Published online Aug 27, 2012. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v4.i8.190
Revised: July 14, 2012
Accepted: August 2, 2012
Published online: August 27, 2012
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are now achieving worldwide diffusion in both university and district hospitals with special interest in colorectal surgery. The optimization of the patient’s preoperative clinical conditions, the careful intraoperative administration of fluids and drugs and the postoperative encouragement to resume the normal physiological functions as early as possible has produced results in a large amounts of studies. These approaches successfully challenged long-standing and well-established perioperative managements and finally achieved the status of gold standard treatments for the perioperative management of uncomplicated colorectal surgery. Even more important, it seems that the clinical improvement of the patient’s clinical management through ERAS protocols is now reaching his best outcomes (length of stay of 4-6 d after the operation) and therefore any further measures add little to the results already established (i.e., the adjunct of laparoscopic surgery to ERAS). Still dedicated meetings and courses around the world are exploring new aspects including the improvement the preoperative nutrition status to provide the energy necessary to face the surgical stress, the preoperative individuation of special requirements that could be properly addressed before the date of surgery and therefore would reduce the number of unnecessary days spent in hospital once fully recovered (i.e., rehabilitation, social discharges), and finally the development of an important web of out-of-hours direct access in order to individuate alarm symptoms in those patients at risk of complications that could prompt an early readmission.
- Citation: Gravante G, Elmussareh M. Enhanced recovery for colorectal surgery: Practical hints, results and future challenges. World J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 4(8): 190-198
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v4/i8/190.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v4.i8.190
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a series of perioperative protocols that aim to improve the patient’s ability to face major operations and consequently ameliorate his postoperative recovery[1]. ERAS interventions focus on those key factors that usually keep patients in hospital and make them dependent on drugs and specialist assistance following uncomplicated surgery, namely the need for parenteral analgesia, the administration of intravenous fluids and confinement to bed[2]. Pillars of ERAS protocols cover all the perioperative phases by removing or decreasing the influence of such factors and promoting good habits that favour the recover of physiological functions. Therefore, they avoid mechanical bowel preparations (MBPs) and preoperative fasting before surgery and administer high carbohydrate meals until few hours from the operation; they limit the administration of fluids tailoring them to the real patient’s necessities during surgery; they encourage the resumption of an oral diet and early mobilization after surgery as well as they decrease the use of regular opioids using pain killers with less impact on the gut function[2-5].
Since their introduction ERAS protocols faced large resistances because they targeted diffuse and time-validated clinical practices[6]. These were mostly based on tradition, personal experiences, and surgical teaching that helped their historical perpetration. However, the growing amount of data available has showed now how such practices were not necessary or contributed to the adverse effects of the surgical trauma. As a result the most immediate and visible effect of ERAS introduction is a significant shortening of the length of stay (LOS) in hospital and therefore a better redistribution of the available resources. Nowadays ERAS is routine in large university hospitals and is also spreading to district general hospitals with special interests in colorectal operations[7].
Different ERAS protocols are available for colorectal surgery (Table 1). In most of them patients receive a preoperative functional assessment in order to target the eventual specific postoperative requirements and provide him with an adequate care organised for his necessities. Also, the preoperative visit would counsel the patients about the purposes and goals of the enhanced recovery addressing their expectations from the surgical recovery and reassuring them about the purposes of the early discharge. This should not be perceived as an economic necessity, but, when feasible and appropriate, is an integrated part of the treatment that avoids prolonged stays in wards where the risk of transmitted infections is significant.
