open access

Vol 89, No 7 (2018)
Research paper
Published online: 2018-07-31
Get Citation

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomies

Gulseren Yilmaz1, Aysu Akça2, Nevin Aydin1
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2018.0060
·
Pubmed: 30091443
·
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(7):351-356.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Anesthesiology & Reanimation, University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Hospital, Atakent Mah. Turgut Özal Cad. No:1 Küçükçekmece,, 34303 Istanbul, Turkey
  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Hospital, Atakent Mh. Turgut Ozal Blv. No:46/1, 34303 Istanbul, Turkey

open access

Vol 89, No 7 (2018)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2018-07-31

Abstract

Objectives: In the present study, we aimed to compare the postoperative compliance and complications between ERAS and conventional postoperative care in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomies.

Material and methods: This is the prospective, randomized, controlled trial, which involved 62 patients, who underwent abdominal hysterectomy between December 2016 to February 2017. A total of 30 patients formed the ERAS group. A total of 32 patients who received conventional perioperative care and matched for age, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were assigned as a control group. Groups were compared in terms of patient characteristics [age, body mass index, ASA Score, parity, diagnosis, type of surgery, and perioperative intravenous fluids], postoperative compliance (postoperative intravenous fluids, time to first flatus, first defecation, ambulation, eating solid food, and postoperative hospital stay), and postoperative complications.

Results: Peri- and post-operative administrated intravenous fluids were significantly lower in the ERAS group (p < 0.001 for both). Time to first flatus (p = 0.001), time to first defecation (p < 0.001), and time to eating solid food (p < 0.001) were all significantly shorter in the ERAS group. Post-operative early mobilization on the first postoperative day was achieved in eight (26.7%) patients in the ERAS group. There were no significant differences in complications. One (3.3%) patient in the ERAS Group and 11 (34.4%) patients in the Conventional Group required hospital readmission after discharge (p = 0.002).

Conclusion: The ERAS protocol seems to be a simple tool for reducing the incidence of postoperative complications and shortening hospitalization.  

Abstract

Objectives: In the present study, we aimed to compare the postoperative compliance and complications between ERAS and conventional postoperative care in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomies.

Material and methods: This is the prospective, randomized, controlled trial, which involved 62 patients, who underwent abdominal hysterectomy between December 2016 to February 2017. A total of 30 patients formed the ERAS group. A total of 32 patients who received conventional perioperative care and matched for age, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists score were assigned as a control group. Groups were compared in terms of patient characteristics [age, body mass index, ASA Score, parity, diagnosis, type of surgery, and perioperative intravenous fluids], postoperative compliance (postoperative intravenous fluids, time to first flatus, first defecation, ambulation, eating solid food, and postoperative hospital stay), and postoperative complications.

Results: Peri- and post-operative administrated intravenous fluids were significantly lower in the ERAS group (p < 0.001 for both). Time to first flatus (p = 0.001), time to first defecation (p < 0.001), and time to eating solid food (p < 0.001) were all significantly shorter in the ERAS group. Post-operative early mobilization on the first postoperative day was achieved in eight (26.7%) patients in the ERAS group. There were no significant differences in complications. One (3.3%) patient in the ERAS Group and 11 (34.4%) patients in the Conventional Group required hospital readmission after discharge (p = 0.002).

Conclusion: The ERAS protocol seems to be a simple tool for reducing the incidence of postoperative complications and shortening hospitalization.  

Get Citation

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery, ERAS, abdominal hysterectomy

Supp./Additional Files (2)
cover letter
Download
39KB
Title page
Download
28KB
About this article
Title

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomies

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 89, No 7 (2018)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

351-356

Published online

2018-07-31

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2018.0060

Pubmed

30091443

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2018;89(7):351-356.

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery
ERAS
abdominal hysterectomy

Authors

Gulseren Yilmaz
Aysu Akça
Nevin Aydin

References (32)
  1. Abdikarim I, Cao XY, Li SZ, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for stomach carcinomas. World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21(47): 13339–13344.
  2. Khan JS. ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) in Colorectal Surgery. In: Jimenez RS, Alvarez AB, Lopez JT, Jimenez AS, Conde FG, Saez JA. ed. Colorectal Cancer – Surgery, Diagnostics and Treatment. 2014.
  3. Miller TE, Thacker JK, White WD, et al. Enhanced Recovery Study Group. Reduced length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery after implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol. Anesth Analg. 2014; 118(5): 1052–1061.
  4. Neville A, Lee L, Antonescu I, et al. Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. Br J Surg. 2014; 101(3): 159–170.
  5. Hübner M, Addor V, Slieker J, et al. The impact of an enhanced recovery pathway on nursing workload: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015; 24(Pt A): 45–50.
  6. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008; 248(2): 189–198.
  7. Galaal K, Bryant A, Fisher AD, et al. Laparoscopy versus laparotomy for the management of early stage endometrial cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(9): CD006655.
  8. Aarts JWM, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(3): CD003677.
  9. Hansen CT, Sørensen M, Møller C, et al. Fast track hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001; 98(1): 18–22.
  10. Borendal Wodlin N, Nilsson L, Kjølhede P, et al. GASPI study group. The impact of mode of anaesthesia on postoperative recovery from fast-track abdominal hysterectomy: a randomised clinical trial. BJOG. 2011; 118(3): 299–308.
  11. Carter J. Fast-track surgery in gynaecology and gynaecologic oncology: a review of a rolling clinical audit. ISRN Surg. 2012; 2012: 368014.
  12. Pather S, Loadsman JA, Mansfield C, et al. Perioperative outcomes after total laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with fast-track open hysterectomy - a retrospective case-control study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011; 51(5): 393–396.
  13. Kalogera E, Bakkum-Gamez JN, Jankowski CJ, et al. Enhanced recovery in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(2 Pt 1): 319–328.
  14. Magee G, Zbrozek A. Fluid overload is associated with increases in length of stay and hospital costs: pooled analysis of data from more than 600 US hospitals. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013; 5: 289–296.
  15. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society, for Perioperative Care, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN). Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013; 37(2): 259–284.
  16. Lewis SJ, Andersen HK, Thomas S. Early enteral nutrition within 24 h of intestinal surgery versus later commencement of feeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009; 13(3): 569–575.
  17. Huibers CJA, de Roos MAJ, Ong KH. The effect of the introduction of the ERAS protocol in laparoscopic total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2012; 27(6): 751–757.
  18. Ren Li, Zhu D, Wei Ye, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program attenuates stress and accelerates recovery in patients after radical resection for colorectal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2012; 36(2): 407–414.
  19. Alcántara-Moral M, Serra-Aracil X, Gil-Egea MJ, et al. E.B.S.Q.-C on behalf of the collaborative Group of Coloproctology Section of The Spanish Association of Surgeons. Observational cross-sectional study of compliance with the fast track protocol in elective surgery for colon cancer in Spain. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29(4): 477–483.
  20. Shida D, Tagawa K, Inada K, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols for colorectal cancer in Japan. BMC Surg. 2015; 15: 90.
  21. McWilliams DJ, Pantelides KP. Does physiotherapy led early mobilisation affect length of stay on ICU? ACPRC Journal. 2008; 40: 5–11.
  22. Teeuwen PHE, Bleichrodt RP, Strik C, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus conventional postoperative care in colorectal surgery. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010; 14(1): 88–95.
  23. Carter J, Szabo R, Sim WW, et al. Fast track surgery: a clinical audit. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010; 50(2): 159–163.
  24. Carter J. Fast-track surgery in gynaecology and gynaecologic oncology: a review of a rolling clinical audit. ISRN Surg. 2012; 2012: 368014.
  25. Cağli K, Uncu H, Işcan Z, et al. [The efficiency of fast track protocol in elderly patients who underwent coronary artery surgery]. Anadolu Kardiyol Derg. 2003; 3(1): 8–12, AXVII.
  26. Relph S, Bell A, Sivashanmugarajan V, et al. Cost effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery programme for vaginal hysterectomy: a comparison of pre and post-implementation expenditures. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2014; 29(4): 399–406.
  27. Coolsen MME, van Dam RM, van der Wilt AA, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery with particular emphasis on pancreaticoduodenectomies. World J Surg. 2013; 37(8): 1909–1918.
  28. Lemanu DP, Singh PP, Stowers MDJ, et al. A systematic review to assess cost effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2014; 16(5): 338–346.
  29. Wang LH, Fang F, Lu CM, et al. Safety of fast-track rehabilitation after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20(41): 15423–15439.
  30. Yin X, Zhao Y, Zhu X. Comparison of fast track protocol and standard care in patients undergoing elective open colorectal resection: a meta-analysis update. Appl Nurs Res. 2014; 27(4): e20–e26.
  31. Yu Z, Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, et al. Fast-track surgery in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2014; 399(1): 85–92.
  32. Agrafiotis AC, Corbeau M, Buggenhout A, et al. Enhanced recovery after elective colorectal resection outside a strict fast-track protocol. A single centre experience. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014; 29(1): 99–104.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl