Tan Ya-Zhen, Lu Xuan, Luo Jie, Huang Zhen-Dong, Deng Qi-Feng, Shen Xian-Feng, Zhang Chao, Guo Guang-Ling
Center of Women's Health Sciences, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China.
Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Clinical Research, Taihe Hospital, Hubei University of Medicine, Shiyan, China.
Front Oncol. 2019 Jul 30;9:675. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00675. eCollection 2019.
This study aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol vs. traditional perioperative care programs for breast reconstruction. Three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for observational studies comparing an ERAS program with a traditional perioperative care program from database inception to 5 May 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the data, and evaluated study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. The outcomes included the length of hospital stay (LOS), complication rates, pain control, costs, emergency department visits, hospital readmission, and unplanned reoperation. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with a conventional program, ERAS was associated with significantly decreased LOS, morphine administration (including postoperative patient-controlled analgesia usage rate and duration; intravenous morphine administration on postoperative day [POD] 0, 1, 2, and 4; total intravenous morphine administration on POD 0-3; oral morphine consumption on POD 0-4; and total postoperative oral morphine consumption), and pain scores (postoperative pain score on POD 0 and total pain score on POD 0-3). The other variables did not differ significantly. Our results suggest that ERAS protocols can decrease LOS and morphine equivalent dosing; therefore, further larger, and better-quality studies that report on bleeding amount and patient satisfaction are needed to validate our findings.
本研究旨在探讨手术加速康复(ERAS)方案与传统围手术期护理方案在乳房重建方面的有效性和安全性。检索了三个电子数据库(PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆),以查找从数据库建立至2018年5月5日期间比较ERAS方案与传统围手术期护理方案的观察性研究。两名评审员根据纳入和排除标准独立筛选文献、提取数据,并使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估研究质量。进行了亚组分析和敏感性分析。结局指标包括住院时间(LOS)、并发症发生率、疼痛控制、费用、急诊就诊、再次入院和非计划再次手术。荟萃分析纳入了10项研究。与传统方案相比,ERAS与LOS显著缩短、吗啡使用量(包括术后患者自控镇痛使用率和持续时间;术后第[POD]0、1、2和4天静脉注射吗啡;POD 0 - 3天静脉注射吗啡总量;POD 0 - 4天口服吗啡消耗量;以及术后口服吗啡总消耗量)和疼痛评分(POD 0术后疼痛评分和POD 0 - 3天总疼痛评分)相关。其他变量无显著差异。我们的结果表明,ERAS方案可缩短LOS并减少吗啡等效剂量;因此,需要进一步开展更大规模、质量更高且报告出血量和患者满意度的研究来验证我们的发现。