International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 3–11 | Cite as

Review of enhanced recovery programs in benign gynecologic surgery

  • Elisa R. TrowbridgeEmail author
  • Caitlin N. Dreisbach
  • Bethany M. Sarosiek
  • Catherine Page Dunbar
  • Sarah Larkin Evans
  • Lee Anne Hahn
  • Kathie L. Hullfish
Review Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) are evidence-based protocols designed to improve functional rehabilitation after surgery. ERPs have gained widespread acceptance in many surgical disciplines, and their use leads to significant improvements in patient outcomes while reducing hospital length of stay (LOS). There remains a paucity of data on the use of ERPs in benign gynecologic surgery. The purpose of this review was to evaluate current literature on the use of ERP concepts in benign gynecologic surgery.


A systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane databases was conducted, cross-referencing search terms related to gynecologic surgery and ERP concepts. The search was limited to publications available in English. Studies published prior to 2000, and those involving gynecologic oncology, nonadult patients, and outpatient surgery were excluded.


Nine studies were included in the analysis. Due to heterogeneity of the included studies, no statistical pooling was possible and comparison between studies was limited to their respective themes. Primary study outcomes included LOS, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain management, patient satisfaction, and hospital costs. Five studies investigated ERPs, two evaluated measures to improve PONV, and four focused on unique aspects of pain management. Across the studies, ERPs that focused on the patients’ basic symptoms and recovery were found to have equal, if not better, outcomes than standard practice.


This integrative review supports the implementation of ERPs in benign gynecologic surgery. The results showed that the use of ERPs decreased LOS, improved pain scores, and reduced hospital costs, without increasing perioperative complications. We suggest additional randomized controlled trials of ERP concepts in benign gynecologic surgery to support their more widespread use and application.


Benign gynecology Enhanced recovery after surgery Enhanced recovery programs Fast track surgery 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Committee Opinion No. 701. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e155–9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth. 1997;78:606–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chapman J, Roddy E, Ueda S, Brooks R, Chen L, Chen L. Enhanced recovery pathways for improving outcomes after minimally invasive gynecologic oncology surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(1):138–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thiele R, Rea K, Turrentine F, Friel C, Hassinger T, Goudreau B, et al. Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(4):430–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Groot J, Maesen J, Slangen B, Winkens B, Dirksen C, van der Weijden T. A stepped strategy that aims at the nationwide implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programme in major gynaecological surgery: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Implement Sci. 2015;10:106.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kalogera E, Bakkum-Gamez J, Jankowski C, Trabuco E, Lovely J, Dhanorker S, et al. Enhanced recovery in gynecologic surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 Part 1):319–28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nelson G, Altman A, Nick A, Meyer L, Ramirez P, Achtari C, et al. Guidelines for pre- and intra-operative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations – Part I. Gynecol Oncol. 2016;140:313–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedziwiatr M, Kisialeuski M, Wierdak M, Stanek M, Natkaniec M, Matłok M, et al. Early implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocol – compliance improves outcomes: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2015;21:75–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raman J, Leveson N, Samost AL, Dobrilovic N, Oldham M, Dekker S, et al. When a checklist is not enough: how to improve them and what else is needed. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(2):585–92. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.01.022.
  10. 10.
    Pauls R, Crisp C, Oakley S, Westermann L, Mazloomdoost D, Kleeman S, et al. Effects of dexamethasone on quality of recovery following vaginal surgery: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;718:1–7.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ravndal C, Vandrevala T. Preemptive local anesthetic in gynecologic laparoscopy and postoperative movement-evoked pain: a randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23:775–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wodlin N, Nilsson L, Arestedt K, Kjolhede P. Mode of anesthesia and postoperative symptoms following abdominal hysterectomy in a fast-track setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:369–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xiromeritis P, Kalogiannidis I, Papadopoulos E, Prapas N, Prapas Y. Improved recovery using multimodal perioperative analgesia in minimally invasive myomectomy: a randomised study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51:301–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Lapasse C, Rabischong B, Bolandard F, Canis M, Botchorischvili R, Jardon K, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and early discharge: satisfaction and feasibility study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:20–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dickson E, Argenta P, Reichert J. Results of introducing a rapid recovery program from total abdominal hysterectomy. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:21–5. doi: 10.1159/000328713.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yoong W, Sivashanmugarajan V, Relph S, Bell A, Fajemirokun E, Davies T, et al. Can enhanced recovery pathways improve outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy? Cohort control study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(1):83–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ottesen M, Sorensen M, Rasmussen Y, Smidt-Jensen S, Kehlet H, Ottesen B. Fast track vaginal surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:138–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kroon U, Radstromb M, Hjelthea C, Dahlinc C, Kroon L. Fast-track hysterectomy: a randomised, controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151:203–7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewers’ Manual, 2014 edition. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide; 2014.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chatterjee S, Rudra A, Sengupta S. Current concepts in the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:748031. doi: 10.1155/2011/748031.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith G, Durieux M, Bhiken N. Trends of intraoperative opioid and non-opioid analgesic use at an academic tertiary care hospital over a four-year period. Poster session presented at the PostGraduate Assembly in Anesthesiology (PGA70), 2016, New York, NY.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisa R. Trowbridge
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caitlin N. Dreisbach
    • 2
  • Bethany M. Sarosiek
    • 2
  • Catherine Page Dunbar
    • 2
  • Sarah Larkin Evans
    • 2
  • Lee Anne Hahn
    • 2
  • Kathie L. Hullfish
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations