World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 860–867 | Cite as

Enhanced Recovery Program in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: Results from the PeriOperative Italian Society Registry

  • Marco BragaEmail author
  • Nicolò Pecorelli
  • Marco Scatizzi
  • Felice Borghi
  • Giancarlo Missana
  • Danilo Radrizzani
  • On behalf of the PeriOperative Italian Society
Original Scientific Report



Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways represent the optimal approach for patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Elderly or low physical status patients have been often excluded from ERAS pathways because considered at high risk. The aim of this study is to assess the adherence to ERAS protocol and its impact on short-term postoperative outcome in patients with different surgical risk undergoing elective colorectal resection.


Prospectively collected data entered in an electronic Italian registry specifically designed for ERAS were reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups according to age (70-year-old cutoff) and preoperative physical status as measured by the ASA grade (I–II vs. III–IV). Adherence to 18 ERAS elements and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. Regression analysis was used to identify independent factors associated with improved outcomes.


Eleven Italian hospitals reported data on 706 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol. Patients with low physical status had reduced adherence to preoperative carbohydrate loading, epidural analgesia, PONV prophylaxis, and early urinary catheter removal. No difference was found between groups for adherence to other perioperative elements. Major complications occurred in 37 (5.2 %) patients without significant differences among groups (p = 0.384). Median (IQR) time to readiness for discharge (TRD) was 4 (3–6) days, length of hospital stay (LOS) was 6 (4–7) days, and both were significantly shorter by only 1 day in the groups of younger patients (p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, laparoscopy increased adherence to ERAS items and reduced TRD, LOS, and morbidity. A high ASA grade was significantly associated with lower adherence, whereas older age significantly prolonged TRD and LOS.


ERAS pathway can be safely applied in elderly and low physical status patients yielding slight differences in postoperative morbidity and time to recover. Laparoscopy was independently associated with increased adherence to ERAS protocol and improved short-term postoperative outcome.


Enhance Recovery Program Preoperative Physical Status Preoperative Carbohydrate Loading High Physical Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


PeriOperative Italian Society collaborative members

Luigi Beretta MD (Department of Anesthesiology, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele Hospital, Milan), Stefano Bona MD (Department of Surgery, Humanitas Hospital IRCCS, Milan), Roberta Monzani MD (Department of Surgery, Humanitas Hospital IRCCS, Milan), Marco Azzola MD (Department of Surgery, Cantù Hospital), Andrea Muratore MD (Department of Surgery, Candiolo Hospital, Turin), Michele Crespi MD (Department of Surgery, Luigi Sacco Hospital, Milan), Riccardo Iuliani MD (Department of Surgery, Cottolengo Hospital Turin), Carlo Bima MD (Department of Surgery, Cottolengo Hospital Turin), Hedayat Bouzari MD (Department of Surgery, Mauriziano Hospital Turin), Andrea Pisani Ceretti MD (Department of Surgery, San Paolo Hospital), Luca Pellegrino MD (Department of Surgery, Cuneo Hospital), Marianna Maspero (Department of Surgery, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele Hospital, Milan), Umberto Casiraghi (Department of Surgery, Vita-Salute University San Raffaele Hospital, Milan), Ferdinando Ficari MD (Department of Surgery, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence).


  1. 1.
    Tan KY, Kawamura YJ, Tokomitsu A, Tang T (2012) Assessment for frailty is useful for predicting morbidity in elderly patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection whose comorbidities are already optimized. Am J Surg 204:139–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marusch F, Koch A, Schmidt U et al (2005) The impact of the risk factor ‘age’ on the early postoperative results of surgery for colorectal carcinoma and its significance for perioperative management. World J Surg 29:1013–1021CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veenhof AAFA, Vlug MS, Van Der Pas MHGM et al (2012) Surgical stress response and postoperative immune function after laparoscopy or open surgery with fast track or standard perioperative care: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 255:216–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F et al (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 16:CD007635Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH et al (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29:434–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L et al (2014) Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 38:1531–1541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sammour T, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Bhat A et al (2010) A programme of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a cost-effective intervention in elective colonic surgery. N Z Med J 123:61–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 100:1108–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lyon A, Payne C, MacKay GJ (2012) Enhanced recovery programme in colorectal surgery: does one size fit all? World J Gastroenterol 18:5661–5663CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bagnall NM, Malietzis G, Kennedy RH et al (2014) A systematic review of enhanced recovery care after colorectal surgery in elderly patients. Colorectal Dis 16:947–956CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M et al (2007) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fiore JF, Faragher IG, Bialocerkowski A et al (2013) Time to readiness for discharge is a valid and reliable measure of short-term recovery after colorectal surgery. World J Surg 37:2927–2934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bozzetti F, Braga M, Gianotti L et al (2001) Postoperative enteral versus parenteral nutrition in malnourished patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 358:1487–1492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faiz O, Haji A, Bottle A et al (2011) Elective colonic surgery for cancer in the elderly: an investigation into postoperative mortality in English NHS hospitals between 1996 and 2007. Colorectal Dis 13:779–785CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heriot AG, Tekkis PP, Smith JJ et al (2006) Prediction of postoperative mortality in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 29:816–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ERAS Compliance Group (2015) The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection. Results from an International Registry. Ann Surg 261:1153–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khoo CK, Vickery CJ, Forsyth N et al (2007) A prospective randomized controlled trial of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Ann Surg 245:867–872CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Muller S, Zalunardo MP, Hubner M et al (2009) A fast-track program reduces complications and length of stay after open colonic surgery. Gastroenterology 136:842–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M et al (2013) Fast-track surgery in real life: how patient factors influence outcomes and compliance with an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Techn 23:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Beak SJ, Kim SH, Kim SY et al (2013) The safety of a “fast-track” program after laparoscopic colorectal surgery is comparable in older patients as in younger patients. Surg Endosc 27:1225–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Basse L, Jakobsen DH, Bardram L et al (2005) Functional recovery after open versus laparoscopic colonic resection. Ann Surg 241:416–423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gatt M, Anderson ADG, Reddy BS et al (2005) Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection. Br J Surg 92:1354–1362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pecorelli N, Hershorn O, Baldini G et al (2016) Impact of adherence to care pathway interventions on recovery following bowel resection within an established enhanced recovery program. Surg Endosc. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-5169-2 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW et al (2011) Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery. Ann Surg 254:868–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R et al (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional vs. laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery program: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32:1804–1811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haines KJ, Skinner EH, Berney S (2013) Association of postoperative pulmonary complications with delayed mobilisation following major abdominal surgery: an observational cohort study. Physiotherapy 99:119–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zaouter C, Kaneva P, Carli F (2009) Less urinary tract infection by earlier removal of bladder catheter in surgical patients receiving thoracic epidural analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 34:542–548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marco Braga
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nicolò Pecorelli
    • 1
  • Marco Scatizzi
    • 2
  • Felice Borghi
    • 3
  • Giancarlo Missana
    • 4
  • Danilo Radrizzani
    • 5
  • On behalf of the PeriOperative Italian Society
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, San Raffaele HospitalVita-Salute UniversityMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryPrato HospitalPratoItaly
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryCuneo HospitalCuneoItaly
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryCasa di Cura Città di UdineUdineItaly
  5. 5.Department of AnesthesiaLegnano HospitalLegnanoItaly

Personalised recommendations