UNASSIGNED: The main purpose was to determine the impact on postoperative outcomes of a standardized enhanced recovery program (ERP) for elective colorectal surgery in a rural hospital.
UNASSIGNED: A prospective series of patients (N = 80) undergoing elective colorectal resection completing a standardized ERP protocol in 2018-2020 (ERP group) was compared to patients (N = 80) operated at the same rural hospital in 2013-2015 (pre-ERP group), before the implementation of the program. The exclusion criteria for both groups were: ASA score IV, TNM stage IV, inflammatory bowel disease, emergency surgery, and rectal cancer. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LoS) which was used as an estimate of functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission and mortality rates as well as associated factors with both postoperative complications and prolonged hospital LoS.
UNASSIGNED: Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. The median adherence to ERP protocol elements was 68 % versus 12 % in the retrospective control group. The median hospital LoS in the ERP-group was significantly lower than in the pre-ERP group (5 vs. 10 days) with no increase in 30-day readmission and mortality rates. The Body Mass Index ≥30 and the traditional peri-operative protocol were the associated factors to postoperative complications, while following a traditional peri-operative protocol was the only factor associated with a prolonged hospital LoS (p < 0.0001).
UNASSIGNED: Although limited hospital resources are perceived as a barrier to ERP implementation, the current experience demonstrates how adopting an ERP program in a rural area is feasible and effective, despite it requires greater effort.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear whether enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) reduce postoperative morbidity after liver surgery. This study investigated the effect on liver surgery outcomes of labeling as a reference center for ERP.
METHODS: Perioperative data from 75 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy in our institution after implementation and labeling of our ERP were retrospectively compared to 75 patients managed before ERP. Length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and adherence to protocol were examined.
RESULTS: Patient demographics, comorbidities, and intraoperative data were similar in the two groups. Our ERP resulted in shorter length of stay (3 days [1-6] vs. 4 days [2-7.5], p = 0.03) and fewer postoperative complications (24% vs. 45.3%, p = 0.0067). This reduction in postoperative morbidity can be attributed exclusively to a lower rate of minor complications (Clavien-dindo grade < IIIa), and in particular to a lower rate of postoperative ileus, after labeling. (5.3% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.0019). Other medical and surgical complications were not significantly reduced. Adherence to protocol improved after labeling (17 [16-18] vs. 14 [13-16] items, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The application of a labeled enhanced recovery program for liver surgery was associated with a significant shortening of hospital stay and a halving of postoperative morbidity, mainly ileus.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the gold standard in restorative proctocolectomy, surgical techniques have experienced minimal changes. In contrast, substantial shifts in perioperative care, marked by the enhanced recovery program (ERP), modifications in steroid use, and a shift to a 3-staged approach, have taken center stage.
METHODS: Data extracted from our prospective IPAA database focused on the first 100 laparoscopic IPAA cases (historic group) and the latest 100 cases (modern group), aiming to measure the effect of these evolutions on postoperative outcomes.
RESULTS: The historic IPAA group had more 2-staged procedures (92% proctocolectomy), whereas the modern group had a higher number of 3-staged procedures (86% proctectomy) (P < .001). Compared with patients in the modern group, patients in the historic group were more likely to be on steroids (5% vs 67%, respectively; P < .001) or immunomodulators (0% vs 31%, respectively; P < .001) at surgery. Compared with the historic group, the modern group had a shorter operative time (335.5 ± 78.4 vs 233.8 ± 81.6, respectively; P < .001) and length of stay (LOS; 5.4 ± 3.1 vs 4.2 ± 1.6 days, respectively; P < .001). Compared with the modern group, the historic group exhibited a higher 30-day morbidity rate (20% vs 33%, respectively; P = .04) and an elevated 30-day readmission rate (9% vs 21%, respectively; P = .02). Preoperative steroids use increased complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.4; P = .01), whereas 3-staged IPAA reduced complications (OR, 0.3; P = .03). ERP was identified as a factor that predicted shorter stays.
CONCLUSIONS: Although ERP effectively reduced the LOS in IPAA surgery, it failed to reduce complications. Conversely, adopting a 3-staged IPAA approach proved beneficial in reducing morbidity, whereas preoperative steroid use increased complications.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs) mitigate racial disparities in postoperative length of stay (LOS) for colorectal populations. It is unclear, however, if these effects exist in the bariatric surgery population. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the racial disparities in LOS before and after implementation of bariatric surgery ERP.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a single institution. Patients undergoing minimally invasive sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass from 2017 to 2019 (pre-ERP) or 2020-2022 (ERP) were included. Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis, and analysis of variance were used to compare groups, and estimated LOS (eLOS) was assessed via multivariable regression.
RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty four patients were identified, including 363 pre-ERPs and 401 ERPs. Pre-ERP and ERP cohorts were similar in age (median 44.3 years versus 43.8 years, P = 0.80), race (53.4% Black versus 56.4% Black, P = 0.42), and preoperative body mass index (median 48.3 versus 49.4, P = 0.14). Overall median LOS following bariatric surgery decreased from 2 days pre-ERP to 1 day following ERP (P < 0.001). Average LOS for Black and White patients decreased by 0.5 and 0.48 days, respectively. However, overall eLOS remained greater for Black patients compared with White patients despite ERP implementation (eLOS 0.21 days, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a bariatric surgery ERP was associated with decreased LOS for both Black and White patients. However, Black patients did have slightly longer LOS than White patients in both pre-ERP and ERP eras. More work is needed to understand the driving mechanism(s) of these disparities to eliminate them.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery program (ERP) has demonstrated improved postoperative outcomes with increased compliance to pathway. However, there is scarce data on feasibility and safety in resource limited setting. The objective was to assess compliance with ERP and its impact on postoperative outcomes and return to intended oncological treatment (RIOT).
METHODS: A single center prospective observational audit was conducted from 2014 to 2019, in elective colorectal cancer surgery. Before implementation, multi-disciplinary team was educated regarding ERP. Compliance to ERP protocol and its elements was recorded. Impact of quantum of compliance (≥80% vs. <80%) to ERP on postoperative morbidity, mortality, readmission, stay, re-exploration, functional GI recovery, surgical-specific complications, and RIOT was evaluated for open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS).
RESULTS: During study, 937 patients underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery. Overall compliance with ERP was 73.3%. More than 80% compliance was observed in 332 (35.4%) patients in the entire cohort. Patients with <80% compliance had significantly higher overall, minor and surgery-specific complications, longer postoperative stay, delayed functional GI recovery for both open and MIS procedures. RIOT was observed in 96.5% patients. Duration to RIOT was significantly shorter following open surgery with ≥80% compliance. Compliance <80% to ERP was identified as one of the independent predictors for developing postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates beneficial impact of increased compliance to ERP on postoperative outcomes following open and minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. Within a resource limited setting, ERP was found to feasible, safe, and effective in both open and minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate enteral nutrition as a component of postoperative rehabilitation after reconstructive esophageal and gastric surgeries.
METHODS: The study included 217 patients who underwent reconstructive esophageal and gastric surgeries between 2010 and 2020. In the main group (n=121), patients underwent postoperative enhanced recovery program (ERAS). Early enteral feeding including micro-jejunostomy and early oral feeding was essential for postoperative management. The control group included 96 patients who were treated in traditional fashion. The primary endpoint was length of hospital-stay (LOS) and ICU-stay. Restoration of gastrointestinal function (peristalsis, stool, oral nutrition), anastomotic leakage rate and other complications comprised secondary endpoints.
RESULTS: Both groups did not differ by sex, age, body mass index, diagnosis and comorbidities. There was significant reduction in postoperative LOS in the ERAS group (14 (12; 15.8) and 9 (6.3; 12) days, p<0.0001). In the same group, we observed less in ICU-stay (4.7 (3.6; 5.6) and to 3.5 (2; 4) days, p<0.001), earlier recovery of peristalsis and X-ray control of anastomosis in patients with and without anastomotic leakage. Incidence of respiratory complications was lower in the ERAS group (p=0.034). Overall postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Early enteral and oral feeding after esophageal and gastric reconstructive surgery reduces hospital-stay and accelerates postoperative rehabilitation.
UNASSIGNED: Открытым вопросом в абдоминальной хирургии остается целесообразность раннего послеоперационного энтерального питания, а также способ его обеспечения.
UNASSIGNED: Оценка роли энтерального питания как компонента послеоперационной реабилитации пациентов при проведении реконструктивных вмешательств на пищеводе и желудке.
UNASSIGNED: В исследование включены 217 пациентов, которым за период с 2010 по 2020 г. были выполнены реконструктивные вмешательства на пищеводе и желудке. В основную группу вошел 121 пациент, лечение которых проводили с применением принципов программы ускоренного восстановления (ПУВ), ключевым аспектом которого стало проведение раннего энтерального питания, в том числе с использованием микроеюностомы, и раннее восстановление перорального питания. Группу сравнения составили 96 пациентов, лечение которых проводили традиционным способом. Первичной точкой контроля была определена длительность госпитализации как критерий послеоперационной реабилитации, вторичными — сроки восстановления функции желудочно-кишечного тракта (перистальтика, стул, начало перорального питания), частота развития несостоятельности анастомоза и других осложнений.
UNASSIGNED: Группы не отличались по полу, возрасту, характеру основной и сопутствующей патологии, индексу массы тела. У пациентов без осложнений получено статистически значимое сокращение послеоперационного койко-дня с 14 (12; 15,8) до 9 (6,3; 12) сут, p<0,0001. В группе ПУВ получено статистически значимое снижение медианы койко-дня в ОРИТ с 4,7 (3,6; 5,6) до 3,5 (2; 4) сут (p<0,001), сокращение сроков появления активной перистальтики и проведения рентгенологического контроля состоятельности анастомоза на шее. В группе ПУВ получено статистически значимое сокращение частоты респираторных осложнений (p=0,034), по общему количеству осложнений и летальности группы не отличались.
UNASSIGNED: Включение в протокол раннего энтерального и перорального питания позволяет сократить сроки наблюдения пациентов в стационаре и ускорить процесс послеоперационного восстановления при выполнении реконструктивных вмешательств на пищеводе и желудке.

Diabetes mellitus may increase the risk of adverse perioperative outcomes and prolong hospital stay. An enhanced recovery program (ERP) reduces surgical stress and its metabolic consequences, so attenuating the impact of preoperative risk factors. We tested the hypothesis that diabetes would have only a minor impact on outcome after colorectal surgery with an ERP.
The data for patients scheduled for colorectal surgery between 2015 and 2021, were analyzed (n=769). All the patients were managed with the same protocol. Demographic data, preoperative risk factors, postoperative complications, and length of stay were compared between patients with and without diabetes.
In all, 124 patients (16.1%) had diabetes, of whom 30 (24.1%) required insulin. The following preoperative risk factors for postoperative complications were significantly more frequent in the patients with diabetes: age>70 years, ASA score ≥ III, renal failure, cardiac disease, BMI>30 kg/m2, anemia, and cancer as indication for surgery. Despite more risk factors, patients with diabetes did not experience more overall postoperative complications than controls (OR (95%IC): 0.9 [0.6-1.5], p=0.85). Length of hospital stay was not significantly longer in patients with diabetes than in those without (4 [2-7] vs. 3 [2-7] days; p=0.45).
Despite more risk factors, patients with diabetes did not experience more complications or longer length of stay after colorectal surgery with an ERP. The multimodal, multidisciplinary approach of ERP to reducing surgical stress may thus help mitigate the reported deleterious effects of diabetes.

As enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have continued to evolve, the length of hospitalization (LOS) following elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery has continued to decline. Further refinements in multimodal perioperative pain management strategies have resulted in reduced opioid consumption. The interest in ambulatory colectomy has dramatically accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Severe restrictions in hospital capacity and fear of COVID transmission forced surgical teams to rethink strategies to further reduce length of inpatient stay.
Members of the SAGES Colorectal Surgery Committee began reviewing the emergence of SDD protocols and early publications for SDD in 2019. The authors met at regular intervals during 2020-2022 period reviewing SDD protocols, safe patient selection criteria, surrogates for postoperative monitoring, and early outcomes.
Early experience with SDD protocols for elective, minimally invasive colorectal surgery suggests that SDD is feasible and safe in well-selected patients and procedures. SDD protocols are associated with reduced opioid use and prescribing. Patient perception and experience with SDD is favourable. For early adopters, SDD has been the natural evolution of well-developed ERPs. Like all ERPs, SDD begins in the office setting, identifying the correct patient and procedure, aligning goals and objectives, and the perioperative education of the patient and their supporting significant others. A thorough discussion with the patient regarding expected activity levels, oral intake, and pain control post operatively lays the foundation for a successful application of SDD programs. These observations may not apply to all patient populations, institutions, practice types, or within the scope of an existing ERP. However, if the underlying principles of SDD can be incorporated into an existing institutional ERP, it may further reduce the incidence of post operative ileus, prolonged LOS, and improve the effectiveness of oral analgesia for postoperative pain management and reduced opioid use and prescribing.
The SAGES Colorectal Surgery Committee has performed a comprehensive review of the early experience with SDD. This manuscript summarizes SDD early results and considerations for safe and stepwise implementation of SDD with a specific focus on ERP evolution, patient selection, remote monitoring, and other relevant considerations based on hospital settings and surgical practices.

UNASSIGNED: Preoperative use of antidepressants and anxiolytics was reported to increase length of hospital stay (LOS) and worsen surgical outcomes. However, the surgical procedures studied were seldom performed with an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). This study investigated whether these medications impaired postoperative recovery after colorectal surgery with an ERP.
UNASSIGNED: The data of all patients scheduled for colorectal surgery between November 2015 and December 2019 prospectively included in our database were analysed. All the patients were managed with the same ERP. Demographic data, risk factors, incidence of postoperative complications, LOS, and adherence to the ERP were compared between patients with and without preoperative antidepressant and/or anxiolytic treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 502 patients, 157 (31.3%) were treated with antidepressants and/or anxiolytics. They were older (65.7 vs. 59.5 years, p < 0.001), sicker (higher ASA physical status score, p = 0.001), and underwent surgery more frequently for cancer (73.9 vs. 56.8%, p < 0.001). Overall adherence to ERP (p = 0.99) and adherence to the postoperative items of ERP (p = 0.29), incidence of postoperative complications (35.7 vs. 33.2%, p = 0.61), and LOS (4 [2-7] vs. 4 [2-7], p = 0.99) were similar in the two groups.
UNASSIGNED: Our findings suggest that preoperative treatment with antidepressants and/or anxiolytics does not worsen outcome after elective colorectal surgery with an ERP, does not impact adherence to ERP, and does not prolong LOS. ERP seems efficacious in patients treated with these medications, who should therefore not be excluded from this programme.

Enhanced recovery program (ERP) was introduced in patients scheduled for colorectal surgical procedures to enhance gastrointestinal recovery and shorten their hospital stay. This study aims to evaluate the role of ERP in colorectal cancer patients. A prospective cohort study performed at National Cancer Institute-Cairo University including 50 patients with colorectal cancer treated between October 2016 and May 2017. They were divided in 2 equal groups: study group (ERP group) and control group (conventional protocol group). Incidence of postoperative morbidity was greater in the control group compared to the study group. Only the incidence of paralytic ileus was greater in the study group. The study group had a statistically significant hospital stay length compared to the control group. ERP was associated with lower incidence of postoperative morbidity excluding incidence of paralytic ileus; also, it was associated with a shorter hospital stay.