ENHANCED RECOVERY PATHWAYS (ERAS) IMPLEMENTATION IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY; AN EARLY EXPERIENCE

PAFMJ Pub Date : 2021-12-31 DOI:10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5943
A. Riaz, Bilal Umair, A. Asghar, Muhammad Imtiaz, R. Khan, A. Bilal
{"title":"ENHANCED RECOVERY PATHWAYS (ERAS) IMPLEMENTATION IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY; AN EARLY EXPERIENCE","authors":"A. Riaz, Bilal Umair, A. Asghar, Muhammad Imtiaz, R. Khan, A. Bilal","doi":"10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery pathways (ERAS) on hospital stay and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison to conventional pathway. \nStudy Design: Quasi experimental study. \nPlace and Duration of Study: Thoracic Surgery Department, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jul 2018 to Mar 2020. \nMethodology: A total of 80 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy were divided in two groups. Group A underwent ERAS pathway and group B underwent conventional pathway. Both groups were compared for demographic characteristics, mean ICU stay, length of hospital stay, commencement of oral intake, and time of chest drain removal, readmission rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality. \nResults: There was no significant difference in age, gender and diagnostic indication among both groups. ERAS group was found to have shorter mean ICU stay (1.18 ± 0.55 vs 2.06 ± 1.10 days p<0.012), shorter hospital stay (7.50 ± 1.23 vs 11.6 ± 3.65 days, p<.001), earlier commencement of oral feeding (4.30 ± 1.41 vs 9.10 ± 4.26 days, p<0.001) and early removal of chest drains (3.22 ± vs 4.11 ± 1.52 p<0.001); when compared to conventional group. Overall morbidity in ERAS group was 50 (40%) versus 65% (81.25%) in conventional group. Mortality was same in both groups (2.5%). There was no readmission in ERAS group. \nConclusion: ERAS in minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and has positive impact on postoperative outcomes with marked reduction in overall morbidity in comparison to conventional regime. Results can be enhanced by ensuring better compliance to its.......","PeriodicalId":19982,"journal":{"name":"PAFMJ","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAFMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v6i6.5943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery pathways (ERAS) on hospital stay and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison to conventional pathway. Study Design: Quasi experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Thoracic Surgery Department, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jul 2018 to Mar 2020. Methodology: A total of 80 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy were divided in two groups. Group A underwent ERAS pathway and group B underwent conventional pathway. Both groups were compared for demographic characteristics, mean ICU stay, length of hospital stay, commencement of oral intake, and time of chest drain removal, readmission rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was no significant difference in age, gender and diagnostic indication among both groups. ERAS group was found to have shorter mean ICU stay (1.18 ± 0.55 vs 2.06 ± 1.10 days p<0.012), shorter hospital stay (7.50 ± 1.23 vs 11.6 ± 3.65 days, p<.001), earlier commencement of oral feeding (4.30 ± 1.41 vs 9.10 ± 4.26 days, p<0.001) and early removal of chest drains (3.22 ± vs 4.11 ± 1.52 p<0.001); when compared to conventional group. Overall morbidity in ERAS group was 50 (40%) versus 65% (81.25%) in conventional group. Mortality was same in both groups (2.5%). There was no readmission in ERAS group. Conclusion: ERAS in minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and has positive impact on postoperative outcomes with marked reduction in overall morbidity in comparison to conventional regime. Results can be enhanced by ensuring better compliance to its.......
微创食管切除术中增强恢复途径的实施早期的经历
目的:评价强化恢复路径(ERAS)与常规路径相比对微创食管切除术患者住院时间和术后预后的影响。研究设计:准实验研究。学习地点和时间:2018年7月至2020年3月,巴基斯坦拉瓦尔品第联合军队医院胸外科。方法:80例微创食管切除术患者分为两组。A组采用ERAS途径,B组采用常规途径。比较两组患者的人口学特征、平均ICU住院时间、住院时间、开始口服、胸腔引流时间、再入院率、术后发病率和死亡率。结果:两组患者年龄、性别、诊断指征差异无统计学意义。ERAS组平均ICU住院时间较短(1.18±0.55 vs 2.06±1.10 p<0.012),住院时间较短(7.50±1.23 vs 11.6±3.65天,p<0.001),较早开始口服喂养(4.30±1.41 vs 9.10±4.26天,p<0.001),较早清除胸管(3.22±vs 4.11±1.52 p<0.001);与常规组比较。ERAS组总发病率为50%(40%),而常规组为65%(81.25%)。两组死亡率相同(2.5%)。ERAS组无再入院病例。结论:ERAS在微创食管切除术中是安全的,对术后预后有积极影响,与常规方案相比,总发病率显著降低。通过确保更好地遵守其.......,可以提高结果
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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