Initial Experiences of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in Esophageal Surgery [Application of the protocol of enhanced recovery after surgery in colorectal surgery]. Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery criteria and preoperative and postoperative counselling reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery: results of a randomized controlled trial A systematic review of enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Attenuates Stress and Accelerates Recovery in Patients After Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Enhanced Recoveryafter Colorectal Surgery. Results from Aprospective Observational Two-Centre Study Adherence to Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols across a High-Volume Gastrointestinal Surgical Service Enhanced Recovery After Colorectal Surgery (ERAS) in Elderly Patients Is Feasible and Achieves Similar Results as in Younger Patients Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Fast‐track surgery: the next revolution in surgical care following laparoscopy Effects of goal-directed fluid therapy on enhanced postoperative recovery: An interventional comparative observational study with a historical control group on oesophagectomy combined with ERAS program. Safety, feasibility, and tolerance of early oral feeding after colorectal resection outside an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program Safety and efficacy of an “enhanced recovery after surgery” protocol for patients undergoing colon cancer surgery: a multi-institutional controlled study Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Versus Conventional Postoperative Care in Colorectal Surgery Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Observation of clinical efficacy of application of enhanced recovery after surgery in perioperative period on esophageal carcinoma patients. Recovery after open and laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a comparison.
Background A recent development in gastrointestinal surgery is the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs . Evidence regarding the benefit of these programs in patients undergoing esophageal surgery is scarce . We investigated the feasibility and possible benefit of a perioperative ERAS program in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignant disease . Methods The ERAS program was initiated in 2009 . Patients who underwent esophagectomy and were treated according to the ERAS program were included . Items of ERAS included preoperative nutrition , early extubation , early removal of nasogastric tube , and early mobilization . Primary outcome parameters were hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative complications . Outcome parameters in the ERAS cohort were compared to a cohort of patients who underwent surgical resection in the year prior to the implementation of the ERAS protocol . A feasibility analysis was performed among a sample of ERAS patients to determine the number of achieved items per patient . Results Between 2008 and August 2010 , 181 patients in our department underwent esophagectomy .  Of these , 103 patients were included in the ERAS program ( ERAS+ group ) and were compared to 78 patients who had undergone an esophagectomy in 2008 ( ERAS– group ) .  Overall hospital stay was 14 days versus 15 days ( ERAS+ and ERAS– , respectively ; p = 0.013 ) . There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications in either group . The percentage of achieved items varied between 42 and 93 % per item . Conclusions The implementation of an ERAS program in esophageal surgery was feasible and result ed in a small but significant reduction in overall hospital stay , whereas overall morbidity was not affected OBJECTIVE To evaluate  enhanced recovery after surgery(ERAS ) protocol in colorectal surgery . METHODS From september 2006 to February 2007 , 74 patients with colorectal cancer were r and omly assigned to ERAS group and control group . The stress index , nutrition and metabolism index , intraoperative index and postoperative index were evaluated . RESULTS Six patients were excluded , 3 in ERAS group ( 2 cases received hepatectomy concomitantly and 1 case received partial ileum resection ) , and 3 in control group ( 1 case received hepatectomy  and 1 case received colorectomy concomitantly , another presented asthma paroxysm ) . So there were 34 cases in ERAS group and 34 cases in control , with no statistical differences in sex , age , BMI index and operation types . Deviation of HOMA-IR index of ERAS was lower than the control ( P>0.05 ) , the same as plasma cortisol at the 1st day after operation ( P<0.05 ) , but plasma glucagons in the operation of ERAS group was higher than that of control ( P<0.05 ) . Plasma glucose 1st day after operation of ERAS group was lower than control ( P<0.05 ) , while plasma triglyceride intraoperation , at 1st day , 2nd day after operation of ERAS was higher than control ( P<0.05 ) . Nitrogen negative balance of ERAS group was higher than control at 2nd day after surgery , but is lower intraoperation and at 6th day after operation ( P<0.05 ) . The time of exhaust gas and stool , time to eat fluidity and semi-fluidity , out-of-bed time and exercise time per-day , residual time and complication rate in ERAS group were better than those of control ( P<0.05 ) . Post-operative expenses of ERAS was lower than that of control ( P<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION ERAS can decrease surgical stress , increase functional recovery and reduce complication rate The aim of this r and omized clinical trial was to compare patients treated using a multimodal approach [ enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) ]  , with a special focus on counselling , to patients treated in a st and ard conventional care pathway , who underwent elective colorectal resection INTRODUCTION Colorectal surgery has been associated with a complication rate of 15 - 20 % and mean post-operative inpatient stays of 6 - 11 days . The principles of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) are well established and have been developed to optimise peri-operative care and facilitate discharge . The purpose of this systematic review is to present an up date d review of peri-operative care in colorectal surgery from the available evidence and ERAS group recommendations . METHODS Systematic search es of the PubMed and Embase ™ data bases and the Cochrane library were conducted . A h and search of bibliographies of identified studies was conducted to identify any additional articles missed by the initial search strategy . RESULTS A total of 59 relevant studies were identified . These included six r and omised controlled trials and seven clinical controlled trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria . These studies showed reductions in duration of inpatient stays in the ERAS groups compared with more traditional care as well as reductions in morbidity and mortality rates . CONCLUSIONS Review ing the data reveals that ERAS protocol s have a role in reducing post-operative morbidity and result in an accelerated recovery following colorectal surgery . Similarly , both primary and overall hospital stays are reduced significantly . However , the available evidence suggests that ERAS protocol s do not reduce hospital readmissions or mortality . These findings help to confirm that ERAS protocol s should now be implemented as the st and ard approach for peri-operative care in colorectal surgery Background The aim of this trial was to compare the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) program with conventional perioperative management in patients who underwent radical resection for colorectal cancer . Methods A combination of evidence -based and consensus methodology was used to develop the ERAS protocol . Five hundred ninety-seven consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal resection were r and omized to either the ERAS ( n = 299 ) or the  control group ( n = 298 ) . Outcomes relating to nutrition and metabolism index , stress index , and recovery index were measured and recorded . Results Demographic and operative data were similar between the two groups . Patients in the ERAS group showed improved nutritional status when compared with those of the control group . On postoperative day ( POD ) 1 , the HOMA-IR ( insulin resistance index ) of the ERAS group was lower than that of the control group ( p < 0.001 ) . The cortisol level of the control group was elevated on both POD 1 ( p = 0.007 ) and POD 5 ( p = 0.002 ) compared to the preoperative level . However , the cortisol level of the ERAS group was not increased until POD 5 ( p = 0.001 ) . Reduced levels of TNF-α , IL-1β , IL-6 , and IFN-γ in the ERAS group indicated less postoperative stress responses . In addition , ERAS was associated with accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function . The postoperative length of stay ( p < 0.001 ) and expense ( p < 0.001 ) for the ERAS group were reduced in comparison to the controls . Twenty-eight cases in the control group and twenty-nine in the ERAS group suffered complications , which was not significantly different . Conclusion The ERAS protocol attenuates the surgical stress response and accelerates postoperative recovery without compromising patient safety Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has reduced the median hospital stay from 8–10 days with traditional peri-operative routines to four days . The aim of the present study was to introduce the principles of ERAS in our hospital and measure the effect on hospital stay , complications and quality of life after discharge from hospital . Material and Methods : 94 consecutive patients , 40 males , 54 females , median age 66 years , were included in a prospect i ve non-r and omised observational study at Haukel and University Hospital and Haugesund Hospital from October 2000 until February 2003 . After a three-month preparation period , the principles of ERAS were implemented . The results were evaluated with question naires and by follow-ups 8–10 and 30 days after surgery . The results were compared to the results of colorectal surgery before introduction of accelerated recovery . Results : 45 ( 48 % ) and 73 ( 78 % ) patients were discharged within three and five days after surgery with ERAS , compared to zero and seven ( 5 % ) patients with traditional recovery . The complication rate with ERAS was 31 % , and the readmission rate was 15 % . After one week , 57 % had resumed their daily activities at home . After 30 days , 65 % of the patients had resumed their normal and leisure activities . Conclusion : After a proper preparation period , ERAS principles may be implemented in surgical department , and is followed by a reduced median hospital stay and rapid return to normal daily activities for most patients after colorectal surgery Background and Aims : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients following gastrointestinal surgery . Data on protocol adherence and how this impacts on outcome are limited . This study examines how protocol adherence changes over time and determines how this impacts on outcome across a large-volume gastrointestinal surgical service . Material s and Methods : A prospect i ve review of patients eligible for colorectal , liver and oesophagogastric ERAS over two 3-month periods in 2010 and 2011 was performed . End points included : length of stay ( LOS ) , overall protocol adherence , individual modality adherence , reason for pathway deviation and patient outcomes . Results : 172 patients ( 110 colorectal , 31 liver and 31 oesophagogastric ) were evaluated . For each sub-speciality , the introduction of ERAS led to significant reductions in LOS that were sustained for the duration of the study . Adherence was achieved across 60 % ( colorectal ) , 75 % ( liver ) and 88 % ( oesophagogastric ) of individual pathway modalities . The major causes of pathway deviation were : post-operative nausea and vomiting ( colorectal ) , pain ( liver ) and pulmonary complications ( oesophagogastric ) . Conclusions : Large-scale implementation of ERAS at a high-volume centre is feasible and offers many of the benefits demonstrated in controlled trials , but adherence may diminish over time Aim : Enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) is a multimodal approach that aims to optimize perioperative treatment . Whether elderly patients receiving colorectal surgery can adhere to and benefit from an ERAS approach is uncertain . The aim of this study was to compare patients in different age groups participating in an ERAS program .  Method : In this sub study of a r and omized controlled trial , we analyzed the interventional ERAS arm of adult patients eligible for laparoscopic or open colorectal resection with regard to the importance of age . Patients were divided into three groups based on age : ≤65 years ( n = 79 ) , 66 - 79 years ( n = 56 ) , and ≥80 years ( n = 19 ) . The primary end point was total postoperative hospital stay ( THS ) . Secondary end points were postoperative hospital stay , postoperative complications , postoperative C-reactive protein levels , readmission rate , mortality , and patient adherence to the different  ERAS elements . All parameters and measuring the adherence to the ERAS protocol were recorded before surgery , on the day of the operation , and daily until discharge . Results : There were no significant differences in length of THS between age groups ( ≤65 years , median 5 [ range 2 - 47 ] days ; 66 - 79 years , median 5.5 [ range 2 - 36 ] days ; ≥80 years , median 7 [ range 3 - 50 ] days ; p = .53 ) . All secondary outcomes were similar between age groups . Patient adherence to the ERAS protocol was as good in the elderly as it was in the younger patients . Conclusion : Elderly patients adhered to and benefited from an ERAS program , similar to their younger counterparts OBJECTIVES To study the impact of different adherence levels to the enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol and the effect of various ERAS elements on outcomes following major surgery . DESIGN Single-center prospect i ve cohort study before and after reinforcement of an ERAS protocol . Comparisons were made both between and across periods using multivariate logistic regression . All clinical data ( 114 variables ) were prospect ively recorded . SETTING Ersta Hospital , Stockholm , Sweden . PATIENTS Nine hundred fifty-three consecutive patients with colorectal cancer : 464 patients treated in 2002 to 2004 and 489 in 2005 to 2007 . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The association between improved adherence to the ERAS protocol and the incidence of postoperative symptoms , complications , and length of stay following major colorectal cancer surgery was analyzed . RESULTS Following an overall increase in preoperative and perioperative adherence to the ERAS protocol from 43.3 % in 2002 to 2004 to 70.6 % in 2005 to 2007 , both postoperative complications ( odds ratio , 0.73 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.55 - 0.98 ) and symptoms ( odds ratio , 0.53 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.40 - 0.70 ) declined significantly . Restriction of intravenous fluid and use of a preoperative carbohydrate drink were major independent predictors . Across periods , the proportion of adverse postoperative outcomes ( 30-day morbidity , symptoms , and readmissions ) was significantly reduced with increasing adherence to the ERAS protocol ( > 70 % , > 80 % , and > 90 % ) compared with low ERAS adherence ( < 50 % ) . CONCLUSION Improved adherence to the st and ardized multimodal ERAS protocol is significantly associated with improved clinical outcomes following major colorectal cancer surgery , indicating a dose-response relationship Fast-track surgery , also named enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) , is in my opinion the most important innovation after the advent of laparoscopy ( in the 1990s ) in the field of  colorectal surgery  ( as in other fields of surgery ) . It is defined as a multimodal pathway aim ing to reduce surgical stress by using pain-free procedures with less organ dysfunction , less morbidity and better recovery . ERAS has been popularized by Henrik Kehlet and his team since the early 2000s [ 1 ] and has rapidly gained popularity around the world because of its remarkable benefits and safety . The concept of ERAS is to make use of the improvement of anaesthetic and analgesic techniques , the development of minimally invasive surgery and evidence -based perioperative care . It involves a number of items , beginning from the first medical visit before surgery to discharge . The items are all evidence based being derived from r and omized controlled trials or meta-analyses . The reader can find the references related to the ERAS items in the valuable consensus review published by the European ERAS group [ 2 ] and the paper of Kehlet and Wilmore [ 3 ] . Through this pathway , the patient can benefit from the best available evidence in anaesthesia , analgesia , perioperative fluid management , surgical procedures , nutrition and ambulation . I will focus in this editorial on the role of ERAS in colorectal surgery , but readers should be aware that ERAS has been applied and vali date d in other abdominal procedures , and in urology , gynaecology , vascular sugery , endocrine surgery , orthopaedic surgery , etc . [ 3 ] . The numerous items or components ( Figure 1 ) involve the preoperative , intra-operative and postoperative periods , necessitating close collaboration between surgeons ( no bowel preparation , no routine nasogastric tube , minimally invasive surgery , no routine abdominal drainage and early postoperative diet ) , anaesthesiologists ( fasting duration of two hours for liquids and six hours for solids , carbohydrate loading , no routine preoperative sedation , avoiding long-acting opioids , epidural analgesia , preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting , preventing intra-operative hypothermia , perioperative fluid restriction and postoperative analgesia ) and nurses and physiotherapists ( early nutrition and mobilisation ) . Several r and omized trials and four meta-analyses [ 4–7 ] have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ERAS , not only in reducing total length of hospital stay and morbidity , but also in improving patient satisfaction when compared with conventional care . The metaanalyses included both r and omized and non-r and omized studies , the most recent and the largest [ 6 ] showing a reduction of 2.5 days in total hospital stay and significantly less morbidity ( OR 0.54 [ 0.45–0.69 ] ) in favour of the ERAS group , with no difference in readmission rate . A recent meta- analysis focusing on major colorectal surgery demonstrated that the ERAS programme can reduce morbidity by up to 50 % [ 7 ] . ERAS raises three questions . ( i ) What is the respective role of each ERAS item ? ( ii ) Does the ERAS protocol increase the workload of ward nursing staff ? ( iii ) How should this new paradigm be implemented ? Several anaesthesiologists are reluctant to use epidural analgesia in daily practice , mainly when patients are undergoing laparoscopic surgery . Epidural analgesia ( well known to be associated with less pain ) during laparoscopic surgery has been assessed in meta-analyses and r and omized trials but the conclusions are not concordant [ 8,9 ] . In my own daily practice , epidural analgesia is safe and efficacious in relieving pain and allowing early oral intake and mobilization , but it is obvious that its proper role in the ERAS protocol compared with other analgesic regimens such as non-opioid multimodal analgesia , local anaesthesia and continuous wound perfusion , in the era of laparoscopic surgery needs further evaluation . The roleof laparoscopyhas also been debated [ 10 ] . Two small r and omized trials have shown conflicting results [ 11,12 ] , but a recent large r and omized trial [ 13 ] involving four arms ( laparoscopy with ERAS vs laparoscopy with conventional care , vs open surgery with ERAS vs open surgery with conventional care ) has demonstrated a shorter hospital stay after laparoscopic colonic surgery with ERAS , the other outcomes being similar . The conclusion of the authors was that ‘ the most optimal perioperative treatment for patients requiring segmental colectomy for coloncancer is laparoscopic resection embedded in an ERAS program ’ , suggesting that laparoscopic surgery is an important component of ERAS . The same team has performed a futher multivariate linear regression analysis on the same data and showed that the components significantly associated with a successful ERAS programme were laparoscopic surgery , normal diet at postoperative days one , two and three and enforced mobilization at postoperative days one , two and three ( Vlug M , personal communication ) . There is a feeling that the ERAS programme could increase the workload of nursing staff . The nursing BACKGROUND AND AIMS The Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) program has been proposed as a postoperative recovery-enhancing strategy . We frequently apply the Modified-ERAS program following oesophagectomy . This study aims to eluci date the impact of goal -directed fluid therapy ( GDT ) for the perioperative management of oesophageal cancer on the postoperative recovery of patients undergoing oesophagectomy . METHODS This is an interventional before-after comparative observational study conducted at Kanagawa Cancer Centre , Japan . Patients who underwent elective oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer were recruited . Group H ( retrospectively collected ) received intraoperative and postoperative management consisting of fluid administration without haemodynamic monitoring and the M-ERAS program , while Group S prospect ively received management consisting of GDT and the M-ERAS program . The primary endpoint was the speed of gastrointestinal functional recovery , while secondary endpoints were the level of postoperative mobilisation , incidence of complications , postoperative length of hospital stay ( LOS ) , and nutritional status after discharge . RESULTS The proportion of patients who completely egested Gastrografin by postoperative day 4 , the level of postoperative mobilisation , and achievement ratio for a 100-m walk on the first postoperative attempt were significantly higher in Group S than in Group H ( P = 0.034 , P = 0.0197 , and P < 0.0001 , respectively ) . No significant differences were observed in the postoperative LOS and incidence of complications within 30 days between the groups . The serum albumin levels at 6 months after discharge was higher in Group S than in Group H ( P = 0.0002 ) . CONCLUSIONS The GDT-ERAS program enhanced postoperative gastrointestinal recovery and mobilisation , as well as postoperative nutritional status and protein synthesis . The program did not affect either postoperative LOS or the incidence of complications . TRIAL REGISTRATION UMIN registration number : UMIN000013705 , https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000015999 Introduction It is generally believed that resumption of feeding after colorectal resection is indicated only after recovery of bowel function . This study was design ed to verify safety , feasibility , and tolerance of early oral postoperative feeding ( EOF ) outside an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) program . Material s and methods One hundred patient c and i date s to elective colorectal resection were prospect ively enrolled in an EOF program . Feeding was started on postoperative day ( POD ) 1 with oral nutritional supplement ( ONS ) . On POD 2 , patients had normal food plus ONS to reach 1,000–1,200 kcal/day with progressive increase until 1,800–2,000 kcal/day . Results were compared with historical controls ( n = 100 ) in whom oral feeding was allowed only after full bowel function recovery . The ERAS program was not applied in both groups . Results The EOF group had a better recovery of short half-life protein synthesis compared with the control group ( P < 0.001 ) . Stool canalization occurred after a median of 3 days ( range , 1–6 days ) in the EOF group versus 5 days ( range , 2–8 days ) in the control group ( P = 0.001 ) . The feeding protocol was completed in 89 patients within POD 5 . Tolerance to resumption of feeding was similar in the two groups . The overall rate of postoperative complication was 22 % in the EOF group vs. 27 % in the control group ( P = 0.51 ) . The median length of hospitalization was 9 days ( range , 6–25 days ) in the EOF group vs. 12 days ( range , 6–31 days ) in controls ( P = 0.01 ) . Conclusions EOF after colorectal operations is feasible and safe outside an ERAS program Purpose The aim of this multi-institutional study was to prospect ively evaluate the safety and efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) protocol for colonic surgery . Methods The subjects of this study were 320 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists ( ASA ) grade I or II physical status . Patients underwent elective open or laparoscopic colonic resection or high anterior resection between April 2011 and January 2014 at one of six institutions . Three hospitals implemented an ERAS protocol ( n = 159 ) , and three administered conventional care ( n = 161 ) . The primary outcome measure was the surgical complication rate . Results Most operations , irrespective of group , were performed laparoscopically . The incidence of a surgical complication was 17.0 % in the ERAS group vs. 16.1 % in the conventional group ( P = 0.842 ) , in which several non-surgical complications also arose . Oral food intake was implemented earlier for the ERAS group vs. the conventional group , after a median ( range ) of 1 ( 1–31 ) vs. 3 ( 1–9 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . The median length of postoperative hospital stay was reduced by 5.5 days for the ERAS group , being 8.5 ( 5–41 ) vs. 14 ( 7–56 ) days for the ERAS vs. conventional care groups , respectively ( P < 0.001 ) . Conclusion This multi-institutional controlled study clearly demonstrated that an ERAS protocol was efficient , without increasing the complication risk Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) programs are associated with reduced hospital morbidity and mortality . The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the introduction of ERAS care improved the adverse events in colorectal surgery . In a cohort study , mortality , morbidity , and length of stay were compared between ERAS patients and carefully matched historical controls . Methods Patients were matched for their type of disease , the type of surgery , P-Possum ( Portsmouth-Possum ) , CR-Possum ( Colorectal-Possum ) Physiological and Operative Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity ( POSSUM ) , gender , and American Society of Anesthesiologists ( ASA ) grade . The primary outcome measures of this study were mortality and morbidity . Secondary outcome measures were fluid intake , length of hospital stay , the number of relaparotomies , and the number of readmissions within 30 days . Data on the ERAS patients were collected prospect ively . Results Sixty-one patients treated according to the ERAS program were compared with 122 patients who received conventional postoperative care .  The two groups were comparable with respect to age , ASA grade , P-Possum ( Portsmouth-Possum ) , CR-Possum ( Colorectal-Possum ) score , type of surgery , stoma formation , type of disease , and gender . Morbidity was lower in the ERAS group compared to the control group ( 14.8 % versus 33.6 % respectively ; P = < 0.01 ) . Patients in the ERAS group received significantly less fluid and spent fewer days in the hospital ( median 6 days , range 3–50 vs. median 9 days , range 3–138 ; P = 0.032 ) . There was no difference between the ERAS and the control group for mortality ( 0 % vs. 1.6 % ; P = 0.55 ) and readmission rate ( 3.3 % vs. 1.6 % ; P = 0.60 ) . Conclusion Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program  reduces morbidity and the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing elective colonic or rectal surgery Background This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colonic surgery and to provide grade d recommendations for items for an evidence d-based enhanced perioperative protocol . Methods Studies were selected with particular attention paid to meta-analyses , r and omised controlled trials and large prospect i ve cohorts . For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway , available English- language literature was examined , review ed and grade d. A consensus recommendation was reached after critical appraisal of the literature by the group . Results For most of the protocol items , recommendations are based on good- quality trials or meta-analyses of good- quality trials ( quality of evidence and recommendations according to the GRADE system ) . Conclusions Based on the evidence available for each item of the multimodal perioperative care pathway , the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery ( ERAS ) Society , International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition ( IASMEN ) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism ( ESPEN ) present a comprehensive evidence -based consensus review of perioperative care for colonic surgery PURPOSE To observe the clinical efficacy of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) in the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients . METHODS A total of 114 patients who were admitted to Affiliated Hospital of Jining Medical University for surgical treatment of esophageal carcinoma between June 2012 and June 2016 were enrolled and r and omly divided into the intervention group and the regular group according to the difference of management procedures during the perioperative period . ERAS was carried out in 57 patients in the intervention group , while conventional management procedures were applied in 57 patients in the regular group . Thereafter , compared were the fluctuations in nutritional indicators and immunological indicators , postoperative complications , time to recovery of gastrointestinal function , length of stay ( LOS ) in hospital and cost of patients between the two groups . RESULTS Seven days post-operation in the intervention group , the evaluation indexes of nutrition status , including total protein ( TP ) , albumin ( ALB ) , prealbumin ( PA ) and transferrin ( TF ) , and of immunological functions , including immunoglobulin G ( IgG ) , immunoglobulin A ( IgA ) , immunoglobulin M ( IgM ) and total blood lymphocyte count ( TLC ) , were significantly higher than those in the regular group . As for postoperative complications , the incidence rate of the intervention group was remarkably lower than that of the regular group ; the recovery time of gastrointestinal function in the intervention group was shorter than that in the regular group ; the LOS in the intervention group was also shorter than that in the regular group ; the in-hospital cost in the intervention group was also lower than that in the regular group . All differences above were statistically significant ( p<0.05 ) . CONCLUSION During the perioperative period of esophageal carcinoma patients , ERAS should be fully applied to sustain the good status , and promote the recovery of immunological functions and gastrointestinal functions ; at the same time , ERAS also reduces the incidence rate of postoperative complications , LOS and in-hospital cost , and we maintain that ERAS should be performed in clinical practice BACKGROUND Enhanced Recovery after Surgery ( ERAS ) programs have gained popularity with potential to accelerate recovery and reduce morbidity after colectomy . We were interested in comparing recovery after open right colectomy within an ERAS program compared with laparoscopic right colectomy in a st and ard care perioperative environment . METHODS Between October 2005 and June 2009 , prospect i ve data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing elective open right colectomy within an established ERAS setting ( OpERAS ) . Similarly , between March 2008 and June 2009 , data were collected on consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic right hemicolectomy with conventional care ( LapCon ) . Exclusion criteria for both groups were : ASA > or= 4 , formation of a stoma , and dementia or mental illness rendering the patient unable to comply with instructions . Perioperative variables were collected . The surgical recovery score ( SRS ) was used as a vali date d means to measure convalescence on d 1 , 3 , 7 , 30 , and 60 postoperatively . RESULTS There were 74 patients in the OpERAS and 39 patients in the LapCon groups . At baseline , there were no significant demographic differences except that more patients had malignancy in OpERAS group .  Mean operating time was longer in the LapCon group . Median day stay was 4 ( 3 - 28 ) in OpERAS and 5 ( 2 - 18 ) in LapCon ( P = 0.032 ) . There was no statistical difference in the incidence of complications or the severity of complications . There were no significant differences in SRS after surgery at any time point . CONCLUSION When perioperative care is optimized , recovery after elective open right hemicolectomy is comparable with laparoscopic resection . Studies looking at the combination of laparoscopy and ERAS are warranted
Overall , there is little direct evidence for components of ERAS , with much derived from nonesophageal thoracoabdominal surgery .
ERAS in principle seems logical and safe for esophagectomy .
OBJECTIVE This article aims to provide the first systematic review of enhanced recovery after surgery ( ERAS ) programs for  esophagectomy  and generate guidelines .
BACKGROUND ERAS programs use multimodal approaches to reduce complications and accelerate recovery .
Although ERAS is well established in colorectal surgery , experience after esophagectomy has been minimal .
However , esophagectomy remains an extremely high-risk operation , commonly performed in patients with significant comorbidities .
Consequently , ERAS may have a significant role to play in improving outcomes .
No guidelines or review s have been published in esophagectomy .