World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 41, Issue 10, pp 2464–2470 | Cite as

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Can We Rely on the Key Factors or Do We Need the Bel Ensemble?

  • Jonas Jurt
  • Juliette Slieker
  • Pierre Frauche
  • Valerie Addor
  • Josep Solà
  • Nicolas DemartinesEmail author
  • Martin Hübner
Original Scientific Report



The success of enhanced recovery (ERAS) pathways depends on the actual application of the intended protocol (adherence), but its full implementation remains challenging. In order to potentially streamline the pathway, it is indispensable to know the impact of individual items and the entire protocol on clinical outcomes.


Retrospective analysis including all consecutive colorectal ERAS patients since implementation (May 2011) until February 2014; demographics, adherence and outcomes were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Primary outcome was the impact of individual item and of the entire protocol on complications (overall and major) and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis included logistic multivariate regression and adjustment for confounding factors.


There were 328 patients with complete data sets analyzed. A minimally invasive approach [odd ratio (OR) 0.62; confidence interval (CI) 0.4–0.9] was significantly associated with less overall complications. In contrast, the use of prophylactic nasogastric tubes (OR 3.18; CI 1.4–7.4), prophylactic abdominal and pelvic drains (OR 1.96; 1.2–3.2) and intraoperative thoracic epidural analgesia (OR 1.76; CI 1.3–2.4) were associated with more overall complications. Minimal invasive approach was further associated with reduced hospital stay (OR 0.5; CI 0.4–0.7) and less major complications (OR 0.58; CI 0.4–0.8). Higher adherence to the entire ERAS protocol was associated with significantly less complications (P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001).


Minimally invasive surgery was the single most important component of the ERAS pathway while nasogastric tubes, drains and epidurals should be avoided. Overall, increasing adherence with the protocol was associated with better outcomes and should be the goal.


Segmental Colectomy Minimal Invasive Approach Abdominal Hernia Repair Perfect Protocol Stoma Procedure 
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.



Enhanced recovery after surgery


Author′s contribution

JJ contributed to conception, analysis, and interpretation, drafting. JS contributed to analysis, interpretation, and critical revision. PF helped in interpretation and critical revision. VA acquired data and critically revised it. JS analyzed, interpreted, and critically revised the data. ND contributed to conception and major critical editing. MH contributed to conception, analysis, interpretation, drafting, and major critical editing. All authors approved the final version.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37(2):259–284. doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M (2014) Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 38(6):1531–1541. doi: 10.1007/s00268-013-2416-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roulin D, Donadini A, Gander S, Griesser AC, Blanc C, Hubner M et al (2013) Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 100(8):1108–1114CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hubner M, Addor V, Slieker J, Griesser AC, Lecureux E, Blanc C et al (2015) The impact of an enhanced recovery pathway on nursing workload: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg 24(Pt A):45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J et al (2011) Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146(5):571–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Andersen J et al (2007) A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 94(2):224–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lloyd GM, Kirby R, Hemingway DM, Keane FB, Miller AS, Neary P (2010) The RAPID protocol enhances patient recovery after both laparoscopic and open colorectal resections. Surg Endosc 24(6):1434–1439CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahmed J, Khan S, Lim M, Chandrasekaran TV, MacFie J (2012) Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols - compliance and variations in practice during routine colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 14(9):1045–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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(2):205–213CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kennedy GD, Heise C, Rajamanickam V, Harms B, Foley EF (2009) Laparoscopy decreases postoperative complication rates after abdominal colectomy: results from the national surgical quality improvement program. Ann Surg 249(4):596–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF et al (2011) Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg 254(6):868–875CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spanjersberg WR, van Sambeeck JD, Bremers A, Rosman C, van Laarhoven CJ (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis for laparoscopic versus open colon surgery with or without an ERAS programme. Surg Endosc 29(12):3443–3453CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Veenhof AA, Vlug MS, van der Pas MH, Sietses C, van der Peet DL, de Lange-de Klerk ES 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(2):216–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao W, Zhang X, Zhang J, Yan R, Hu Z, Wang Q (2011) The role of nasogastric tube in decompression after elective colon and rectum surgery: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 26(4):423–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karliczek A, Jesus EC, Matos D, Castro AA, Atallah AN, Wiggers T (2006) Drainage or nondrainage in elective colorectal anastomosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 8(4):259–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V, Clavien PA (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Ann Surg 240(6):1074–1084 (discussion 84-5) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Popping DM, Elia N, Marret E, Remy C, Tramer MR (2008) Protective effects of epidural analgesia on pulmonary complications after abdominal and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis. Arch Surg 143(10):990–999 (discussion 1000) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jorgensen H, Wetterslev J, Moiniche S, Dahl JB (2000) Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens on postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, PONV and pain after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001893Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hubner M, Blanc C, Roulin D, Winiker M, Gander S, Demartines N (2015) Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway. Ann Surg 261(4):648–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levy BF, Scott MJ, Fawcett W, Fry C, Rockall TA (2011) Randomized clinical trial of epidural, spinal or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 98(8):1068–1078CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vlug MS, Bartels SA, Wind J, Ubbink DT, Hollmann MW, Bemelman WA et al (2012) Which fast track elements predict early recovery after colon cancer surgery? Colorectal Dis 14(8):1001–1008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daabiss M (2011) American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status classification. Indian J Anaesth 55(2):111–115CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roulin D, Muradbegovic M, Addor V, Blanc C, Demartines N, Hubner M (2016) Enhanced recovery after elective colorectal surgery-reasons for non-compliance with the protocol. Dig Surg 34:220–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Slieker J, Frauche P, Jurt J, Addor V, Blanc C, Demartines N et al (2017) Enhanced recovery ERAS for elderly: a safe and beneficial pathway in colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 32(2):215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonas Jurt
    • 1
  • Juliette Slieker
    • 1
  • Pierre Frauche
    • 1
  • Valerie Addor
    • 1
  • Josep Solà
    • 2
  • Nicolas Demartines
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Hübner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Visceral SurgeryUniversity Hospital CHUVLausanneSwitzerland
  2. 2.CSEM – Centre Suisse d’Electronique et de MicrotechniqueNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations