AUTHOR=Tan Ya-Zhen , Lu Xuan , Luo Jie , Huang Zhen-Dong , Deng Qi-Feng , Shen Xian-Feng , Zhang Chao , Guo Guang-Ling
TITLE=Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for Breast Reconstruction: Pooled Meta-Analysis of 10 Observational Studies Involving 1,838 Patients
JOURNAL=Frontiers in Oncology
VOLUME=9
YEAR=2019
URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/oncology/articles/10.3389/fonc.2019.00675
DOI=10.3389/fonc.2019.00675
ISSN=2234-943X
ABSTRACT=Purpose: This study aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol vs. traditional perioperative care programs for breast reconstruction.
Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for observational studies comparing an ERAS program with a traditional perioperative care program from database inception to 5 May 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The outcomes included the length of hospital stay (LOS), complication rates, pain control, costs, emergency department visits, hospital readmission, and unplanned reoperation.
Results: Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with a conventional program, ERAS was associated with significantly decreased LOS, morphine administration (including postoperative patient-controlled analgesia usage rate and duration; intravenous morphine administration on postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, 2, and 4; total intravenous morphine administration on POD 0–3; oral morphine consumption on POD 0–4; and total postoperative oral morphine consumption), and pain scores (postoperative pain score on POD 0 and total pain score on POD 0–3). The other variables did not differ significantly.
Conclusion: Our results suggest that ERAS protocols can decrease LOS and morphine equivalent dosing; therefore, further larger, and better-quality studies that report on bleeding amount and patient satisfaction are needed to validate our findings.