Other outcome parameters were unsuitable for meta- analysis , but seemed to favour ERAS .
Analysis shows a reduction in overall complications , but major complications were not reduced .
Length of stay was reduced significantly .
We state that ERAS seems safe , but the quality of trials and lack of sufficient other outcome parameters do not justify implementation of ERAS as the st and ard of care .
Within ERAS protocol s included , no answer regarding the role for minimally invasive surgery ( i.e. laparoscopy ) was found .
BACKGROUND In recent years the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) postoperative pathway in (ileo-)colorectal surgery , aim ing at improving perioperative care and decreasing postoperative complications , has become more common .
OBJECTIVES We investigated the effectiveness and safety of the ERAS multimodal strategy , compared to conventional care after (ileo-)colorectal surgery .
The primary research question was whether ERAS protocol s lead to less morbidity and secondary whether length of stay was reduced .
Detailed evaluation of functional recovery following laparoscopic or open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme
Background and aims Evidence demonstrating improved short-term outcomes with laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for colorectal cancer is accumulating . In addition , programmes optimising peri-operative care for major abdominal surgery are becoming widespread . Evaluating laparoscopic surgery and enhanced recovery programmes usually focuses on short-term recovery . The aim of this study was to compare recovery after laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer up to 1 year post-operatively , using a combination of self-report and observer data . Patients / Methods From January 2002 to March 2004 , 62 patients were r and omised ( 2:1 ) to receive laparoscopic ( n = 43 ) or open surgery ( n = 19 ) within an enhanced recovery programme .  Functional outcomes up to 1 year were assessed using interview-administered question naires . Results / Findings Question naire and health-related quality of life data were obtained in over 85 % of patients . Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery  felt fully recovered and resumed driving more quickly than those having open surgery ( p = 0.016 and p = 0.048 respectively ) . Fifty-eight percent of patients having open surgery felt fully recovered by 12 months versus 88 % of laparoscopic patients .Interpretation/ Conclusion Within an enhanced recovery programme , patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery  recovered more quickly than after open resection . Both approaches however , were associated with slow recovery despite a relatively short hospital stay
Other outcome parameters were unsuitable for meta- analysis , but seemed to favour ERAS .
Analysis shows a reduction in overall complications , but major complications were not reduced .
Length of stay was reduced significantly .
We state that ERAS seems safe , but the quality of trials and lack of sufficient other outcome parameters do not justify implementation of ERAS as the st and ard of care .
Within ERAS protocol s included , no answer regarding the role for minimally invasive surgery ( i.e. laparoscopy ) was found .
BACKGROUND In recent years the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) postoperative pathway in (ileo-)colorectal surgery , aim ing at improving perioperative care and decreasing postoperative complications , has become more common .
OBJECTIVES We investigated the effectiveness and safety of the ERAS multimodal strategy , compared to conventional care after (ileo-)colorectal surgery .
The primary research question was whether ERAS protocol s lead to less morbidity and secondary whether length of stay was reduced .