Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Critical analysis of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patient’s undergoing urologic oncology surgery: a systematic review

  • Topic Paper
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Letter to the Editor to this article was published on 09 April 2021

Abstract

Purpose

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been implemented across a variety of disciplines to improve outcomes. Herein we describe the impact of ERAS on quality of life (QOL) and cost for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature search using the MEDLINE, Scopus, Clinictrials.gov, and Cochrane Review databases for studies published between 1946 and 2020 was conducted. Articles were reviewed and assigned a risk of bias by two authors and were included if they addressed ERAS and either QOL or cost-effectiveness for patients undergoing urologic oncology surgery.

Results

The literature search yielded a total of 682 studies after removing duplicates, of which 10 (1.5%) were included in the review. Nine articles addressed radical cystectomy, while one addressed ERAS and QOL for laparoscopic nephrectomy. Six publications assessed the impact of ERAS on QOL domains. Questionnaires used for assessment of QOL varied across studies, and timing of administration was heterogeneous. Overall, ERAS improved patient QOL during early phases of recovery within the realms of bowel function, physical/social/cognitive functioning, sleep and pain control. Costs were assessed in 4 retrospective studies including 3 conducted in the United States and one from China all addressing radical cystectomy. Studies demonstrated either decreased costs associated with ERAS as a result of decreased length of stay or no change in cost based on ERAS implementation.

Conclusion

While limited studies are published on the subject, ERAS implementation for radical cystectomy and laparoscopic nephrectomy improved patient-reported QOL during early phases of recovery. For radical cystectomy, there was a decreased or neutral overall financial cost associated with ERAS. Further studies assessing QOL and cost-effectiveness over the entire global period of care in a variety of urologic oncology surgeries are warranted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cerantola Y, Valerio M, Persson B, Jichlinski P, Ljungqvist O, Hubner M et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ERAS society recommendations. Clin Nutr 32:879–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Williams SB, Cumberbatch MG, Kamat AM, Jubber I, Kerr PS, McGrath J, et al. Reporting Radical Cystectomy Outcomes Following Implementation of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocols: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis European Urology. 2020; In Press

  4. Patel HRH, Cerantola Y, Valerio M, Persson B, Jichlinski P, Ljungqvist O et al (2014) Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: are we ready, and can we afford not to implement these pathways for patients undergoing radical cystectomy? Eur Urol 65:263–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moschini M, Simone G, Stenzl A, Gill IS, Catto J (2016) Critical review of outcomes from radical cystectomy: can complications from radical cystectomy be reduced by surgical volume and robotic surgery? Eur Urol Focus. 2:19–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tyson MD, Chang SS (2016) Enhanced recovery pathways versus standard care after cystectomy: a meta-analysis of the effect on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 70:995–1003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Porter ME (2009) A strategy for health care reform–toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med 361:109–112

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Elias KM, Stone AB, McGinigle K, Tankou JAI, Scott MJ, Fawcett WJ et al (2019) The reporting on ERAS compliance, outcomes, and elements research (RECOvER) checklist: a joint statement by the ERAS® and ERAS® USA societies. World J Surg 43:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Downs SH, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Trac MH, McArthur E, Jandoc R, Dixon SN, Nash DM, Hackam DG et al (2016) Macrolide antibiotics and the risk of ventricular arrhythmia in older adults. Can Med Assoc J 188:E120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Frees SK, Aning J, Black P, Struss W, Bell R, Chavez-Munoz C et al (2018) A prospective randomized pilot study evaluating an ERAS protocol versus a standard protocol for patients treated with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer. World J Urol 36:215–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Karl A, Buchner A, Becker A, Staehler M, Seitz M, Khoder W et al (2014) A new concept for early recovery after surgery for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: results of a Prospective Randomized Study. J Urol. 191:335–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jensen BT, Jensen JB, Laustsen S, Petersen AK, Søndergaard I, Borre M (2014) Multidisciplinary rehabilitation can impact on health-related quality of life outcome in radical cystectomy: secondary reported outcome of a randomized controlled trial. J Multidiscip Healthc. 7:301–311

