4.1 Article

Outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for pancreaticoduodenectomy

期刊

CIRUGIA ESPANOLA
卷 93, 期 8, 页码 509-515

出版社

ELSEVIER ESPANA SLU
DOI: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2015.04.009

关键词

Enhanced recovery after surgery; Fast-track; Pancreatoduodenectomy; Outcomes

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has demonstrated in colorectal surgery a reduction in morbidity and length of stay without compromising security. Experience with ERAS programs in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is still limited. The aims of this study were first to evaluate the applicability of an ERAS program for PD patients in our hospital, and second to analyze the postoperative results. Methods: A retrospective study using a prospectively maintained database identified 41 consecutive PD included in an ERAS program. Key elements studied were early removal of tubes and drainages, early oral feeding and early mobilization. Variables studied were mortality, morbidity, perioperative data, length of stay, re-interventions and inpatient readmission. This group of patients was compared with an historic control group of 44 PD patients with a standard postoperative management. Results: A total of 85 pancreatoduodenectomies were analyzed (41 patients in the ERAS group, and 44 patients in the control group. General mortality was 2.4% (2 patients) belonging to the control group. There were no statistical differences in mortality, length of stay in intensive care, reoperationss, and readmissions. ERAS group had a lower morbidity rate than the control group (32 vs. 48%; P=. 072), as well as a lower length of stay (14.2 vs. 18.7 days). All the key ERAS proposed elements were achieved. Conclusions: ERAS programs may be implemented safely in pancreaticoduodenectomy. They may reduce the length of stay, unifying perioperative care and diminishing clinical variability and hospital costs. (C) 2015 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据