4.5 Article

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs for Liver Resection: a Meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 21, Issue 3, Pages 472-486

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-017-3360-y

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery; Liver resection; Liver surgery; Hepatectomy; Meta-analysis

Funding

  1. Science Technology Program of Zhejiang Province through the Zhejiang Provincial Health Department Project [2015KYB434, 2017KY161]
  2. Zhejiang natural fund project of China [LY17H160069]
  3. Taizhou science and technology plan project [1602KY21, 162yw03, 14SF03]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Due to the limited number of high-quality randomized controlled trials on enhanced recovery after surgery for hepatectomy, previous reviews have not been sufficiently comprehensive. Our objectives were to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery programs and traditional care in patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery and to assess the optimized items for hepatectomy. We searched the PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for all the relevant studies regardless of study design. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies and excluded studies of poor quality. We performed a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3 software. In total, 19 original studies with 2575 patients, including four randomized controlled trials and 15 non-randomized controlled trials, were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated that enhanced recovery after surgery programs could reduce morbidity, hospital stays and cost, blood loss, and time to bowel function recovery for both open and laparoscopic surgery without increasing mortality, readmission rate, or transfusion rate. Twelve items were essential for liver surgery. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs for hepatectomy are feasible and efficient. Further studies should optimize perioperative outcomes for liver surgery.

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