ( 2012 ) . CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Implementation of this patient care-directed enhanced recovery program is feasible in a community hospital setting , and it is associated with decreased LOS without increased readmission or morbidity , as well as significant decreases in narcotic use and cost . Improved outcomes are independent of the laparoscopic approach and CRC diagnosis Background Due to potentially superior short-term outcomes compared with open colorectal surgery , laparoscopic surgery is currently being implemented in clinical practice worldwide . In parallel , enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs are shown to improve postoperative recovery in open colorectal surgery . This study reports outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery in conjunction with compliance to the ERAS protocol . Methods The association between surgical approach ( laparoscopic or open surgery ) , compliance to the ERAS protocol , postoperative symptoms , complications , and length of stay after surgery was studied . Between January 2007 to December 2010 , 114 consecutive patients underwent elective high anterior resection with laparoscopic-assisted ( n = 55 ) or open resection ( n = 59 ) . All clinical data ( 114 variables ) were prospect ively recorded . Results The overall preoperative ERAS- protocol compliance was 77 % for both the laparoscopic and open group . Laparoscopic surgery result ed in shorter total length of stay ( median 4 vs. 6 days , p = 0.04 ) , earlier pain control ( median 2 vs. 3 days , p = 0.008 ) , shorter need for intravenous infusions , improved mobilization on the first postoperative day ( POD1 ) , and lower inflammatory response ( CRP ( POD1 ) 54 ± 24 vs. 67 ± 31 mg/l , p = 0.017 ) compared with open resection . The trends in fewer postoperative complications ( 9.1 vs. 16.9 % ; odds ratio ( OR ) 0.55 ; 95 % confidence interval ( CI ) 0.17–1.81 ) and overall postoperative symptoms delaying recovery ( 20 vs. 30.5 % ; OR 0.63 ; 95 % CI 0.22–1.34 ) in laparoscopic surgery were not statistically significant . Conclusions The use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol results in faster recovery compared with open resection Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has reduced the median hospital stay from 8–10 days with traditional peri-operative routines to four days . The aim of the present study was to introduce the principles of ERAS in our hospital and measure the effect on hospital stay , complications and quality of life after discharge from hospital . Material and Methods : 94 consecutive patients , 40 males , 54 females , median age 66 years , were included in a prospect i ve non-r and omised observational study at Haukel and University Hospital and Haugesund Hospital from October 2000 until February 2003 . After a three-month preparation period , the principles of ERAS were implemented . The results were evaluated with question naires and by follow-ups 8–10 and 30 days after surgery . The results were compared to the results of colorectal surgery before introduction of accelerated recovery . Results : 45 ( 48 % ) and 73 ( 78 % ) patients were discharged within three and five days after surgery with ERAS , compared to zero and seven ( 5 % ) patients with traditional recovery . The complication rate with ERAS was 31 % , and the readmission rate was 15 % . After one week , 57 % had resumed their daily activities at home . After 30 days , 65 % of the patients had resumed their normal and leisure activities . Conclusion : After a proper preparation period , ERAS principles may be implemented in surgical department , and is followed by a reduced median hospital stay and rapid return to normal daily activities for most patients after colorectal surgery Background The present developments in colon surgery are characterized by two innovations : the introduction of the laparoscopic operation technique and fast recovery programs such as the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) recovery program . The Tapas- study was conceived to determine which of the three treatment programs : open conventional surgery , open ' ERAS ' surgery or laparoscopic ' ERAS ' surgery for patients with colon carcinomas is most cost minimizing ? Method / design The Tapas- study is a three-arm multicenter prospect i ve cohort study .All patients with colon carcinoma , eligible for surgical treatment within the study period in four general teaching hospitals and one university hospital will be included . This design produces three cohorts : Conventional open surgery is the control exposure ( cohort 1 ) . Open surgery with ERAS recovery ( cohort 2 ) and laparoscopic surgery with ERAS recovery ( cohort 3 ) are the alternative exposures . Three separate time periods are used in order to prevent attrition bias . Primary outcome parameters are the two main cost factors : direct medical costs ( real cost price calculation ) and the indirect non medical costs ( friction method ) . Secondary outcome parameters are mortality , complications , surgical-oncological resection margins , hospital stay , readmission rates , time back to work/recovery , health status and quality of life . Based on an estimated difference in direct medical costs ( highest cost factor ) of 38 % between open and laparoscopic surgery ( alfa = 0.01 , beta = 0.05 ) , a group size of 3 × 40 = 120 patients is calculated . Discussion The Tapas- study is three-arm multicenter cohort study that will provide a cost evaluation of three treatment programs for patients with colon carcinoma , which may serve as a guideline for choice of treatment and investment strategies in hospitals . Trial registration IS RCT N44649165 Purpose The aim of this multi-institutional study was to prospect ively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol for colonic surgery . Methods The subjects of this study were 320 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists ( ASA ) grade I or II physical