Meta‐analysis of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols in Emergency Abdominal Surgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in emergency abdominal surgery. METHODS: The electronic data sources were explored to capture all studies that evaluated the impact of ERAS protocols in patients who underwent emergency abdominal surgery. The quality of randomised and non-randomised studies was evaluated by the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, respectively. Random or fixed effects modelling were utilised as indicated. RESULTS: Six comparative studies, enrolling 1334 patients, were eligible. ERAS protocols resulted in shorter post-operative time to first flatus (mean difference: -1.40, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (mean difference: -1.21, P = 0.02), time to first oral liquid diet (mean difference: -2.30, P < 0.00001), time to first oral solid diet (mean difference: -2.40, P < 0.00001) and length of hospital stay (mean difference: -3.09, -2.80, P < 0.00001). ERAS protocols also resulted in lower risks of total complications (odds ratio: 0.50, P < 0.00001), major complications (odds ratio: 0.60, P = 0.0008), pulmonary complications (odds ratio: 0.38, P = 0.0003), paralytic ileus (odds ratio: 0.53, 0.88, P = 0.01) and surgical site infection (odds ratio: 0.39, P = 0.0001). Both ERAS and non-ERAS protocols resulted in similar risk of 30-day mortality (risk difference: -0.00, P = 0.94), need for re-admission (risk difference: -0.01, P = 0.50) and need for re-operation (odds ratio: 0.83, P = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Although ERAS protocols are commonly used in elective settings, they are associated with favourable outcomes in emergency settings as indicated by reduced post-operative complications, accelerated recovery of bowel function and shorter post-operative hospital stay without increasing need for re-admission or re-operation. There should be an effort to incorporate ERAS protocols into emergency abdominal surgery settings.

Topics & Concepts