Enhanced recovery after surgery vs traditional recovery pathway after minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Chukwudi Isaac Ayogu, Ayesha Javed, Amanda Freitas Pompeu Dos Santos
{"title":"Enhanced recovery after surgery vs traditional recovery pathway after minimally invasive hysterectomy for benign indications: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Chukwudi Isaac Ayogu, Ayesha Javed, Amanda Freitas Pompeu Dos Santos","doi":"10.1016/j.jmig.2025.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aim to perform a meta-analysis comparing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and traditional recovery pathway (TRP) after minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) for benign conditions.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in June 2024 without date restrictions in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases.</p><p><strong>Method of study selection: </strong>This study included studies that compared ERAS and TRP in patients undergoing MIH for benign indications. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOHS). Sensitivity analysis was performed with a leave-one-out analysis, a trial sequential analysis, and a meta-regression to explore high heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Tabulation, integration, and results: </strong>The initial search identified 1,462 results, of which 8 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 948 patients. 5 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ERAS was associated with a significant reduction in LOHS (SMD -1.89 days; 95% CI -2.77 to -1.00; p<0.001), supported by a subgroup analysis of RCTs (SMD -1.59 days; 95% CI -2.69 to -0.49; p=0.005). ERAS was also associated with significant decrease for the overall complication rate (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; p=0.04), postoperative pain score (MD -1.02; 95% CI -1.76 to -0.29; p=0.007), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56; p<0.001), and time to passage of flatus (MD -10.37; 95% CI -17.95 to -2.79; p=0.007). There was no difference in re-admission rate or operation duration. Trial sequential analysis confirmed no type 1 error, and meta-regression attributed high heterogeneity to different types of procedures between studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, ERAS protocols for patients undergoing MIH for benign conditions were associated with reduction in LOHS, PONV, and postoperative pain. These improvements are achieved probably without an increase in complication or re-admission rates, highlighting the importance of broader adoption of ERAS for a better patient experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":16397,"journal":{"name":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of minimally invasive gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2025.04.003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We aim to perform a meta-analysis comparing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and traditional recovery pathway (TRP) after minimally invasive hysterectomy (MIH) for benign conditions.

Data sources: A systematic search was conducted in June 2024 without date restrictions in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases.

Method of study selection: This study included studies that compared ERAS and TRP in patients undergoing MIH for benign indications. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOHS). Sensitivity analysis was performed with a leave-one-out analysis, a trial sequential analysis, and a meta-regression to explore high heterogeneity.

Tabulation, integration, and results: The initial search identified 1,462 results, of which 8 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 948 patients. 5 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ERAS was associated with a significant reduction in LOHS (SMD -1.89 days; 95% CI -2.77 to -1.00; p<0.001), supported by a subgroup analysis of RCTs (SMD -1.59 days; 95% CI -2.69 to -0.49; p=0.005). ERAS was also associated with significant decrease for the overall complication rate (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; p=0.04), postoperative pain score (MD -1.02; 95% CI -1.76 to -0.29; p=0.007), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.56; p<0.001), and time to passage of flatus (MD -10.37; 95% CI -17.95 to -2.79; p=0.007). There was no difference in re-admission rate or operation duration. Trial sequential analysis confirmed no type 1 error, and meta-regression attributed high heterogeneity to different types of procedures between studies.

Conclusion: In conclusion, ERAS protocols for patients undergoing MIH for benign conditions were associated with reduction in LOHS, PONV, and postoperative pain. These improvements are achieved probably without an increase in complication or re-admission rates, highlighting the importance of broader adoption of ERAS for a better patient experience.

良性适应症微创子宫切除术后增强恢复vs传统恢复途径:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:我们的目的是进行一项荟萃分析,比较微创子宫切除术(MIH)后手术后增强恢复(ERAS)和传统恢复途径(TRP)对良性疾病的影响。数据来源:系统检索于2024年6月在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane Central数据库中进行,没有日期限制。研究选择方法:本研究纳入了对MIH患者良性适应症的ERAS和TRP进行比较的研究。主要观察指标为住院时间(LOHS)。敏感度分析采用留一分析、试验序贯分析和元回归来探索高异质性。制表、整合和结果:最初的检索确定了1462项结果,其中8项研究符合纳入标准,包括948名患者。5项研究为随机对照试验(RCTs)。ERAS与LOHS显著降低相关(SMD -1.89天;95% CI -2.77 ~ -1.00;结论:结论:良性MIH患者的ERAS方案与LOHS、PONV和术后疼痛的减少有关。这些改进可能在不增加并发症或再入院率的情况下实现,强调了更广泛采用ERAS以获得更好的患者体验的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
272
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology, formerly titled The Journal of the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists, is an international clinical forum for the exchange and dissemination of ideas, findings and techniques relevant to gynecologic endoscopy and other minimally invasive procedures. The Journal, which presents research, clinical opinions and case reports from the brightest minds in gynecologic surgery, is an authoritative source informing practicing physicians of the latest, cutting-edge developments occurring in this emerging field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信