Chen Yingkai, Kang Shizhou, Li Rui, Cao Zhenrui, Leng Jiajie, Jin Kai, Luo Yujie, Yan Ming, Jiang Yingjiu
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Department of Thoracic Surgery, The People's Hospital of Rongchang District, Chongqing, China.
Surg Endosc. 2025 Jul 22. doi: 10.1007/s00464-025-11877-0.
An appropriate rehabilitation program should follow thoracoscopic lung cancer radical surgery (TLCRS) to promote patient recovery during the perioperative period. However, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and conventional rehabilitation mode (CRM) programs remain a subject of debate to date. Therefore, in this randomized controlled trial, we compared the effectiveness and safety of an ERAS program with those of a CRM program after TLCRS in local regional hospitals.
From August 2021 to July 2022, in this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 80 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups at a 1:1 ratio: the ERAS program and the CRM program. The primary outcomes were the effectiveness and socioeconomic effects of the two kinds of programs. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative complications and the safety of the two kinds of programs.
Compared with the CRM group, the ERAS group experienced notable benefits (P < 0.001) in terms of length of hospital stay, postoperative length of hospital stay, time to thoracic drainage tube removal, time to postoperative oral feeding, time to postoperative ambulation, postoperative pain score, and hospitalization costs. Compared with the ERAS group, the CRM group experienced notable consequences such as postoperative atelectasis/pulmonary infections (P = 0.029) and prolonged operative times (P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ICU admission in the ERAS group was significantly lower than that in the CRM group (P = 0.048); however, the ERAS group had a higher rate of postoperative chest tube replacement than the CRM group did (P = 0.025).
Compared with the CRM program, the ERAS program is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, faster recovery, less pain, and smaller economic burden, improving patients' postoperative prognoses.
合适的康复计划应在胸腔镜肺癌根治术(TLCRS)后实施,以促进患者围手术期的恢复。然而,迄今为止,术后加速康复(ERAS)和传统康复模式(CRM)计划仍是一个有争议的话题。因此,在这项随机对照试验中,我们比较了ERAS计划与CRM计划在地方区域医院TLCRS术后的有效性和安全性。
从2021年8月至2022年7月,在这项双盲随机对照试验中,80例符合纳入标准的患者按1:1比例随机分为两组:ERAS计划组和CRM计划组。主要结局是两种计划的有效性和社会经济效应。次要结局包括术后并发症的发生率和两种计划的安全性。
与CRM组相比,ERAS组在住院时间、术后住院时间、胸腔引流管拔除时间、术后经口进食时间、术后下床活动时间、术后疼痛评分和住院费用方面均有显著优势(P < 0.001)。与ERAS组相比,CRM组出现了诸如术后肺不张/肺部感染(P = 0.029)和手术时间延长(P < 0.001)等显著后果。ERAS组术后入住重症监护病房的发生率显著低于CRM组(P = 0.048);然而,ERAS组术后胸管更换率高于CRM组(P = 0.025)。
与CRM计划相比,ERAS计划与术后肺部并发症发生率较低、恢复更快、疼痛减轻和经济负担较小相关,改善了患者的术后预后。