status . Patients underwent elective open or laparoscopic colonic resection or high anterior resection between April 2011 and January 2014 at one of six institutions . Three hospitals implemented an ERAS protocol ( n = 159 ) , and three administered conventional care ( n = 161 ) . The primary outcome measure was the surgical complication rate . Results Most operations , irrespective of group , were performed laparoscopically . The incidence of a surgical complication was 17.0 % in the ERAS group vs. 16.1 % in the conventional group ( P = 0.842 ) , in which several non-surgical complications also arose . Oral food intake was implemented earlier for the ERAS group vs. the conventional group , after a median ( range ) of 1 ( 1–31 ) vs. 3 ( 1–9 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . The median length of postoperative hospital stay was reduced by 5.5 days for the ERAS group , being 8.5 ( 5–41 ) vs. 14 ( 7–56 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . Conclusion This multi-institutional controlled study clearly demonstrated that an ERAS protocol was efficient , without increasing the complication risk Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients following gastrointestinal surgery . Data on protocol adherence and how this impacts on outcome are limited . This study examines how protocol adherence changes over time and determines how this impacts on outcome across a large-volume gastrointestinal surgical service . Material s and Methods : A prospect i ve review of patients eligible for colorectal , liver and oesophagogastric ERAS over two 3-month periods in 2010 and 2011 was performed . End points included : length of stay ( LOS ) , overall protocol adherence , individual modality adherence , reason for pathway deviation and patient outcomes . Results : 172 patients ( 110 colorectal , 31 liver and 31 oesophagogastric ) were evaluated . For each sub-speciality , the introduction of ERAS led to significant reductions in LOS that were sustained for the duration of the study . Adherence was achieved across 60 % ( colorectal ) , 75 % ( liver ) and 88 % ( oesophagogastric ) of individual pathway modalities . The major causes of pathway deviation were : post-operative nausea and vomiting ( colorectal ) , pain ( liver ) and pulmonary complications ( oesophagogastric ) . Conclusions : Large-scale implementation of ERAS at a high-volume centre is feasible and offers many of the benefits demonstrated in controlled trials , but adherence may diminish over time Objective To analyze the results after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol s , a r and omized study was performed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy under ERAS or traditional care . Methods Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy from April 2014 to October 2014 were included and r and omly divided into Control group ( CG ) and ERAS . Primary outcome was quality of life ( QoL ) and length of hospital stay ( LOS ) . Secondary endpoints were percentage readmission , mortality , duration to first flatus , complications , hospital costs , conversions and blood loss . Results Thirteen patients withdrew after r and omization . Eighty-six patients completed the study , 48 ERAS and 38 CG . Postoperative LOS was significantly reduced in ERAS [ 6 ( 4–8 ) versus 10 ( 7–15 ) days , P = 0.04 ] . First flatus occurred earlier in ERAS than CG [ 2(1–4 ) versus 3(2–5 ) days , P = 0.02 ] . The average perioperative charges were 9470 ± 1540 in CG and only 7742 ± 1200 in ERAS ( P = 0.03 ) , with no differences in readmission rate , blood loss , conversions to open surgery , mortality or surgical complications . The median AUC ( area under a curve ) of QoL was considerably improved in ERAS ( P = 0.04 ) . Conclusions This study suggests that ERAS is feasible and safe for laparoscopic hepatectomy Background The present study aims to examine the feasibility and safety of a two-day hospital stay after  laparoscopic colorectal resection ( LCR )  under an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathway . Methods Between 2003 and 2010 , 882 consecutive patients undergoing LCR were analyzed . Patients were grouped and analyzed according to whether their hospital stay was 2 days ( group A ) or longer ( group B ) . Demographic , surgical , and postoperative data were compared . To identify independent predictive factors related to a short hospital stay , a multivariate analysis was also performed . Results Group A represented 10.3 % of this series ( 91 patients ) . There were no differences regarding age , gender , BMI , ASA , and previous abdominal surgeries between groups . Group A had a lower incidence of rectal cancer and anterior resections than group B ( 6.6 vs. 17.7 % [ p = 0.006 ] and 14.3 vs. 23.4 % [ p = 0.048 ] ) , respectively , and a lower mean operative time ( 170 min vs. 192 min ; p = 0.002 ) . Group A had a lower overall morbidity rate than group B ( 5.5 vs. 16.9 % ; p = 0.004 ) and a lower incidence of surgery-related complications ( 5.5 vs. 14.9 % ; p = 0.001 ) . The overall conversion rate was 10 % ( only one patient in group A required conversion ) , and the difference in conversion rate between groups was statistically significant ( 1.2 vs. 10.7 % ; p = 0.003 ) . Group A had a lower readmission rate ( 0 vs. 4.9 % ; p = 0.089 ) . Multivariate analysis showed that conversion , postoperative morbidity , and rectal prolapse were independently associated with the length of hospital stay . Conclusions A two-day hospital stay after LCR is safe and feasible under an ERAS pathway , without compromising the readmission or complication rate In December 2003 , the European Council identified best practice as key for ensuring development of high- quality cancer-screening programs . To support national policies on cancer control , the European Union institutions progressed several initiatives on cancer . The European Commission ( EC ) Initiative on Breast Cancer ( ECIBC ) is the most recent of these projects and the most implementation driven . Within this initiative , the European Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis ( in short , European Breast Guidelines ) are being developed ( http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ ) . Guidelines are approaches to generally improve prevention , diagnosis , treatment , and follow-up of diseases , overcoming inappropriate variations by providing recommendations for best care . The new era of guidelines promises recommendations that are based on the best available evidence summarized in systematic review s while providing the necessary flexibility needed to individualize decisions . The best methods for development of practice guidelines have experienced intense elaboration and attention during the past decades ( 17 ) . The impetus for this attention has been the change from expert- or consensus-based to evidence -based health care recommendations . Although this change in terminology should express the shift from un systematic development of guidelines to systematic and trustworthy recommendations , it is often misunderstood and misconstrued as meaning that experts are now meaningless in the process or as if consensus through discussion is a matter of the past . Neither is correct . Experts from various disciplines and consensus as a result of deliberation remain a mainstay of health care guideline development ( 810 ) . These experts are responsible for prioritization of questions that should be addressed in guidelines ; judgments that result from interpretation of evidence , including the rating of the certainty of the available evidence ; and decisions about how the judgments on the different criteria bear on recommendations . What has changed over time in guideline development are the rules , the structure and explicitness of the process , and the guideline product . Indeed , review s of guideline development methodology and how guidelines can be improved have led to more structured and documented processes that allow a reduction of bias and provide balanced views of appropriately composed guideline panels ( 2 , 5 , 6 ) . Core components for trustworthy guideline development ( 13 , 5 , 7 , 11 ) include that guidelines be developed by a knowledgeable , multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups ; be based on a systematic review of the existing evidence ; consider important patient subgroups and patient preferences as appropriate ; be based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions , biases , and conflicts of interest ( 12 ) ; provide a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes and provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations ( 1316 ) ; and be reconsidered and revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications . In addition , greater transparency in linking the considered research evidence and the recommendations , as well as the requirement of making structured expert judgments , represents a shift in the guideline development paradigm ( 5 , 11 , 1719 ) . At the same time , developing guidelines for a large number of member states and those that aim to adapt the guidelines poses challenges , such as the feasibility of implementing strategies that may exist in some member countries but not others ( for example , organized population -based screening in Italy but not Greece ) . Addressing these challenges requires considerations that extend beyond strictly clinical efforts in guideline development and mastering the many factors that influence recommendations and their implementation . This article describes the rationale , methods , and processes the ECIBC has adopted to develop the European Breast Guidelines in the context of evolving international st and ards . It also describes an innovative approach to presenting , disseminating , and accelerating implementation of recommendations . Guideline Methodology and Development To adhere to the core requirements for guideline development , the EC has taken several steps . First , it selected , via an open call ( https://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ guidelines -team ) , a panel with broad representation of expertise , knowledge , and background , which includes patients , health care professionals , epidemiologists , guideline method ologists , and others ( Appendix ) . These individuals voluntarily participate in the ECIBC and compose the guidelines development group ( GDG ) . Second , it ensured that all recommendations were supported by systematic review s of the evidence conducted by independent scientists from Cochrane Iberoamricathe systematic review team (SRT)following st and ard Cochrane Collaboration methods ( 20 , 21 ) . Third , because this is a women-centered initiative , we included women advocates in the GDG as full voting guideline group members . We separately considered important subgroups of women during recommendation development ( for example , different age groups ) , and we specifically focused on evidence that supports best ways of communicating this information to women to inform their decisions . Fourth , we applied EC conflict of interest rules ( http://ecibc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/rules ) , which are consistent with international recommendations , and used GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ) Evidence to Decision ( EtD ) frameworks to minimize the influence of competing interests on the recommendations ( 12 , 17 , 18 ) . These EtD frameworks help guideline panels use evidence in a structured , transparent way to inform decisions with a series of criteria , such as anticipated harms and benefits of the options considered , the certainty of the evidence for those effects , and the costs and feasibility of the options , to help them reach their decision . Fifth , using the GRADE approach to guideline development and its EtD frameworks , we focused our questions and recommendations on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty or quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that is widely accepted as the reference st and ard ( Figures 1 and 2 ) . Sixth , our evidence review s are up to date when the recommendations are formulated , and we engage in international stakeholder feedback to ensure that recommendations remain timely and relevant to public health and clinical practice . The ECIBC is committed to review ing and updating the recommendations as required when new evidence becomes available . The general process is explained in Figure 3 and is based on the Guidelines International NetworkMcMaster Guideline Development Checklist ( https://hei grade .mcmaster.ca/ guideline -development/using-checklist ) ( 5 ) . Figure 1 . According to GRADE , certainty , quality , strength of evidence , or confidence in the estimate of effect is determined on the basis of a systematic review of the evidence for each outcome ( based on the domains risk of bias , indirectness , imprecision , inconsistency , and publication bias that lower certainty and , usually only for nonr and omized studies , large effects , doseresponse relations and opposing plausible residual confounding that may increase the certainty ) . For recommendations , the overall certainty is determined across outcomes based on the lowest certainty outcome among those critical for decision making for the specific context . The guidelines development group applies the GRADE Evidence -to-Decision frameworks to make recommendations that are made available on the European Commission Web site . ( Reproduced from reference 15 , with permission from Schnemann HJ . ) . GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation . Figure 2 . GRADE EtD frameworks . The GRADE EtD frameworks as available in the GRADE pro software ( www . grade pro.org ) . They help with structuring the entire guideline process into 4 sections and support the conduct of guideline group meetings , presentation , and implementation . They clarify the perspective that is taken by the guideline panel or decision maker and the type of question that is asked in the question section . The section on assessment includes the criteria if the problem is a priority , the balance of health benefits and harms , values and preferences related to the outcomes , cost , re sources and cost-effectiveness , equity , acceptability , and feasibility . Conclusions provide the decision or recommendation with a justification and implementation , as well as research considerations . The presentation function supports the conduct of guideline group meetings and facilitates the output of EtD frameworks to other implementation tools , such as Web sites , h and -held apps , and interactive decision aids . EtD = Evidence to Decision ; GRADE = Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ; HTA = health technology assessment ; PICO = population , intervention , comparators , and outcomes . Figure 3 . Approach to guideline development used by the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer . The European Commission JRC has oversight of the organization , budgeting , planning , and training . The JRC also manages conflicts of interest , documents all aspects of the work , and manages the membership and group processes . The guideline development group and JRC formulate the questions and work with the systematic review team on identifying and assessing the evidence . The guidelines development group is responsible for developing the recommendations . The JRC is responsible for most other aspects as described in the figure under dissemination , implementation , and updating . JRC = Joint Research Centre ; PICO = population , intervention , comparator , and outcomes . ( Reproduced with adaptation to the JRC process from INTRODUCTION While enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has been proven to improve results in colorectal operations with regard to morbidity and duration of hospital stay , its impact on recovery of bowel motility is poorly documented . The aims of this study were to assess the impact of ERAS on bowel motility recovery , and to assess the consequences of the definition of postoperative ileus on its reported incidence in the literature . MATERIAL AND METHODS This is a single-center prospect i ve observational study of consecutive patients who underwent colorectal resection with anastomosis over a period of 17 months .  Global resumption of intestinal transit ( GROT ) was defined as passage of stool combined with alimentary tolerance of solid food . RESULTS One hundred and thirty-one patients were included . A median of 14 items ( range : 13 - 16 ) was complied out of 19 observable items in the protocol . Median time to passage of flatus ( MTPF ) was 2 days and the GROT was 3 days . The time interval to MTPF as well as to GROT decreased as adherence to the ERAS protocol increased ( respectively P<0.001 , r2=0.11 and P=0.04 , r2=0.06 ) . The incidence of postoperative " ileus " varied from 1.5 % to 61.8 % depending on the interval chosen to define ileus ( cut-off from 1 to 7 days ) . Adherence to≥85 % of the items in the ERAS protocol protected patients from " prolonged ileus " , i.e. , lasting≥4 days ( OR=0.35 ; 95 % CI=0.15 to 0.83 ) . CONCLUSION The implementation of and compliance with an ERAS protocol allowed a reduction in the time to GROT . There is a need for a consensual definition of postoperative ileus
A well-implemented ERAS protocol with good compliance is associated with a reduction in medical complications and length of hospital stay .
Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) pathways are now implemented worldwide with strong evidence that adhesion to such protocol reduces medical complications , costs and hospital stay .
This concept has been applied for pancreatic surgery since the first published guidelines in 2012 .
This study presents the up date d ERAS recommendations for  pancreatoduodenectomy ( PD )  based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus .