Evaluating the impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols following oesophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials
Patrick Kennelly, Matthew G. Davey, Diana Griniouk, Gavin Calpin, Noel E. Donlon
Abstract
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based care improvement pathways which are perceived to expedite patient recovery following surgery. Their utility in the setting of oesophagectomy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the impact of ERAS protocols on recovery following oesophagectomy compared to standard care. A systematic review was performed in accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (Version 5.4). Six RCTs including 850 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Overall complication rate (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.35, Confidence Interval (CI): 0.21, 0.59, P < 0.0001), pulmonary complications (OR: 0.40, CI: 0.24, 0.67, P = 0.0005), post-operative length of stay (LOS) (OR -1.88, CI -2.05, -1.70, P < 0.00001) and time to post-operative flatus (OR: -5.20, CI: -9.46, -0.95, P = 0.02) favoured the ERAS group. There was no difference noted for anastomotic leak (OR: 0.55, CI: 0.24, 1.28, P = 0.17), cardiac complications (OR: 0.86, CI: 0.30, 2.46, P = 0.78), gastrointestinal complications (OR: 0.51, CI: 0.23, 1.17, P = 0.11), wound complications (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.28, 2.58, P = 0.78), mortality (OR: 1.37, CI: 0.26, 7.4, P = 0.71), and 30-day re-admission rate (OR: 1.29, CI: 0.30, 5.47, P = 0.73) between ERAS and standard care groups. ERAS implementation improved post-operative complications, LOS, and time to flatus following oesphagectomy. These results support the robust adoption of ERAS in patients indicated to undergo oesphagectomy.