Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Enhanced recovery after abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewpeer review

DOI

  1. Consensus on international guidelines for management of groin hernias

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Optimizing quantitative fluorescence angiography for visceral perfusion assessment

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewpeer review

  3. Visceral obesity and short-term outcomes after laparoscopic rectal cancer resection

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Incisional hernia repair in women of childbearing age: A nationwide propensity-score matched study

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Minimalt invasiv kirurgi til behandling af maligne lidelser i pancreas

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Histology and Function of the Rectus Abdominis Muscle in Patients With Incisional Hernia

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Variation in training requirements within general surgery: comparison of 23 countries

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are evidence-based protocols associated with improved patient outcomes. The use of ERAS pathways is well documented in various surgical specialties. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of ERAS protocols in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR).

METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for original studies comparing ERAS with standard care in patients undergoing AWR. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS) and secondary outcomes were readmission and surgical site infection (SSI) and/or surgical site occurrences (SSO).

RESULTS: Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. All were retrospective cohort studies including 453 patients treated according to ERAS protocols, and 494 patients treated according to standard care. The meta-analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing AWR managed with ERAS had a mean 0.89 days reduction in LOS compared with patients treated with standard care (95% CI - 1.70 to - 0.07 days, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.87, p = 1.00) or SSI/SSO (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.11, p = 0.56) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of ERAS in patients undergoing AWR was found to significantly reduce LOS without increasing the readmission rate or SSI/SSO. Based on the existing literature, ERAS protocols should be implemented for patients undergoing AWR.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftSurgical Endoscopy
Vol/bind35
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)514-523
Antal sider10
ISSN0930-2794
DOI
StatusUdgivet - feb. 2021

ID: 62415370