Failure of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery programs has been applied extensively in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. However, several studies have found that some patients fail from ERAS programs. It is important to identify these patients so that remedial action can be taken in a timely manner. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of ERAS failure and related risk factors following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases was performed. The search strategy involved terms related to ERAS, failure, and colorectal surgery. The main outcomes were definitions of ERAS failure and related risk factors. RESULTS: Seven studies including 1463 patients were analyzed. The definition of ERAS failure was mostly associated with a prolonged postoperative length-of-stay (poLOS). Twenty-four kinds of identified risk factors were divided into three parts, the operative part, the pathophysiological part, and the ERAS elements, of which operative factors including more intraoperative blood loss and longer operative duration were the most frequently identified. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS failure was mostly related to a prolonged poLOS, and operative factors were the most frequently identified risk factors for ERAS failure following laparoscopic colorectal surgery. These findings will help physicians to take remedial action in a timely manner. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials following a standardized framework for evaluating ERAS programs are needed in the future.

The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery.

PURPOSE: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery has been proven effective for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. But radical enhanced recovery could also lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Compared with reports on the estimation of successful implementation of enhanced recovery, studies on risk factors of enhanced recovery failure are still lacking. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 102 patients in ERAS who underwent elective colon cancer surgery. This study included 102 patients with colon cancer between 2015 and 2019, defining enhanced recovery failure as postoperative length of stay over 10 days, stay in ICU over 24 h after surgery, reoperation, death, or unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore potential risk factors of failure. RESULTS: Aged ≥ 75, open operation, number of drainage tube over 1, re-urethral catheterization, and Clavien-Dindo grade over 2 were associated with ERAS failure, according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 75 [OR 7.231; P = 0.009]; open operation (OR 3.599; P = 0.021); and number of drainage tube over 1 (OR 3.202; P = 0.020) were independent risk factors for ERAS failure. CONCLUSIONS: We found age ≥ 75, open operation, and number of drainage tube over 1 are independent risk factors associated with ERAS failure after colon cancer surgery.

Comparison of Single-Incision and Conventional Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Morbid Obesity: a Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (CLSG) in obese patients. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of these two techniques. METHODS: A meta-analysis of existing literature obtained through a systematic literature search in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library CENTRAL databases from 2009 to 2019 was conducted. RESULTS: Eleven articles including 1168 patients were analyzed. Patients in the SILSG group reported greater satisfaction with cosmetic scar outcomes than those in the CLSG group (SMD = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.10 to 3.83, P = 0.00). There was no significant difference between the SILSG group and the CLSG group regarding operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, conversion rate, intraoperative complications, length of hospital stay, postoperative analgesia, postoperative complications, excess weight loss (EWL), and improvements in comorbidities (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CLSG, SILSG resulted in improved cosmetic satisfaction and showed no disadvantages in terms of surgical outcomes; thus, SILSG can serve as an alternative to CLSG for obese patients. Nonetheless, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large study populations and long follow-up periods are needed.