Ref. | Preoperative | Intraoperative | Postop (first 24 h) | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Additional comments |
Kahokehr et al[8,9] | Nutritional supplementation | Thoracic epidural | All IV fluid stopped | Removal of urinary catheter | Removal of epidural | Early mobilization and physiotherapy | ||
NBM two hours preinduction | Short acting anaesthetics | Prophylactic antiemetics | ||||||
Carbohydrate loading | Intraoperative fluids: 1000 mL of crystalloid and 500 mL of colloid | Early oral feeding | ||||||
No bowel preparation | Prophylactic antiemetics at induction (Dexamethasone) | Nutritional supplementation | ||||||
Functional assessment and goal setting | No drains or NG tubes | No opioids | ||||||
King et al[12-14] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Free fluid | All IV fluid stopped | Removal of epidural Regular NSAIDS | Removal of urinary catheter for rectal resections | Aim for discharge on day 3 for colonic or day 5 for rectal resection | |
Blazeby et al[15] | Optimised pre-morbid health status | Intraoperative fluids: 2000 mL of crystalloid | Nutritional supplementation | Regular paracetamol | Morphine for breakthrough | Provision of hospital contact numbers, review on ward if problems within 2 wk | ||
Faiz et al[16] | Functional assessment and goal setting | Minimal-access surgery | Patient sat out in chair | 3 high-protein/high-calorie drink | Review in outpatient clinic on day 12 | |||
Stoma nurse | Local anaesthetic infiltration to the largest wound | Normal diet offered | ||||||
Bowel preparation in left-sided resections | No drains or NG tubes | Patient sat out in chair | ||||||
Start walking | ||||||||
Removal of urinary catheter for colonic resections | ||||||||
Laxatives | ||||||||
Jottard et al[7] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Free fluid | All IV fluid stopped | Use of anti-emetics | |||
Functional assessment and goal setting | Standard anesthetic protocol | Normal diet offered | Early mobilization | |||||
No bowel preparation | Prevention of intraoperative hypothermia | Postoperative nutritional care | ||||||
No drains or NG tubes | ||||||||
Maessen et al[20,21] | Nutrition supplementation1 | Thoracic epidural | Oral analgesia | All IV fluid stopped | Removal of epidural Removal of urinary catheter | |||
Nygren et al[22] | Functional assessment and goal setting | Prevention of intraoperative hypothermia | Patient sat out in chair | Nutritional supplements > 400 mL | ||||
Hendry et al[23] | No bowel preparation | Transverse/curved incision | Nutritional supplements | Normal diet offered | ||||
Free fluid > 800 mL | Patient sat out in chair | |||||||
Soop et al[26] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Prophylactic antiemetics | Regular paracetamol and NSAIDS | Patient sat out in chair | Patient sat out in chair | Epidural removed (at least) | |
Patient sat out in chair | ||||||||
Raymond et al[28] | Nutrition supplementation Functional assessment and goal setting | Thoracic epidural | Early mobilization/resumption of diet | |||||
Intra-operative targeted fluid management | ||||||||
No NG tube | ||||||||
Turunen et al[10] | Functional assessment and goal setting | Thoracic epidural | Removal of urinary catheter | Early mobilization/resumption of diet | ||||
Preoperative feeding | High-oxygen P | No routine opioids, regular paracetamol and NSAIDS | ||||||
Bowel preparation | Prevention of hypothermia | Fluid restriction | ||||||
No drains or NG tubes | ||||||||
Senagore et al[35] | No NG tube | PCA | Removal of urinary catheter | |||||
Free fluids | Normal diet offered | |||||||
regular NSAIDs, gabapentin, hydroxycodone if needed | ||||||||
No drains | ||||||||
Wennstrom et al[11] | Functional assessment and goal setting | Thoracic epidural | Free fluid | Epidural removed | ||||
No bowel preparation | Short acting anaesthetics | Patient sat out in chair | Urinary catheter removal | |||||
Preoperative oral hydration | No opioids | |||||||
Mohn et al[18] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Patient sat out in chair | Removal of urinary catheter Patient sat out in chair | Epidural removed | Regular laxatives twice daily | ||
Functional assessment and goal setting | Total intravenous anaesthesia | Normal diet offered | ||||||
Bowel preparation | Intra-operative targeted fluid management | Regular paracetamol and NSAIDs, opioids for breakthrough | Restricted postoperative intravenous fluids | |||||
Prophylactic antiemetics | ||||||||
Short midline incisions | ||||||||
No drains or NG tubes | ||||||||
Teeuwen et al[17] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Free fluids | Normal diet offered | Epidural removed | |||
Bowel preparation in left-sided resections | Transverse incisions except in Crohn's disease and rectal surgery | Nutritional supplements | Intravenous fluid administration | Urinary catheter removal | ||||
Intra-operative targeted fluid management (hypotension treated with vasopressors) | Patient sat out in chair | Start walking | Regular Paracetamol NSAIDs, opioids for breakthrough | |||||
Prophylactic antiemetics | ||||||||
No drains or NG tubes | ||||||||
Ahmed et al[24,25] | Nutrition supplementation | High inspired oxygen | Free fluids | Start walking | Regular paracetamol NSAIDs, opioids for breakthrough | |||
Functional assessment and goal setting | Concentration | Soft diet offered | ||||||
No bowel preparation | Transverse incisions | Patient sat out in chair | ||||||
No drains or NG tubes | ||||||||
Kirdak et al[19] | Nutrition supplementation | Thoracic epidural | Start walking | NG tubes and urinary catheters removed (except pelvic dissection) | Removal urinary catheter (low pelvic operations) and drains | Epidural removed | ||
Bowel preparation | Pelvic drains with rectal dissections | Soft diet offered | Regular paracetamol | |||||
Urinary, central venous, and nasogastric catheters were routinely used | Patient sat out in chair | Central venous catheters removed | ||||||
Start walking | Normal diet |
Various protocols evaluate the nutritional status of patients, and, when necessary, oral supplementation is administered. Patients are usually fed until two hours before induction to avoid unnecessary consumption of body nutrients[8-11]. Few studies specified the necessity of a carbohydrate loading to prepare the body to the surgical stress and this seems a promising field of research[8,9]. Most studies do not administer MBP but some of them still use it in case of high-risk anastomosis (i.e., left-sided colonic resections)[12-17]. Only few authors use MBP routinely nowadays[10,18,19].
The leading concept of ERAS for the intraoperative phase is to administer drugs and fluids to the minimum dose effectively required by the patient and the operation. The avoidance of excessive amounts of drugs during surgery prevents their postoperative side-effects and accelerates the recovery. In this view, some authors administer short-acting anaesthetics to tailor them to the ongoing surgical necessity and to stop them quickly when not required anymore[8,9,11]. Similarly, intraoperative fluids are carefully given ranging from 1000 mL crystalloids and 500 mL colloids[8,9] to a total of 2000 mL crystalloids[12-16]. Intraoperative hypothermia is always avoided (Table 1).
Another important concept is that the control of postoperative pain already starts with some simple but effective intraoperative measures. Thoracic epidural can easily control postoperative pain after the operation. The simple infiltration of local anesthetics in the largest wound at the end of surgery also contribute to a better pain control[12-16]. Finally, transverse or curved incisions should be preferred when feasible[20-23].
In the postoperative period the general purpose of ERAS is to resume the normal physiological activities and to stop the artificial introduction of fluids and drugs as soon as tolerated by patients. In this view, the administration of intravenous fluids, already restricted during the operation, is definitely discontinued during the first postoperative hours in most studies[18]. Early oral feeding is started in the form of free fluids up to 800 mL[8,9,20-23], a soft diet[24,25], or oral nutritional supplementation (one high-protein/high-calorie drink)[12-16] along with regular antiemetics to prevent nausea[8,9,17,18]. To facilitate the resumption of bowel motility patients avoid regular opioids (still used for breakthrough pain), receive oral analgesia in the form of regular Paracetamol and non-steroidal antinflammatory drugs (with proton-pump inhibitors coverage)[26] and are encouraged to sit out in chair. Rarely patients are encouraged to start walking after the operation[19] although this target is usually achieved on the first postoperative day[24,25]. Nasogastric tubes or drains are avoided to facilitate mobilisation and feeding but few authors maintain them after pelvic surgery[19].
