Enhanced recovery pathways lead to an improvement in postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy: systematic review and pooled analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 468-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Markar ◽  
A. Karthikesalingam ◽  
D. E. Low
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Enhanced Recovery Pathways for Colorectal Surgery

2015 ◽  
Vol 261 (5) ◽  
pp. e138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Adamina ◽  
Anthony J. Senagore ◽  
Conor P. Delaney ◽  
Henrik Kehlet
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e019740 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Murphy ◽  
Mark G Pritchard ◽  
Lok Yin Cheng ◽  
Roshni Janarthanan ◽  
José Leal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways ◽  
The Cost

IntroductionHip and knee replacement represents a significant burden to the UK healthcare system. ‘Enhanced recovery’ pathways have been introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement, with the aim of improving outcomes and timely recovery after surgery. To support policymaking, there is a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways across jurisdictions. Our aim is to systematically summarise the published cost-effectiveness evidence on enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement, both as a whole and for each of the various components of enhanced recovery pathways.Methods and analysisA systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Separate search strategies were developed for each database including terms relating to hip and knee replacement/arthroplasty, economic evaluations, decision modelling and quality of life measures.We will extract peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2017 reporting economic evaluations of preoperative, perioperative or postoperative enhanced recovery interventions within hip or knee replacement. Economic evaluations alongside cohort studies or based on decision models will be included. Only studies with patients undergoing elective replacement surgery of the hip or knee will be included. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice guidelines for economic evaluation, decision modelling and model validation.Our primary outcome will be the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery (entire pathway and individual components) in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented, focussing on cost-effectiveness results, study design, quality and validation status.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review is exempted from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017059473.

scholarly journals Enhanced recovery pathways in abdominal gynecologic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanny J.A. de Groot ◽  
Stephanie M.C. Ament ◽  
José M.C. Maessen ◽  
Cornelis H.C. Dejong ◽  
Jos M.P. Kleijnen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gynecologic Surgery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

scholarly journals ENHANCED RECOVERY PATHWAYS (ERAS) IMPLEMENTATION IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY; AN EARLY EXPERIENCE

2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 2082-86
Author(s):  
Aaishah Riaz ◽  
Bilal Umair ◽  
Asif Asghar ◽  
Muhammad Imtiaz ◽  
Raheel Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Postoperative Outcomes ◽  
Conventional Group ◽  
Invasive Esophagectomy ◽  
Icu Stay ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

Objective: To evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery pathways (ERAS) on hospital stay and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison to conventional pathway. Study Design: Quasi experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Thoracic Surgery Department, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jul 2018 to Mar 2020. Methodology: A total of 80 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy were divided in two groups. Group A underwent ERAS pathway and group B underwent conventional pathway. Both groups were compared for demographic characteristics, mean ICU stay, length of hospital stay, commencement of oral intake, and time of chest drain removal, readmission rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was no significant difference in age, gender and diagnostic indication among both groups. ERAS group was found to have shorter mean ICU stay (1.18 ± 0.55 vs 2.06 ± 1.10 days p<0.012), shorter hospital stay (7.50 ± 1.23 vs 11.6 ± 3.65 days, p<.001), earlier commencement of oral feeding (4.30 ± 1.41 vs 9.10 ± 4.26 days, p<0.001) and early removal of chest drains (3.22 ± vs 4.11 ± 1.52 p<0.001); when compared to conventional group. Overall morbidity in ERAS group was 50 (40%) versus 65% (81.25%) in conventional group. Mortality was same in both groups (2.5%). There was no readmission in ERAS group. Conclusion: ERAS in minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and has positive impact on postoperative outcomes with marked reduction in overall morbidity in comparison to conventional regime. Results can be enhanced by ensuring better compliance to its.......

scholarly journals Systematic review of the influence of enhanced recovery pathways in elective lung resection

2016 ◽  
Vol 151 (3) ◽  
pp. 708-715.e6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julio F. Fiore ◽  
Jimmy Bejjani ◽  
Kate Conrad ◽  
Petru Niculiseanu ◽  
Tara Landry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Lung Resection ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

scholarly journals Enhanced recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e032204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark G Pritchard ◽  
Jacqueline Murphy ◽  
Lok Cheng ◽  
Roshni Janarthanan ◽  
Andrew Judge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

AbstractObjectivesTo assess cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways following total hip and knee arthroplasties. Secondary objectives were to report on quality of studies and identify research gaps for future work.DesignSystematic review of cost–utility analyses.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database and EconLit, January 2000 to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaEnglish-language peer-reviewed cost–utility analyses of enhanced recovery pathways, or components of one, compared with usual care, in patients having total hip or knee arthroplasties for osteoarthritis.Data extraction and synthesisData extracted by three reviewers with disagreements resolved by a fourth. Study quality assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models tools; for trial-based studies the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool to assess risk of bias. No quantitative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsWe identified 17 studies: five trial-based and 12 model-based studies. Two analyses evaluated entire enhanced recovery pathways and reported them to be cost-effective compared with usual care. Ten pathway components were more effective and cost-saving compared with usual care, three were cost-effective, and two were not cost-effective. We had concerns around risk of bias for all included studies, particularly regarding the short time horizon of the trials and lack of reporting of model validation.ConclusionsConsistent results supported enhanced recovery pathways as a whole, prophylactic systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation for infection prevention. No other interventions were subject of more than one study. We found ample scope for future cost-effectiveness studies, particularly analyses of entire recovery pathways and comparison of incremental changes within pathways. A key limitation is that standard practices have changed over the period covered by the included studies.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017059473.

Enhanced recovery pathways vs standard care pathways in esophageal cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

Esophagus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 100-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Triantafyllou ◽  
Michael T. Olson ◽  
Dimitrios Theodorou ◽  
Dimitrios Schizas ◽  
Saurabh Singhal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Esophageal Cancer Surgery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Enhanced Recovery Pathways for Colorectal Surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 259 (4) ◽  
pp. 670-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Lee ◽  
Chao Li ◽  
Tara Landry ◽  
Eric Latimer ◽  
Franco Carli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Colorectal Surgery ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Enhanced Recovery Pathways ◽  
Recovery Pathways
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document