Should enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways be preferred over standard practice for patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

purposeAlthough many studies assessing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) have recently demonstrated lower rates of postoperative morbidity and a decrease in postoperative length of stay compared to standard practice, the utility of ERAS in AWR remains largely unknown.

methodsA systematic literature search for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing ERAS (ERAS +) pathways and standard protocols (Control) as an adopted practice for patients undergoing AWR was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases. A predefined search strategy was implemented. The included studies were reviewed for primary outcomes: overall postoperative morbidity, abdominal wall morbidity, surgical site infection (SSI), and length of hospital stay; and for secondary outcome: operative time, estimated blood loss, time to discontinuation of narcotics, time to urinary catheter removal, time to return to bowel function, time to return to regular diet, and readmission rate. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables and Odds Ratio for dichotomous variables.

resultsFive non-randomized studies were included for qualitative and quantitative synthesis. 840 patients were allocated to either ERAS + (382) or Control (458). ERAS + and Control groups showed equivalent results with regard to the incidence of postoperative morbidity (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.32-1.63; I

conclusionsThe introduction of an ERAS pathway into the clinical practice for patients undergoing AWR may cause a decreased length of hospitalization. These results should be interpreted with caution, due to the low level of evidence and the high heterogeneity.