During the 1st postoperative day the diet is built up to a normal meal or three high-protein/high-calorie drinks[12-16], and some laxatives may be used to stimulate the bowel function[12-16]. The urinary catheter is removed in most colonic resections exception made for pelvic surgery where it can last until the 2nd or 3rd postoperative day[12-16,19]. On the second postoperative day the epidural is removed and by the 4th or 5th day patients are evaluated for discharge.
Nine studies compared LOS between ERAS and conventional care (CC) in colorectal surgery[7,9,14,17,18,20,22,27,28] (Table 2). In all of them the LOS was reduced of about 54%-61% following ERAS protocols[14] and the ERAS median hospital stay was 4-6 d compared to 8-9 d following CC[7,9,17,20,27,28]. There was no evidence that the relative effect of ERAS on LOS varied according to the type of surgery (laparoscopic, laparoscopic converted, open)[14]. In one study ERAS reduced the LOS equally in both laparoscopic (from a median of 7 d to a median of 5 d) and open surgery (from a median of 9 d to a median of 7 d)[28]. However, there was no change or improvement in the time taken to return to full activity for either group[28].
Ref. | Type of study | Patients (n) | Sex (males%) | Age (yr) | Type of surgery | Approach | Length of stay (d) | Morbidity | Mortality | Readmission | Comments |
King et al[14] | Prospective case series | 60 | 31 (52) | 72 ± 11 | ERAS | 5.8 | 11 (18%) | 2 (3%) | 7 (12%) | ERAS ↓ hospital stay | |
86 | 45 (52) | 70 ± 11 | Conventional | 10.7 (P < 0.001) | 24 (28%) | 6 (7%) | 8 (9%) | ||||
Maessen et al[20] | Observational study | 425 | - | - | Resections above peritoneal reflection | ERAS | 5 d | - | - | - | Delay in discharge was due to the development of major complications |
Maessen et al[21] | Case series | 121 | 67 (55) | 66 ± 12 | Resections above peritoneal reflection without stoma | ERAS | Discharge delay = 1 d | - | - | - | ↓ in hospital stay may relate to changes in organization of care and not to a shorter recovery period |
52 | 22 (42) | 64 ± 12 | Resections above peritoneal reflection without stoma | Conventional | Discharge delay = 2 d | ||||||
Jottard et al[7] | Prospective ERAS group matched with historical data | 36 | - | - | ERAS | 6 (3-27) | - | - | - | ERAS was implemented in a district general hospital | |
92 | - | - | Conventional | 9 (3-64) | - | - | - | ||||
Hendry et al[23] | Prospective case series | 1035 | 498 (48.10) | 59 (69-78) | ERAS | 6 (4-8) | 294 (28.40%) | 17 (1.60%) | 86 (8.60%) | Higher ASA, advanced age, sex (male) and rectal surgery associated with delayed mobilization, morbidity and prolonged stay | |
Mohn et al[18] | Prospective ERAS group matched with historical data | 94 | 40 (43) | 66 | ERAS | 29 (31%) | 1 (1%) | 14 (15%) | ERAS ↓ hospital stay | ||
153 | 68 (44.40) | 71 (15-90) | Conventional | 11 (5-108) | 27 (18%) | 1 (1%) | - | ||||
Nygren et al[22] | Prospective ERAS group matched with historical data | 99 | - | - | ERAS | - | 18%1 | - | 15%1 | ERAS ↓ time to resumption of oral diet, mobilization and passage of stool, improved lung function, ↓ morbidity and hospital stay but ↑ readmissions | |
69 | 27 | 65 ± 2 | Conventional | 8.6 ± 0.6/7 for colonic resection | 17 (37%) for colonic | 0 | 2 (4%) for colonic | ||||
12.7 ± 1.2/11 for rectal resection | 12 (52%) for rectal resection | 1 (4%) for rectal | |||||||||
Ahmed et al[24] | Retrospective case series | 231 | 101 (44) | 68 (56-76) | Elective open bowel resection | ERAS | 6 (5-9) | - | - | Lower ASA grade, use of epidurals and avoidance of regular oral opiates are associated with an earlier discharge | |
Kahokehr[9] | Prospective case series | 100 | - | 68 (31-92) | ERAS | 4 (3-46) | - | - | - | Lower ASA score, transverse incision laparotomy and laparoscopy associated with earlier discharge | |
Teeuwen et al[17] | Prospective ERAS group matched with historical data | 61 | 22 (36.1) | 57 ± 17.6 | elective open colonic or rectal resection | ERAS | 6 (3- 50) | 9 (14.8%) | 0% | 2 (3.3%) | ERAS ↓ morbidity and hospital stay |
122 | - | - | Conventional | 9 (3-138) | 33.60% | 1.60% | 1.60% | ||||
Bryans et al[34] | Retrospective case series | 20 | - | - | Colorectal surgery with stoma (excluding abdominoperineal resection) | ERAS | mean = 7 | - | - | - | ERAS ↓ hospital stay and ability to manage stoma |
20 | Conventional | mean = 20 | |||||||||
Kahokehr et al[8] | Prospective case series | 74 | - | - | Open right hemicolectomy | ERAS | Median (43-28) | - | - | - | No difference in morbidity or surgical recovery |
39 | Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy | Conventional | 5 (2-18) |
Significant predictors for longer discharges using ERAS protocols are the patient’s fitness for surgery [American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score greater than 1][9,20,23,24], higher physiological and operative severity score for the enumeration of mortality and morbidity scores[20], the use of oral opiates in the post-operative period[24], age[20,23,24], rectal surgery[23], complex resections[20], the development of major complications[20] and the inability to discharge patients when they had reached functional recovery[20]. In fact, the increase in LOS with age might be attributed to delayed discharge related to difficulties in arranging social care (see below). Contrasting results were reported for the postoperative duration of epidurals [24,29] and the use of a transverse vs midline incision[9,24], sex[9,23].
The readmission rate after ERAS is 3%-15% and is similar to CC[14,17,23,24]. Only Nygren showed a significant higher readmission rates after ERAS (4% vs 15 %)[22].
Most studies found no significant differences in mortality rates between ERAS and CC which ranged between 1.6% and 2% [17,18,22,23,27]. The overall morbidity rate after ERAS is 18%-28% (anastomotic leak 2%-5%, reoperation rate 7.4%)[23,24] (Table 2). Morbidity rates were lower than those published for the same units before the introduction of an ERAS protocol (35%)[27]. However, contrasting results were reported by other articles. Some studies showed similar overall complication rates[14,17,22] for both colonic and rectal resections[22], others claimed lower morbidity rates after ERAS (14.8% vs 33.6%)[17], others higher rates with ERAS but only for minor complications (nausea, wound infection)[18]. Morbidity was predicted by ASA grade III–IV, male sex and rectal surgery[30], while low BMI or advanced age were not associated with it[23].
Randomized trials involving the application of ERAS protocols to laparoscopic surgery showed conflicting results[12,31] (Table 3). A recent review of the published literature suggests that little additional benefit is added by laparoscopy to an already well-established ERAS program[32] especially in terms of postoperative quality of life[13], but a large multicentre study is still ongoing[33]. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery had a shorter LOS than those having open surgery (4-6 d for the laparoscopic group vs 6-10 d for the open group) for both colonic and rectal surgery[12,16]. Readmission rates also were lower after laparoscopic surgery (5.8% vs 22.0%)[16]. No significant differences were found in the overall morbidity (52% after laparoscopic vs 42% after open surgery) and major morbidity (15% after laparoscopic vs 26% after open surgery)[8,12,16] while contrasting results were reported for mortality rates: one study showed no significant differences[12] while another claimed higher mortality after open surgery[16]. Differently, Basse et al[31] did not reveal significant differences in LOS or morbidity between groups, but these authors excluded patients with rectal anastomoses (requiring a stoma) and those not living independently at home that required social setting for discharge. In fact, the social discharge is a problem that was also faced by Kahokehr and colleagues in their study (see below)[8].
Ref. | Type of study | Patients (n) | Approach | Comments |
Soop et al[26] | RCT | 9 vs 9 | Complete or hypocaloric postoperative enteral nutrition on ERAS | Complete enteral nutritions was associated with minimal postop insulin resistance, hyperglycemia and nitrogen losses |
King et al[12] | RCT | 43 vs 19 | Lap vs open resections on ERAS patients | Reduced hospital stay and with laparoscopic resections |
King et al[13] | RCT | 41 vs 19 | Lap vs open resections on ERAS patients | Laparoscopic surgery achieves quicker return to daily activities |
Kirdak et al[19] | RCT | 14 vs 13 | Preop. dexamethasone vs placebo on ERAS patients | Preoperative dexamethasone has no significant effects on the inflammatory response or outcomes |
Turunen et al[10] | RCT | 29 vs 29 | Epidural anesthesia vs control for laparoscopic resection on ERAS | The epidural G. needed less oxycodone than the control G. Until 12 h postop. Epidural alleviated pain, reduced opioids requirements |
Raymond et al[28] | Retrospective case series | 179 vs 144 | Lap vs open resections on ERAS patients | Laparoscopic surgery achieves quicker return to daily activities |
Blazeby et al[15] | Prospective | 20 | Laparoscopic assisted and open | QOL evaluation. Patients liked quicker discharges, few were dissatisfied due to complications requiring readmissions |
Senagore et al[35] | RCT | 22 vs 21 vs 21 | Standard vs lactated Ringer’s vs hetastarch-lactated Ringer’s periop fluid | Individualized intraoperative fluid management with crystalloid reduced overall fluid administration compared to colloid |
Faiz et al[16] | Prospective non-randomized | 191 vs 50 | Lap vs open resections on ERAS patients | Laparoscopic has advantages over open approach also in ERAS patients |
Wennstrom et al[11] | Prospective | 32 | ERAS | Postoperative survey on QOL following discharge: fatigue, nausea and bowel disturbances |
Ahmed et al[25] | Case series | 100 vs 95 | ERAS audit protocols application vs ERAS clinical practice | Observance to ERAS protocol was lower outside clinical trials |
In the pre-ERAS era 90% of patients were not discharged on the day that criteria were fulfilled. Wound care and symptoms pointing towards an anastomotic leakage were the most important reasons for a medical appropriate delay of discharge[21]. With regards for the stoma independence, 60% of patients audited in the pre-ERAS era were taking more than 8 d to be deemed stoma-independent and only 15% were able in less than 5 d. Following the introduction of ERAS protocols the percentage of patients not discharged on the day that criteria were fulfilled decreased to 34%-87%[20,21], 75% of patients achieved stoma independence in 5 d or less and only 5% took 8 or more days - the figures completely reversed compared to the pre-ERAS era[34]. Results achieved represent a huge step forward especially considering that they simply reflect an optimization of the patients’ management and of the impact of surgery without the necessity to introduce any additional procedures into clinical practice. At the same time they also show us that 13%-66% of patients are still not discharged when deemed medically fit by one or two days[24]. Various authors feel that ERAS protocols ultimately optimized the patient’s medical fitness for discharge and that nowadays a further reduction of the LOS must relate to changes in the organization of care and not to shorter recovery periods. This could be obtained in example by evidencing those social factors that can delay the discharge and therefore organizing the available resources outside the hospitals well in advance the operation. In example, older patients leaving alone and likely requiring specialist assistance or short admissions to nursing homes or rehabilitative structures can be individuated during the preoperative counseling and necessary arrangements well planned before surgery.
When asked about their experience with the ERAS programs, most patients appreciated a planned short hospital stay because it was perceived that better recovery could be achieved in the home environment[15] (Table 3). However, some of them reported feeling vulnerable at home so shortly after major surgery and those who experienced complications were less satisfied with the process[15]. The first period at home is the most troublesome and the main problems perceived are fatigue, nausea and bowel disturbances (not pain)[11] (Table 3). In this view, it is necessary that ERAS programs are paralleled by the development of services aimed to provide direct contacts and accesses to healthcare resources that could reassure patients about their recovery when normal or quickly individuate suspicious symptoms that require readmissions[8,15]. A direct telephone contact is a simple measure that might alleviate the patient anxiety and maintain the continuity of care from health professionals[11].
Peer reviewer: Dr. Imtiaz Wani, Department of Surgery, SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, Kashmir 190009, India
S- Editor Song XX L- Editor A E- Editor Xiong L
1. | Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M, Revhaug A, Dejong CH, Lassen K, Nygren J, Hausel J, Soop M, Andersen J. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr. 2005;24:466-477. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1001] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 979] [Article Influence: 49.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
2. | Varadhan KK, Lobo DN, Ljungqvist O. Enhanced recovery after surgery: the future of improving surgical care. Crit Care Clin. 2010;26:527-47, x. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
3. | Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt MF, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg. 2009;144:961-969. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
4. | Burch J, Wright S, Kennedy R. Enhanced recovery pathway in colorectal surgery. 1: Background and principles. Nurs Times. 2009;105:23-25. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
5. | Fearon KC, Luff R. The nutritional management of surgical patients: enhanced recovery after surgery. Proc Nutr Soc. 2003;62:807-811. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
6. | Soop M, Nygren J, Ljungqvist O. Optimizing perioperative management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery: what is new? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2006;12:166-170. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
7. | Jottard KJ, van Berlo C, Jeuken L, Dejong C. Changes in outcome during implementation of a fast-track colonic surgery project in a university-affiliated general teaching hospital: advantages reached with ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery project) over a 1-year period. Dig Surg. 2008;25:335-338. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 25] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
8. | Kahokehr A, Sammour T, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Srinivasa S, Hill AG. Recovery after open and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison. J Surg Res. 2010;162:11-16. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
9. | Kahokehr AA, Sammour T, Sahakian V, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Hill AG. Influences on length of stay in an enhanced recovery programme after colonic surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13:594-599. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 26] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
10. | Turunen P, Carpelan-Holmström M, Kairaluoma P, Wikström H, Kruuna O, Pere P, Bachmann M, Sarna S, Scheinin T. Epidural analgesia diminished pain but did not otherwise improve enhanced recovery after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:31-37. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
11. | Wennström B, Stomberg MW, Modin M, Skullman S. Patient symptoms after colonic surgery in the era of enhanced recovery--a long-term follow-up. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19:666-672. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 32] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
12. | King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, Franks PJ, Longman RJ, Kendrick AH, Kipling RM, Kennedy RH. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg. 2006;93:300-308. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
13. | King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, Kennedy RH. Detailed evaluation of functional recovery following laparoscopic or open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23:795-800. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
14. | King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, Longman RJ, Kipling RM, Franks PJ, Sheffield JP, Evans LB, Soulsby M, Bulley SH. The influence of an enhanced recovery programme on clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life after surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:506-513. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
15. | Blazeby JM, Soulsby M, Winstone K, King PM, Bulley S, Kennedy RH. A qualitative evaluation of patients' experiences of an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:e236-e242. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
16. | Faiz O, Brown T, Colucci G, Kennedy RH. A cohort study of results following elective colonic and rectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:366-372. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
17. | Teeuwen PH, Bleichrodt RP, Strik C, Groenewoud JJ, Brinkert W, van Laarhoven CJ, van Goor H, Bremers AJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in colorectal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14:88-95. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
18. | Mohn AC, Bernardshaw SV, Ristesund SM, Hovde Hansen PE, Røkke O. Enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery. Results from a prospective observational two-centre study. Scand J Surg. 2009;98:155-159. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
19. | Kirdak T, Yilmazlar A, Cavun S, Ercan I, Yilmazlar T. Does single, low-dose preoperative dexamethasone improve outcomes after colorectal surgery based on an enhanced recovery protocol? Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Am Surg. 2008;74:160-167. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
20. | Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Andersen J, Kessels AG, Revhaug A, Kehlet H, Ljungqvist O. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg. 2007;94:224-231. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 382] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 362] [Article Influence: 20.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
21. | Maessen JM, Dejong CH, Kessels AG, von Meyenfeldt MF. Length of stay: an inappropriate readout of the success of enhanced recovery programs. World J Surg. 2008;32:971-975. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
22. | Nygren J, Soop M, Thorell A, Hausel J, Ljungqvist O. An enhanced-recovery protocol improves outcome after colorectal resection already during the first year: a single-center experience in 168 consecutive patients. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:978-985. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 77] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 76] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
23. | Hendry PO, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Dejong CH, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC. Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg. 2009;96:197-205. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
24. | Ahmed J, Lim M, Khan S, McNaught C, Macfie J. Predictors of length of stay in patients having elective colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol. Int J Surg. 2010;8:628-632. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
25. | Ahmed J, Khan S, Gatt M, Kallam R, MacFie J. Compliance with enhanced recovery programmes in elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2010;97:754-758. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
26. | Soop M, Carlson GL, Hopkinson J, Clarke S, Thorell A, Nygren J, Ljungqvist O. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of immediate enteral nutrition on metabolic responses to major colorectal surgery in an enhanced recovery protocol. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1138-1145. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 113] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 124] [Article Influence: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
27. | Nygren J, Hausel J, Kehlet H, Revhaug A, Lassen K, Dejong C, Andersen J, von Meyenfeldt M, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC. A comparison in five European Centres of case mix, clinical management and outcomes following either conventional or fast-track perioperative care in colorectal surgery. Clin Nutr. 2005;24:455-461. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
28. | Raymond TM, Kumar S, Dastur JK, Adamek JP, Khot UP, Stewart MS, Parker MC. Case controlled study of the hospital stay and return to full activity following laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery before and after the introduction of an enhanced recovery programme. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:1001-1006. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
29. | Marret E, Remy C, Bonnet F. Meta-analysis of epidural analgesia versus parenteral opioid analgesia after colorectal surgery. Br J Surg. 2007;94:665-673. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
30. | Hendry PO, van Dam RM, Bukkems SF, McKeown DW, Parks RW, Preston T, Dejong CH, Garden OJ, Fearon KC. Randomized clinical trial of laxatives and oral nutritional supplements within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol following liver resection. Br J Surg. 2010;97:1198-1206. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 84] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 91] [Article Influence: 6.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
31. | Basse L, Jakobsen DH, Bardram L, Billesbølle P, Lund C, Mogensen T, Rosenberg J, Kehlet H. Functional recovery after open versus laparoscopic colonic resection: a randomized, blinded study. Ann Surg. 2005;241:416-423. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
32. | Khan S, Gatt M, MacFie J. Enhanced recovery programmes and colorectal surgery: does the laparoscope confer additional advantages? Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:902-908. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
33. | Wind J, Hofland J, Preckel B, Hollmann MW, Bossuyt PM, Gouma DJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Fuhring JW, Dejong CH, van Dam RM. Perioperative strategy in colonic surgery; LAparoscopy and/or FAst track multimodal management versus standard care (LAFA trial). BMC Surg. 2006;6:16. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
34. | Bryan S, Dukes S. The Enhanced Recovery Programme for stoma patients: an audit. Br J Nurs. 2010;19:831-834. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
35. | Senagore AJ, Emery T, Luchtefeld M, Kim D, Dujovny N, Hoedema R. Fluid management for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment of goal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarch coupled with an enhanced recovery program. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52:1935-1940. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |