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 .
Randomized controlled trial comparing the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet pathway versus the controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet with preemptive epidural anesthesia/analgesia after laparotomy and intestinal resection.
BACKGROUND Multimodal postoperative care regimens accelerate recovery after abdominal surgery . The benefit of thoracic epidural ( TE ) analgesia over patient-controlled analgesia ( PCA ) remains unproven when used with a fast-track postoperative care plan . METHODS Fifty-six patients undergoing major intestinal resection , and on a fast-track postoperative care plan , were r and omized  to preemptive TE or PCA . Patients were evaluated at st and ard time points for pain score , quality of life ( Short Form-36 ) , and complications .  Oral analgesia was substituted for TE and PCA on the second postoperative day . Discharge criteria were identical for both groups . RESULTS Six patients ( 20.6 % ) had a failed epidural . There was no difference in length of stay ( 5.8 versus 6.2 days , TE versus PCA , P = .55 ) , total length of stay ( including readmissions ) , pain scores , quality of life , complications , or hospital costs at any time point . CONCLUSION TE offers no advantage over PCA for patients undergoing major intestinal resections who are on a fast-track postoperative care plan using PCA
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 .