Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Should enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways be preferred over standard practice for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Although many studies assessing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) have recently demonstrated lower rates of postoperative morbidity and a decrease in postoperative length of stay compared to standard practice, the utility of ERAS in AWR remains largely unknown.

Methods

A systematic literature search for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing ERAS (ERAS +) pathways and standard protocols (Control) as an adopted practice for patients undergoing AWR was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. A predefined search strategy was implemented. The included studies were reviewed for primary outcomes: overall postoperative morbidity, abdominal wall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay; and for secondary outcome: operative time, estimated blood loss, time to discontinuation of narcotics, time to urinary catheter removal, time to return to bowel function, time to return to regular diet, and readmission rate. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and Odds Ratio for dichotomous variables.

Results

Five non-randomized studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. 840 patients were allocated to either ERAS + (382) or Control (458). ERAS + and Control groups showed equivalent results with regard to the incidence of postoperative morbidity (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.32–1.63; I2= 76%), SSI (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43–3.22; I2= 54%), time to return to bowel function (SMD − 2.57, 95% CI − 5.32 to 0.17; I2= 99%), time to discontinuation of narcotics (SMD − 0.61, 95% CI − 1.81 to 0.59; I2= 97%), time to urinary catheter removal (SMD − 2.77, 95% CI − 6.05 to 0.51; I2= 99%), time to return to regular diet (SMD − 0.77, 95% CI − 2.29 to 0.74; I2= 98%), and readmission rate (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52–1.27; I2= 49%). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS + compared to the Control group (SMD − 0.93, 95% CI − 1.84 to − 0.02; I2= 97%).

Conclusions

The introduction of an ERAS pathway into the clinical practice for patients undergoing AWR may cause a decreased length of hospitalization. These results should be interpreted with caution, due to the low level of evidence and the high heterogeneity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sauerland S, Walgenbach M, Habermalz B et al (2011) Laparoscopic versus open surgical techniques for ventral or incisional hernia repair. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007781.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hawn MT, Gray SH, Snyder CW et al (2011) Predictors of mesh explantation after incisional hernia repair. Am J Surg 202(1):28–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanchez VM, Abi-Haidar YE, Itani KM (2011) Mesh infection in ventral incisional hernia repair: incidence, contributing factors, and treatment. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 12(3):205–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Adamina M, Kehlet H, Tomlinson GA et al (2011) Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery. Surgery 149(6):830–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F et al (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007635.pub2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nicholson A, Lowe MC, Parker J et al (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients. Br J Surg 101(3):172–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fayezizadeh M, Petro CC, Rosen MJ et al (2014) Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for abdominal wall reconstruction: pilot study and preliminary outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 134(4 Suppl 2):151S–159S

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Majumder A, Fayezizadeh M, Neupane R et al (2016) Benefits of multimodal enhanced recovery pathway in patients undergoing open ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 222(6):1106–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Warren JA, Stoddard C, Hunter AL et al (2017) Effect of multimodal analgesia on opioid use after open ventral hernia repair. J Gastrointest Surg 21(10):1692–1699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Colvin J, Rosen M, Prabhu A et al (2019) Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction. Surgery 166(5):849–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott MJ, Miller TE (2015) Pathophysiology of major surgery and the role of enhanced recovery pathways and the anesthesiologist to improve outcomes. Anesthesiol Clin 33(1):79–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fischer JP, Wes AM, Wink JD et al (2014) Analysis of perioperative factors associated with increased cost following abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR). Hernia 18(5):617–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jensen KK, Brondum TL, Harling H et al (2016) Enhanced recovery after giant ventral hernia repair. Hernia 20(2):249–256

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Macedo FIB, Mittal VK (2017) Does enhanced recovery pathways affect outcomes in open ventral hernia repair? Hernia 21(5):817–818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283(15):2008–2012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Higgins JPT, Green S (eds). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.3.5. The Cochrane collaboration, 2019. www.handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed April 2020

  18. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ et al (2011) GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 64(4):401–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from gradepro.org

