4.7 Review

Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGERY
卷 248, 期 2, 页码 189-198

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31817f2c1a

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Optimization of postoperative outcome requires the application of evidence-based principles of care carefully integrated into a multimodal rehabilitation program. Objective: To assess, synthesize, and discuss implementation of fast-track recovery programs. Data Sources: Medline MBASE (January 1966-May 2007) and the Cochrane library (January 1966-May 2007) were searched using the following keywords: fast-track, enhanced recovery, accelerated rehabilitation, and multimodal and perioperative care. In addition, the synthesis on the many specific interventions and organizational and implementation issues were based on data published within the past 5 years from major anesthesiological and surgical journals, using systematic reviews where appropriate instead of multiple references of original work. Data Synthesis: Based on an increasing amount of multinational, multicenter cohort studies, randomized studies, and meta-analyses, the concept of the fast-track methodology has uniformly provided a major enhancement in recovery leading to decreased hospital stay and with an apparent reduction in medical morbidity but unaltered surgery-specific morbidity in a variety of procedures. However, despite being based on a combination of evidence-based unimodal principles of care, recent surveys have demonstrated slow adaptation and implementation of the fast-track methodology. Conclusion: Multimodal evidence-based care within the fast-track methodology significantly enhances postoperative recovery and reduces morbidity, and should therefore be more widely adopted. Further improvement is expected by future integration of minimal invasive surgery, pharmacological stress-reduction, and effective multimodal, nonopioid analgesia.

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

4.7
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