Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Bariatric Surgery Leads to Decreased Complications and Shorter Length of Stay.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown in some specialties to improve short-term outcomes following surgical procedures. There is no consensus regarding the optimal perioperative care for bariatric surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to develop a bariatric ERAS protocol and determine whether it improved outcomes following surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An IRB-approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing bariatric surgery from October 2018 to January 2020. Propensity matching was used to compare post-ERAS implementation patients to pre-ERAS implementation. RESULTS: There were 319 patients (87 ERAS, 232 pre-ERAS) who underwent bariatric operations between October 2018 and January 2020. Seventy-nine patients were kept on the ERAS protocol whereas 8 deviated. Patients who deviated from the ERAS protocol had a longer length of stay when compared to patients who completed the protocol. The use of any ERAS protocol (completed or deviated) reduced the odds of complications by 54% and decreased length of stay by 15%. Furthermore, patients who completed the ERAS protocol had an 83% reduction in odds of complications and 31% decrease in length of stay. Similar trends were observed in the matched cohort with 74% reduction in odds of complications and 26% reduction in length of stay when ERAS was used. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS protocol decreases complications and reduces length of stay in bariatric patients.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) decreases complications and reduces length of stay in foregut surgery patients.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework for optimal perioperative care to improve post-operative outcomes following surgical procedures. However, there is no consensus regarding an ERAS protocol following foregut surgery. The purpose of this study was to develop an ERAS protocol for these patients and determine whether they improved outcomes. METHODS: An IRB approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing benign minimally invasive foregut surgery from October 2018 to January 2020. All patients were entered into the ACS risk calculator to determine their predicted rate of complications and length of stay for comparison between the ERAS and control groups. Propensity matching was used to compare post-ERAS implementation to pre-ERAS implementation patients. Firth logistic and Poisson regression analysis were used to assess the rate of complications and length of stay among the different groups of patients. RESULTS: There were 255 patients (60 Post-ERAS, 195 Pre-ERAS) who underwent foregut operations and met inclusion criteria. ERAS was implemented, and patients were then subdivided based on those who completed ERAS (44) and those who deviated from the protocol (16). Propensity matching analysis was performed to compare the different cohorts and showed ERAS patients had 41% decreased odds of complications and 33% reduction in length of stay compared to pre-ERAS patients. Completion of the ERAS protocol resulted in even further reductions in odds of complication and length of stay compared to patients who deviated from the protocol. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS has shown to improve perioperative outcomes, but there is limited literature supporting the use of ERAS in foregut surgery. Usage of an ERAS protocol can decrease complications and reduce the length of stay in patients.

Predictability of Endoscopic Success for Foregut and Bariatric Leak in an Experienced Quaternary Center.

BACKGROUND: Leaks of the esophagus and stomach are difficult to manage and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic therapy can manage these leaks without surgical intervention. Our goal is to create a scoring tool to aid in predicting the success of endoscopic therapy in these patients. STUDY DESIGN: An IRB-approved prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients treated for gastrointestinal leaks from July 2013 to January 2021, including patients treated for esophageal and stomach leaks. Endpoints include success of leak closure for patients treated solely by endoscopic therapy (ET) compared with surgical therapy as failed endoscopic therapy (FET). A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to identify independent risk factors for predicting success of endoscopic therapy, and a scoring calculator was developed. RESULTS: There were 80 patients (60 females) with a mean age of 50 years. The ET group included 59 patients (74%), whereas the FET group included 21 patients (26%). Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and timing of leak diagnosis were used. Multivariable analysis resulted in 4 variables associated with higher probability of successful endoscopic leak management without need for additional surgery. These included increased age, lower BMI, lack of previous bariatric surgery, and quicker identification of the leak. Consequently, a scoring nomogram was developed with values from 0 to 22. CONCLUSION: Our data show the development of a scoring calculator capable of quantifying the likelihood of success treating foregut and bariatric leaks with endoscopic therapies. This can be used clinically to guide treatment decisions.