  21. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Stearns E, Plymale MA, Davenport DL et al (2018) Early outcomes of an enhanced recovery protocol for open repair of ventral hernia. Surg Endosc 32(6):2914–2922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ueland W, Walsh-Blackmore S, Nisiewicz M et al (2019) The contribution of specific enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol elements to reduced length of hospital stay after ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07233-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Warren JA, Carbonell AM, Jones LK et al (2019) Length of stay and opioid dose requirement with transversus abdominis plane block vs epidural analgesia for ventral hernia repair. J Am Coll Surg 228(4):680–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Senagore AJ, Champagne BJ, Dosokey E et al (2017) Pharmacogenetics-guided analgesics in major abdominal surgery: further benefits within an enhanced recovery protocol. Am J Surg 213(3):467–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen KK, Dressler J, Baastrup NN et al (2019) Enhanced recovery after abdominal wall reconstruction reduces length of postoperative stay: an observational cohort study. Surgery. 165(2):393–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harryman C, Plymale MA, Stearns E et al (2019) Enhanced value with implementation of an ERAS protocol for ventral hernia repair. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07166-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Event: Center for Disease Control (2012). https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/pscmanual/9pscssicurrent.pdf. Accessed April 3, 2020

  30. Collaborative EuroSurg (2020) Safety of hospital discharge before return of bowel function after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 107(5):552–559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Delaney CP, Brady K, Woconish D et al (2012) Towards optimizing perioperative colorectal care: outcomes for 1,000 consecutive laparoscopic colon procedures using enhanced recovery pathways. Am J Surg 203(3):353–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Liang MK, Holihan JL, Itani K et al (2017) Ventral hernia management: expert consensus guided by systematic review. Ann Surg 265(1):80–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wick EC, Grant MC, Wu CL (2017) Postoperative multimodal analgesia pain management with nonopioid analgesics and techniques: a review. JAMA Surg 152(7):691–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Prabhu AS, Krpata DM, Perez A et al (2018) Is it time to reconsider postoperative epidural analgesia in patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair?: an AHSQC analysis. Ann Surg 267(5):971–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Torgeson M, Kileny J, Pfeifer C et al (2018) Conventional epidural vs transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine: a randomized trial in colorectal surgery. J Am Coll Surg 227(1):78–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Doble JA, Winder JS, Witte SR et al (2018) Direct visualization transversus abdominis plane blocks offer superior pain control compared to ultrasound guided blocks following open posterior component separation hernia repairs. Hernia 22(4):627–635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Slim K, Standaert D (2020) Enhanced recovery after surgical repair of incisional hernias. Hernia 24(1):3–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Montebelluna Civil Hospital, ULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Montebelluna, Italy

    A. Sartori

  2. Department of General Surgery, Montichiari Hospital, Montichiari, Italy

    E. Botteri & N. Vettoretto

  3. Department of General Surgery, Adria and Trecenta Civil Hospitals, ULSS 19, Adria, Italy

    F. Agresta

  4. Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri” IRCCS, Milan, Italy

    C. Gerardi

  5. Department of Surgical Sciences, Università di Torino, Turin, Italy

    A. Arezzo

  6. Department of Surgery, General and Emergency Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Cagliari University Hospital “Duilio Casula” University of Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy

    A. Pisanu & M. Podda

  7. Department of Surgery, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    S. Di Saverio

  8. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant’Ambrogio, University of Insubria, Milan, Italy

    G. Campanelli

Authors
  1. A. Sartori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Botteri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F. Agresta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Gerardi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. N. Vettoretto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Arezzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. Pisanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. S. Di Saverio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Campanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. M. Podda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Sartori.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Alberto Sartori, Emanuele Botteri, Ferdinando Agresta, Chiara Gerardi, Nereo Vettoretto, Alberto Arezzo, Adolfo Pisanu, Giampiero Campanelli, Salomone Di Saverio, and Mauro Podda have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was required for this article. The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study does not include human or animal participants.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this review study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 473 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (TIFF 202 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sartori, A., Botteri, E., Agresta, F. et al. Should enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways be preferred over standard practice for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hernia 25, 501–521 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02262-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02262-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation