Enhanced recovery pathways vs standard care pathways in esophageal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols vs standard care pathways after esophagectomy for malignancy have gained wide popularity among surgeons. However, the current literature is still lacking level-I evidence to show a clear superiority of one approach. The present study is a detailed sys...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society 2020-04, Vol.17 (2), p.100-112
Main Authors: Triantafyllou, Tania, Olson, Michael T., Theodorou, Dimitrios, Schizas, Dimitrios, Singhal, Saurabh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Esophageal cancer
Esophagus
Gastroenterology
Hospital costs
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Meta-analysis
Recovery (Medical)
Review Article
Surgical Oncology
Systematic review
Thoracic Surgery
Throat surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols vs standard care pathways after esophagectomy for malignancy have gained wide popularity among surgeons. However, the current literature is still lacking level-I evidence to show a clear superiority of one approach. The present study is a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis of the published trials. A systematic review of literature databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized, prospective, comparative studies between January 1990 and September 2019, comparing ERAS pathway group with standard care for esophageal resection for esophageal cancer. Mean difference (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratio (OR) or risk difference (RD) for dichotomous variables with 95% confidence interval (CI) were used. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated. Eight studies with a total of 1133 patients were included. Hospital stay [Standard mean difference (Std. MD) = − 1.92, 95% CI − 2.78, − 1.06, P  
ISSN:1612-9059
1612-9067
DOI:10.1007/s10388-020-00718-9