|
|
|
Year :2024
|
Month :
July-August
|
Volume :
13
|
Issue :
4
|
Page :
SO16 - SO20
|
Comparison of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols with Conventional Treatment Protocols in Patients undergoing Emergency Laparotomy: A Randomised Controlled Study
|
Correspondence Address :
Ritesh Kumar, Honey Goyal, Davinder Kumar, Deepanshu, Sanjay Marwah,
Dr. Sanjay Marwah,
Senior Professor, Department of Surgery, Pt. B.D. Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak-124001, Haryana, India.
E-mail: drsanjay.marwah@gmail.com
|
|
Introduction: Introduction: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach intended to reduce the length of stay, postoperative complications, and readmission rates. The benefits of ERAS protocols in elective surgery are well established; however, the evidence to support their safety and efficacy in emergency surgery is rare.
Aim: To compare the modified ERAS protocol with conventional management protocol following emergency laparotomy regarding the time taken to recover bowel function and the incidence of postoperative complications, duration of postoperative hospital stay, need for readmission, and 30 day mortality.
Materials and Methods: The present study was a randomised controlled study conducted in the Department of General Surgery, Pt. B.D. Sharma Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India over a period of two years from June 2017 to May 2019. It included a total of 70 patients who presented in an emergency with perforation peritonitis. A total of 10 patients were excluded based on the exclusion criteria, and the remaining 60 patients were randomised into the Group-A (case group/ERAS group) and the control Group-B (control group/conventional group), with 30 patients in each group. Postoperative outcomes like postoperative complications, time of appearance of bowel sounds, time to first flatus, time to first defaecation, time to resumption of normal diet, and length of hospital stay were noted in both groups.
Results: The length of hospital stay was shorter in the case group (8.83±4.69 days) compared to the control group (12.23±8.65 days); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.064). Similarly, the difference in the time taken for the recovery of bowel sounds, postoperative complications, and 30 day mortality was also statistically insignificant between the two groups. No patient required readmission in either group.
Conclusion: The use of ERAS protocols in emergency surgery is feasible, but all the elements of ERAS are difficult to apply in an emergency setting. Hence, a tailored approach to the ERAS protocols has to be used in emergency surgery. However, no significant benefit was noted in the group following modified ERAS protocols compared to the group following conventional protocols.
|
|
|
[
FULL TEXT ] | [
 ]
|
|
|
|
|