Enhanced recovery programme after colorectal surgery in high-income and low-middle income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols strive to optimise outcomes following elective surgery; however, there is a dearth of evidence to support its equitable application and efficacy internationally. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the uptake and impact of ERAS with the aim of highlighting differences in implementation and outcomes across high-income countries (HICs) and low-middle income countries (LMICs). The primary outcome was characterisation of global ERAS uptake. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-seven studies with considerable heterogeneity were included in the analysis (291 from HICs, and 46 from LMICs) with a total of 110 190 patients. The weighted median number of implemented elements were similar between HICs and LMICs ( P =0·94), but there was a trend towards greater uptake of less affordable elements across all aspects of the ERAS pathway in HICs. The mean LOS was significantly shorter in patient cohorts in HICs (5·85 days versus 7·17 days in LMICs, P <0·001). The 30-day readmission rate was higher in HICs (8·5 vs. 4·25% in LMICs, P <0·001, but no overall world-wide effect when ERAS compared to controls (OR 1·00, 95% CI: 0·88-1·13). There were no reported differences in complications ( P =0·229) or 30-day mortality ( P =0·949). CONCLUSION: Considerable variation in the structure, the implementation and outcomes of ERAS exists between HICs and LMICs, where affordable elements are implemented, contributing towards longer LOS in LMICs. Global efforts are required to ensure equitable access, effective ERAS implementation and a higher standard of perioperative care world-wide.

Perioperative group and save testing are not routinely indicated for emergency laparoscopic appendicectomy and laparoscopic hernia repairs: A North West London retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Two valid group and saves are commonly required for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendicectomy and laparoscopic hernia repairs preoperatively; however, perioperative blood transfusions are seldom required. This is financially burdensome and frequently leads to delays in theatre lists. We performed a retrospective analysis to investigate blood transfusions performed perioperatively and within 28 days of these procedures. METHOD: We used our electronic records to collect data of all laparoscopic appendectomies and laparoscopic hernia repairs between March 2017 and March 2021. Patients of any age undergoing these operations were included. Patients requiring concomitant intra-abdominal surgery or who had incomplete medical records were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 1891 patients were included, of which 1462 (77.3%) had a laparoscopic appendicectomy versus 429 (22.7%) who had a laparoscopic hernia repair. In all, 3507 group and saves were taken costing £47,398.50. One patient (0.068%) required emergency blood transfusion (4 units of red cells) secondary to major haemorrhage. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that the incidence of perioperative blood transfusions for laparoscopic appendicectomy and laparoscopic hernia repairs is low, challenging the indication for routine preoperative group and saves.