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Recart A, Duchene D, White PF, Thomas T, Johnson DB, Cadeddu JA (2005) Efficacy and safety of fast-track recovery strategy for patients undergoing laparoscopic nephrectomy. J Endourol 19:1165–1169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kukreja JB, Shi Q, Chang CM, Seif MA, Sterling BM, Chen T-Y et al (2018) Patient-reported outcomes are associated with enhanced recovery status in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy. Surg Innovation. 25:242–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang H, Wang H, Zhu M, Xu Z, Shen Y, Zhu Y et al (2020) Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery in patients undergoing radical cystectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 46:202–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chipollini J, Tang DH, Hussein K, Patel SY, Garcia-Getting RE, Pow-Sang JM et al (2017) Does implementing an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol increase hospital charges? comparisons from a radical cystectomy program at a specialty cancer center. Urology. 105:108–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nabhani J, Ahmadi H, Schuckman AK, Cai J, Miranda G, Djaladat H et al (2016) Cost analysis of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2:92–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wei C, Wan F, Zhao H, Ma J, Gao Z, Lin C (2018) Application of enhanced recovery after surgery in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. J Int Med Res 46:5011–5018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Semerjian A, Milbar N, Kates M, Gorin MA, Patel HD, Chalfin HJ et al (2018) Hospital charges and length of stay following radical cystectomy in the enhanced recovery after surgery era. Urology. 111:86–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S (2000) Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth 84:11–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 85:365–376

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brédart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby JM, Conroy T, Coens C, D’Haese S et al (2005) An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer 41:2120–2131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG (2000) Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology. 56:899–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A et al (1993) The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11:570–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Botteman MF, Pashos CL, Hauser RS, Laskin BL, Redaelli A (2003) Quality of life aspects of bladder cancer: a review of the literature. Quality Life Res 12:675–688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cleeland CS, Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Chou C, Harle MT, Morrissey M et al (2000) Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients. Cancer 89:1634–1646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dominique I, Palamara C, Champetier D, Terrier JE, Morel Journel N, Ruffion A et al (2019) Réhabilitation précoce après tumorectomie rénale robot-assistée: quelle satisfaction des patients ? Progrès en Urologie. 29:634–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mason SJ, Downing A, Wright P, Hounsome L, Bottomley SE, Corner J et al (2018) Health-related quality of life after treatment for bladder cancer in England. Br J Cancer 118:1518–1528

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Mason SJ, Catto JWF, Downing A, Bottomley SE, Glaser AW, Wright P (2018) Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for bladder cancer: a systematic review using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. BJU Int. 122:760–773

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Catto JWF, Khetrapal P, Ambler G, Sarpong R, Potyka I, Khan MS et al (2018) Multidomain quantitative recovery following radical cystectomy for patients within the robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion versus open radical cystectomy randomised controlled trial: the first 30 patients. Eur Urol 74:531–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ziegelmueller BK, Jokisch JF, Buchner A, Grimm T, Kretschmer A, Schulz GB, Stief C, Karl A (2020) Long-term follow-up and oncological outcome of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer following an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol: results of a large randomized, prospective. Single-Center Study. Urologia Internationalis. 104(1–2):54–60

    Google Scholar 

  33. Eskicioglu C, Forbes SS, Aarts M-A, Okrainec A, McLeod RS (2009) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programs for patients having colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Gastrointestinal Surg. 13:2321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Li D, Jensen CC (2019) Patient satisfaction and quality of life with enhanced recovery protocols. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 32:138–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Day RW, Cleeland CS, Wang XS, Fielder S, Calhoun J, Conrad C et al (2015) Patient-reported outcomes accurately measure the value of an enhanced recovery program in liver surgery. J Am Coll Surg 221(1023–30):e2

    Google Scholar 

  36. Jones E, Wainwright T, Foster J, Smith J, Middleton R, Francis N (2014) A systematic review of patient reported outcomes and patient experience in enhanced recovery after orthopaedic surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 96:89–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Rauwerdink A, Jansen M, De Borgie C, Bemelman W, Daams F, Schijven M et al (2019) Improving enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS): eRAS APPtimize study protocol, a randomized controlled trial investigating the effect of a patient-centred mobile application on patient participation in colorectal surgery. BMC Surg. 19:125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zheng Y, Mao M, Ji M, Zheng Q, Liu L, Zhao Z et al (2020) Does a pulmonary rehabilitation based ERAS program (PREP) affect pulmonary complication incidence, pulmonary function and quality of life after lung cancer surgery? study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Pulmonary Med. 20:44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Manger JP, Nelson M, Blanchard S, Helo S, Conaway M, Krupski TL (2014) Alvimopan: a cost-effective tool to decrease cystectomy length of stay. Cent Eur J Urol. 67:335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ghodoussipour S, Naser-Tavakolian A, Cameron B, Mitra AP, Miranda G, Cai J et al (2020) Internal audit of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for radical cystectomy. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03135-w

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Joliat G-R, Ljungqvist O, Wasylak T, Peters O, Demartines N (2018) Beyond surgery: clinical and economic impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs. BMC Health Services Res. 18:1008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gentry ZL, Boitano TK, Smith HJ, Eads DK, Russell JF, Straughn JM Jr (2020) The financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in an academic gynecologic oncology practice. Gynecol Oncol 156:284–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee L, Mata J, Ghitulescu GA, Boutros M, Charlebois P, Stein B et al (2015) Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery Versus Conventional Perioperative Management for Colorectal Surgery. Ann Surg 262:1026–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Abola RE, Bennett-Guerrero E, Kent ML, Feldman LS, Fiore JFJ, Shaw AD et al (2018) American Society for enhanced recovery and perioperative quality initiative joint consensus statement on patient-reported outcomes in an enhanced recovery pathway. Anesth Analg 126:1874–1882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted with the support of a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program (PRCRP) Career Development Award (W81XWH1710576) (SBW). Dr. Stephen B. Williams had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. We would also like to thank Julie M. Trumble and Stephen Schuenke for their efforts in preparing this manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

    Nathan A. Brooks, Andrea Kokorovic & Ashish M. Kamat

  2. Department of Urology, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust, Exeter, UK

    John S. McGrath

  3. Department of Urology, McGill University Health Center, McGill, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Wassim Kassouf

  4. Department of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK

    Justin W. Collins

  5. Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Peter C. Black

  6. Department of Urology, University Hospital of Southampton, Hampshire, UK

    James Douglas

  7. USC Institute of Urology, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Hooman Djaladat & Siamak Daneshmand

  8. Academic Urology Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    James W. F. Catto

  9. Division of Urology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA

    Stephen B. Williams

Authors
  1. Nathan A. Brooks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Kokorovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John S. McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wassim Kassouf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Justin W. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Peter C. Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James Douglas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hooman Djaladat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Siamak Daneshmand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. James W. F. Catto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ashish M. Kamat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Stephen B. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NAB—protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. AK—protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. JMG—manuscript writing/editing. WK—manuscript writing/editing. JWC—manuscript writing/editing. PCB—manuscript writing/editing. JD—manuscript writing/editing. HD—manuscript writing/editing. SD—manuscript writing/editing. JWFC—manuscript writing/editing. AMK—manuscript writing/editing. SBW—protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen B. Williams.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

JWFC has received reimbursement for consultancy from Astra Zeneca, Roche and Janssen, speaker fees from BMS, MSD, Nucleix and Roche, and honoraria for membership of advisory boards for Ferring, Roche and Janssen; SBW has received reimbursement for consultancy from Photocure and Taris. SBW has received travel funding from Janssen. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Research involving Human Participants and/or Animals

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent waived.

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.

Table 1.

PRISMA Checklist.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brooks, N.A., Kokorovic, A., McGrath, J.S. et al. Critical analysis of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patient’s undergoing urologic oncology surgery: a systematic review. World J Urol 40, 1325–1342 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03341-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03341-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation