Open Access

Nonstrict and individual enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in partial hepatectomy

  • Xingwei Xu1,
  • Yingbin Wang2,
  • Tao Feng1,
  • Xin Zhao1,
  • Yannian Liao1,
  • Wu Ji1Email author and
  • Jieshou Li1
Contributed equally
SpringerPlus20165:2011

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3688-x

Received: 22 April 2016

Accepted: 15 November 2016

Published: 25 November 2016

Abstract

Background

We aimed to evaluate postoperative recovery and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing partial hepatectomy managed with a nonstrict and individual enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 168 partial hepatectomy patients in our institution was included. The discharged day and the respective impact of element application throughout the duration were analyzed.

Results

When all the required elements of ERAS were fully implemented, the median discharge day was 6. The more deviation occurred, the more delayed the patient discharged (P < 0.01). Preoperative ASA score, basic conditions of patients and ages were revealed closely associated with discharge day (P < 0.001). Without or an early removal of tubes and early oral feeding reduced hospital stay statistically (P < 0.01). Early discharge of patients (<3 days) did not show an increased complication incidence or readmission (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Nonstrict and individual use of ERAS in partial hepatectomy reduced postoperative length of stay without increasing complication rate. Our study proposes a modulation of ERAS according to the needs and acceptance of patients. In a word, better optionally required rather than mandatorily meet.

Keywords

Nonstrict Individual ERAS Discharge

Background

The concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was first introduced in colorectal surgery 15 years ago. Since then, ERAS strategy has been applied and adopted successful in other specialties areas, including urology, vascular and orthopedic surgery. ERAS refers to combining multimodal pathway including anesthesia, surgical, nursing and perioperative management to accelerate recovery, preserve body composition, and shorten discharge time without affecting morbidity. It also improves efficiency of hospital beds use and a decrease of hospital cost (Kim et al. 2012; Gouvas et al. 2009; French et al. 2009; Bosio et al. 2007).

Partial hepatectomy is still the most common treatment for liver tumor, and there are some non-randomized studies showing that ERAS significantly reduces length of hospital stay, lowers complication rates, and cuts total costs without any increase in mortality or readmission (Schultz et al. 2013; Hughes and McNally 2014). Neverless, major morbidity ranges from 17% in benign to 27% in malignant disease, with a mortality risk of up to 5%. The reality we found in clinical is that most patients could rarely often strictly meet all the elements of ERAS, while a strict ERAS requires high standards for clinical team and stringent inclusion criteria of the patients. Therefore, not attainable in every institution (Connor et al. 2013). Therefore, to verify whether a nonstrict and individual ERAS is feasible in patients of partial hepatectomy, we have decided to take this retrospective study to compare the short-term outcomes.

Patients and methods

Trial design

From January 2014 to July 2015, all patients between the ages of 16 and 75 years who underwent partial hepatectomy by laparoscopic procedures for liver cancer at the Department of Surgery, Jinling Hospital were considered to be included into the study. The inclusion criteria were: (1) elective partial hepatectomy for liver cancer or tumor; (2) no major concomitant surgical procedures, such as bowl, gastro or bile duct resection; (3) tumors either in the right or left hemiliver with the extent of partial hepatectomy being a hemihepatectomy or less; (4) Child–Pugh A/B liver function status; (5) without severe contraindications that not suited for ERAS (such as anticoagulant therapy).

Hepatectomy were all carried out by the same team of surgeons who had an experience of over 2000 hepatic resections. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jinling Hospital and Nanjing University. All clinical investigation has been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

According to the literature and practical experience in our institution, giving up all traditional, not evidence-based measures, a brief total of 14 ERAS elements were concluded and listed as follow (Table 1). We avoided forcing each patient meet all elements. Instead, simply to calculate how many numbers of points each patient complied with, they were divided into four groups: (1) all-respected; (2) one point not respected, (3) 2–3 points not respected, (4) >3 points not respected (anyone who needed a re-insertion of tubes or fast was considered failed to respect element). The primary outcome measure was the discharge day after operation. Criteria for discharge were: pain sufficiently controlled by oral analgesics, a good recovery of liver function, an acceptable level of mobilization, tolerated solid food, no intravenous fluids, and no untreated surgical complications (Schultz et al. 2013).
Table 1

Nonstrict and individual ERAS program in our center

 

ERAS element in our center

Day before surgery

 Preoperative information about ERAS

An inform of ERAS with good mood

 Preoperative bowl preparation

No enema

 Preoperative fasting

Normal oral nutrition until midnight; carbohydrate drink up to 2 h before surgery

 Premedication

Omission as possible

Day of surgery

 Nasogastric tubes

Removed at the end of surgery

 Anesthesia

General anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia, with low dose of epidural analgesia in 2 days

 Hypothermia

Prevention hypothermia

 Fluid therapy

“Restrict fluid regimen”, avoid excessive i.v. fluids (CVP <5 mmHg), appropriate vasoconstrictor instead

Day after surgery

 Drainage of peritoneal cavity

No, or remove on day 1

 Laxative

Start laxative (lactulose oral solution 30 mg) from day 1

 Urinary catheter

No, or removed <24 h

 Oral liquid take

Drink about 0.5 L liquid on day 1; at least 1 L liquid on day 2; normal diet from day 3

 Postoperative analgesia

Flurbiprofen, tramadol in 2 days, followed with NSAID’s

 Mobilization

Promote in bed on day 1, a minimum of four times per day; enforced mobilization from day 2

NSAIDs non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

The factors which could influence the discharge day were identified and classified as following: (1) patient-related factors, (2) medical-related factors. The relevance between discharge day and each factor was generally measured. Outpatient appointment and telephone calls were made to see whether there were any complications or discomfort 30 days after operation, including the occurrence of readmission.

Statistical analysis

The data on patients’ details, postoperative courses were respectively collected. Since the distribution of the dependent variable, hospital discharge, is abnormal and asymmetric, the presentation of the results is mainly based on the analysis of the median accompanied by quartile (Anastasiadis et al. 2013). Univariate analysis was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test first and if there is a difference, then the Mann–Whitney U test is applied to identify between which of them we have difference. Comparison between discrete variables used the Chi square test and Fisher’s exact test. All analyses were performed using SPSS 11.0 software, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

During this time period, there were 176 patients performed partial hepatectomy in our center. Finally, only 168 patients met the inclusion criteria and participated in this study (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Flow chart

All patients had surgery in a high-volume hepatobiliary unit, Jinling Hospital. When all the required ten measures of ERAS fully implemented, the median discharge day was 3, compared with a median of 5 days for those >3 points not respected (P < 0.001). The more deviations occurred, the more delayed the patient discharged (Table 2).
Table 2

Nonstrict and individual ERAS of patients undergoing hepatectomy

 

N

Discharge day med (P25–P75)

P value

All elements respected

64 (38.10)

3 (3–4)a

<0.001

1 point not respected

49 (29.17)

3 (3–4)

 

2–3 points not respected

36 (21.43)

4 (4–6)

 

>3 points not respected

19 (11.31)

5 (4–8)

 

a compared with those >3 points not respected

The basic patient-related factors, such as gender, age, ASA grade, BMI and preoperative complications, were grouped and assessed about their impact on discharge day as shown in Table 3. Patients who have vary in ASA, initial complication or age, had a significant statistical difference in median discharge day (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in discharge between patients having a different preoperative diagnosis. Although without reaching statistic significance, patients having body mass index (BMI) inferior to 20 kg/m2 had a growing tendency towards prolonged hospitalization.
Table 3

Patient-related factors and their impact on discharge day

 

N (%)

Discharge day med (P25–P75)

P value

Gender

 Male

83 (49.40)

4 (3–7)

0.592

 Female

85 (50.60)

4 (3–6)

Age

 16–35

15 (8.93)

4 (4–5)

<0.01

 36–55

56 (33.33)

4 (3–6)

 56–75

81 (48.21)

6 (4–7)

ASA

 1

65 (38.69)

4 (3–6)

<0.001

 2

90 (53.57)

5 (3–7)

 3

13 (7.74)

7 (5–9)

BMI

 <20

17 (10.12)

5 (5–7)

0.373

 20–25

56 (33.33)

4 (4–5)

 25–30

84 (50.00)

5 (3–7)

 >30

11 (6.55)

5 (3–7)

Pathology

 Colorectal metastases

23 (16.07)

4 (3–6)

0.503

 Cholangiocarcinoma

27 (10.12)

5 (3–5)

 Gastrointestinal metastases

17 (13.10)

6 (3–7)

 Hepatocellular carcinoma

86 (27.38)

5 (4–7)

 Others

15 (8.93)

5 (3–7)

Type

 Right hepatectomy

87 (51.79)

4 (3–5)

0.704

 Left hepatectomy

66 (39.29)

4 (3–5)

 Segmentectomy

15 (8.93)

4 (3–6)

Co-morbidities

 Cirrhosis

12 (7.14)

6 (5–9)

<0.001

 Other

57 (33.93)

4 (3–6)

 No

99 (58.93)

4 (3–5)

Discharge day based on medical-related factors (surgery, nasogastric, urine tube, drainage, and oral feeding) are shown in Table 4. When patients with temporary use or early removal of nasogastric tube, drainage, and urine catheter received, median discharge day all shortened significantly (P < 0.01, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively), respectively. Early oral feeding and mobilization, usually aiming for recovery of bowel function, were encouraged with a growing tendency towards discharge day and reaching statistic significance.
Table 4

Medical related factors and their impact on discharge day

 

N (%)

Discharge day med (P25–P75)

P value

Enema

 No

147 (87.50)

4 (3–6)

<0.001

 Yes

21 (12.50)

6 (5–7)

Fasting

 As guide

155 (92.26)

4 (3–5)

<0.001

 No

13 (7.74)

5 (5–6)

Nasogastric tube

 No

129 (76.79)

4 (3–6)

<0.01

 Yes

39 (23.21)

5 (4–7)

Drainage

 No

114 (67.86)

3 (3–5)

<0.001

 Yes

54 (32.14)

5 (4–7)

Urine cath

 No or remove in 24 h

146 (86.90)

4 (3–5)

<0.001

 More than 24 h

22 (13.10)

6 (5–6)

Anesthesia

 Complied to ERAS

141 (83.92)

4 (4–5)

0.440

 Traditional

27 (16.07)

5 (5–6)

Fluid therapy

 Complied to ERAS

137 (81.55)

4 (3–6)

0.355

 Traditional

31 (18.45)

5 (4–6)

Analgesia

 Complied to ERAS

140 (83.33)

4 (3–5)

0.268

 Traditional

28 (16.67)

5 (4–6)

Mobilization

 D1, four times per day

135 (80.36)

3 (3–5)

<0.001

 Postponed

33 (19.64)

5 (4–7)

Feeding

 D1

128 (76.19)

3 (3–5)

<0.001

 More than D1

40 (23.81)

5 (4–8)

After analyzing all data, we found that there were three readmissions in <3 days (early discharge), one for abnormal liver function, and other two for local infections. Complication incidence and readmission within the first postoperative month did not show significant difference in hepatectomy patients Thirty-day mortality was zero. Early discharge of patients did not result in significantly severe problems, as illustrated in Table 5 (P < 0.05) (15 patients got a series of complications, such as infection, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, abnormal liver function etc., ten returned for secondary treatment).
Table 5

Is discharge in 3 days safe in nonstrict and individual ERAS hepatectomy?

 

With complications after discharge

Without complication

With readmission

Without readmission

Discharge ≤D3

5

51

3

53

Discharge >D3

10

102

7

105

P value

>0.05

>0.05

All data in postoperative 30 days

Discussion

According to the guidelines of ERAS programmes, a series of effective items to reduce surgical stress and accelerate recovery are usually used during perioperative period (Cerantola et al. 2013; Varadhan et al. 2010; Ansari et al. 2013). It has been widely demonstrated feasible and superior to traditional methods in different surgical fields. However, many of the principles of the multimodal pathway are derived from the colorectal ERAS and distinct differences exist, which may impede its implementation in HPB surgery (Hall et al. 2012). Besides, different understanding of the concept, variability of each institution’s practice, surgeons’ personal habits often makes ERAS “a key criterion, but various protocols” (Jones et al. 2013).

Under these conditions, the idea of soft and individual optimized ERAS has been raised, first in gastrointestinal surgery. Recently, a systematic review found substantial possibilities and advantages of optimizing ERAS in a more friendly way after an elective colorectal resection (Agrafiotis et al. 2013). It required the doctors and nurses to expand the ERAS inclusion criteria, deal affairs in a patient-friendly way based on their actual condition, and discontinue non-standard habits or mandatory practice. The implementation was proved easy accepted and not at the expense of increased rates of readmission, morbidity or mortality. Thus we adopt this idea in hepatobiliary surgery. A series of flexible elements were conducted for avoidance of reluctance; different items were introduced to each patient for appropriate extent; a better outcome finally gained and the importance and priority of each ERAS item evaluated.

Not surprisingly, the present study implied a tendency towards a shorter time of discharge in patients who have more degrees of compliance with ERAS items. As nearly half of cases selected were subjective but unwilling to unconditionally accept ERAS items, it is clear that this phenomenon reflects the extent of ERAS match and compliance as a cause–effect relationship to fast recovery and discharge, not due to a combination of an association that the healthier the patient, the earlier will he eat and get mobilized, but results of a positive correlation.

Patients’ nervous, fear and other negative emotions often occurs and can not be ignored (Higginson and Booth 2011). To this end, conducting any effective ways to shift patients’ insecure concerns and reduce worries is necessary and important, aiming to mitigate unequal information exchange and violent tendency between patients and doctors in China. A multidisciplinary team consisting surgeons, anesthetists and nurses, who can commit all individuals to meet tasks for ERAS, were formed and introduced (Ni et al. 2013). Patient decision aids such as printed documents and online information sources increase the involvement of patients in decision-making process and also increase the value of informed consent.

With the continuous development of anaesthetic, it would be possible to establish a “catheter free” protocol, especially in hepatobiliary surgery. Although there is RCT shows using epodural analgesia means low complication rate after major liver resection, a concern is the possible prolongation of prothrombin time which may delay catheter removal and increase administration of corrective blood products, and a risk factor for kidney failure due to hypotension (Sakowska and Docherty 2009; Kambakamba et al. 2015). Recently, several studies have suggested that intrathecal opiates are a suitable alternative to epidural analgesia and traditional morphine PCA (Kasivisvanathan et al. 2014; Revie et al. 2012).

Our results proved that “no tube” is an important criterion to get shorter hospital stays. Nasogastric tube is advised temporary use only in the condition of stomach gas, and removal at the end of surgery. Increased pulmonary complications and longer time to return of bowel function were observed in patients with routine nasogastric tube (Sapkota 2013; Pessaux et al. 2007).

The strongest evidence to omit routine prophylactic drainage after major abdominal surgery arises from a meta-analysis published in 2004 (Petrowsky et al. 2004). From then, there is a debate about the value and risk of prophylactic drainage (Kyoden et al. 2010). According to our clinical experiences, all patients abandoned to use drainage tubes as possible, or take an early removal, which was proposed with aims of early mobilization. Patients showed willingness to have earlier mobile as they could suffer from less pain and fewer tubes. Only two cases of 168 patients had mild biliary fistula, one had ascites. The incident hadn’t increased significantly. We believe active postoperative monitoring and ultrasound can be good alternative (Vlug et al. 2011).

We also summarize that fluid therapy is critical point during postoperative recovery. In this study, according to individual differences among patients and target-oriented principle, limited fluid therapy and early oral drinking followed with semifluid and enteral nutrition, can accelerate the recovery of intestinal, and reduce hospitalization time. We conclude that goal-directed fluid therapy especially balanced crystalloid solution at the end of hepatic resection and during the first 6 h enabled a faster restoration of circulating volume with reduction in complications. The use of hetastarches and colloids is not advised to increases the risks of renal dysfunction. However, patients of ASA IV were advised not to take nonstrict and individual ERAS as they often required additional treatment after surgery.

Early postoperative oral nutrition has been reported to reduce catabolism, lessen stress reaction, and decrease resting energy expenditure and postoperative complications such as nausea, vomiting, bloating or enteroparalysis (Srinivasa et al. 2012; Nygren et al. 2005). Most patients can eat normal food at day one after liver surgery, and we recommend early oral intake to accelerate resumption of bowel function.

Our study show that abandoning any outdated and dogmatic habits, rational application of multi-mode treatment, focusing individually is a prerequisite to make ERAS an optimal result. Non-strict, soft and optimized ERAS in hepatoectomy surgery plays an equal, not decreased effect in postoperative recovery. Gaining experience from evidence-based medicine and flexible application of ERAS, will achieve better clinical results.

Notes

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

XXW, WYB carried out the genetic studies and drafted the manuscript. FT, ZX, LYN participated in the design of the study and performed the statistical analysis. JW, LJS conceived of the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank Nie Yao, Zhu Chuanrong for their encouragement and support; Zhang Wei, Ding Kai and He Changsheng for technical support in the laboratory; All the authors disclose no financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that could potentially and inappropriately influence our work and conclusions.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province of China (SBK2016041292), and The Scientific Research Foundation of Graduate School of Nanjing University (2014CL02).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Jinling Hospital, Research Institute of General Surgery, Nanjing University, School of Medicine
(2)
General Surgery, General Hospital of Tisco Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University

References

  1. Agrafiotis AC, Corbeau M, Buggenhout A, Katsanos G, Ickx B, Van de Stadt J (2014) Enhanced recovery after elective colorectal resection outside a strict fast-track protocol. A single centre experience. Int J Colorectal Dis 29(1):99–104View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anastasiadis K, Asteriou C, Antonitsis P, Argiriadou H, Grosomanidis V, Kyparissa M, Deliopoulos A, Konstantinou D, Tossios P (2013) Enhanced recovery after elective coronary revascularization surgery with minimal versus conventional extracorporeal circulation: a prospective randomized study. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 27(5):859–864View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansari D, Gianotti L, Schröder J (2013) Fast-track surgery: procedure-specific aspects and future direction. Langenbecks Arch Surg 398:29–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-012-1006-9 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosio RM, Smith BM, Aybar PS, Senagore AJ (2007) Implementation of laparoscopic colectomy with fast-track care in an academic medical center: benefits of a fully ascended learning curve and specialty expertise. Am J Surg 193(3):413–415View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cerantola Y, Valerio M, Persson B et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. Clin Nutr 32:879–887. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2013.09.014 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Connor S, Cross A, Sakowska M, Linscott D, Woods J (2013) Effects of introducing an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for patients undergoing open hepatic resection. HPB 15(4):294–301View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. French JJ, Mansfield SD, Jaques K, Jaques BC, Manas DM, Charnley RM (2009) Fast-track management of patients undergoing proximal pancreatic resection. Ann R Coll Surg 91(3):201–204View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Gouvas N, Tan E, Windsor A, Xynos E, Tekkis PP (2009) Fast-track vs standard care in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis update. Int J Colorectal Dis 24(10):1119–1131View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall TC, Dennison AR, Bilku DK, Metcalfe MS, Garcea G (2012) Enhanced recovery programmes in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a systematic review. Ann R Coll Surg 94(5):318–326View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Higginson IJ, Booth S (2011) The randomized fast-track trial in palliative care: role, utility and ethics in the evaluation of interventions in palliative care? Palliat Med 25(8):741–747View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hughes MJ, McNally S (2014) Enhanced recovery following liver surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB 16:699–706. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12245 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones C, Kelliher L, Dickinson M et al (2013) Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection. Br J Surg 100:1015–1024. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9165 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kambakamba P, Slankamenac K, Tschuor C et al (2015) Epidural analgesia and perioperative kidney function after major liver resection. Br J Surg 102:805–812. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9810 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kasivisvanathan R, Abbassi-Ghadi N, Prout J et al (2014) A prospective cohort study of intrathecal versus epidural analgesia for patients undergoing hepatic resection. HPB 16:768–775. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12222 View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim JW, Kim WS, Cheong JH, Hyung WJ, Choi SH, Noh SH (2012) Safety and efficacy of fast-track surgery in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial. World J Surg 36(12):2879–2887View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kyoden Y, Imamura H, Sano K et al (2010) Value of prophylactic abdominal drainage in 1269 consecutive cases of elective liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 17:186–192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-009-0161-z View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ni CY, Yang Y, Chang YQ, Cai H, Xu B, Yang F, Lau WY, Wang ZH, Zhou WP (2013) Fast-track surgery improves postoperative recovery in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy for primary liver cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Surg Oncol (EJSO) 39(6):542–547View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Nygren J, Hausel J, Kehlet H, Revhaug A, Lassen K, Dejong C, Andersen J, von Meyenfeldt M, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC (2005) A comparison in five European Centres of case mix, clinical management and outcomes following either conventional or fast-track perioperative care in colorectal surgery. Clin Nutr 24(3):455–461View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Pessaux P, Regimbeau JM, Dondéro F et al (2007) Randomized clinical trial evaluating the need for routine nasogastric decompression after elective hepatic resection. Br J Surg 94:297–303. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5728 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Ann Surg 240:1074–1084 (discussion 1084–1085) View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Revie EJ, McKeown DW, Wilson JA et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of local infiltration plus patient-controlled opiate analgesia vs. epidural analgesia following liver resection surgery. HPB 14:611–618. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2012.00490.x View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Sakowska M, Docherty E (2009) Linscott D.A change in practice from epidural to intrathecal morphine analgesia for hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery. World J Surg 33:1802–1808. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0131-2 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Sapkota R (2013) Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after emergency laparotomy. J Nepal Med Assoc (JNMA) 52:437–442Google Scholar
  24. Schultz NA, Larsen PN, Klarskov B, Plum LM, Frederiksen HJ, Christensen BM, Kehlet H, Hillingsø JG (2013) Evaluation of a fast-track programme for patients undergoing liver resection. Br J Surg 100(1):138–143View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Srinivasa S, Singh SP, Kahokehr AA, Taylor MH, Hill AG (2012) Perioperative fluid therapy in elective colectomy in an enhanced recovery programme. ANZ J Surg. 82(7–8):535–540View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Dejong CH et al (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29:434–440. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004 View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA, LAFA Study Group (2011) Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg 254(6):868–875View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016