4.5 Review

Enhanced Recovery After Gastrointestinal Surgery (ERAS) in Pediatric Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 25, Issue 11, Pages 2976-2988

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-021-05053-7

Keywords

Fast-track surgery; Enhanced recovery after surgery; Gastrointestinal surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ERAS protocol is safe and feasible for pediatric patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, effectively reducing hospital stay, improving gastrointestinal function recovery, and decreasing the need for perioperative infusions, postoperative opioids, and costs.
Aim To systematically review literature and to assess the status of the ERAS protocol in pediatric populations undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Methods Literature research was carried out for papers comparing ERAS and traditional protocol in children undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Data on complications, hospital readmission, length of hospital stay, intraoperative fluid volume, post-operative opioid usage, time to defecation, regular diet, intravenous fluid stop, and costs were collected and analyzed. Analyses were performed using OR and CI 95%. A p value Results A total of 8 papers met the inclusion criteria, with 943 included patients. There was no significant difference in complication occurrence and 30-day readmission. Differently, length of stay, intraoperative fluid volume, post-operative opioid use, time to first defecation, time to regular diet, time to intravenous fluid stop, and costs were significantly lower in the ERAS groups. Conclusions ERAS protocol is safe and feasible for children undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Without any significant complications and hospital readmission, it decreases length of stay, ameliorates the recovery of gastrointestinal function, and reduces the needs of perioperative infusion, post-operative opioid administration, and costs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available