P- Reviewer: Fang ZY, Il KT S- Editor: Nan J L- Editor: A E- Editor: Liu XM
Published online Oct 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13950
Revised: June 8, 2014
Accepted: June 25, 2014
Published online: October 14, 2014
AIM: To investigate the feasibility and beneficial effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery.
METHODS: Between January 2011 and October 2013, patients undergoing emergency resection for obstructing colorectal cancer at the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand using ERAS programme were compared with those using conventional care (1:2 ratio). They were matched for their age, gender, ColoRectal Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity score, and type of surgery. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and postoperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal recovery, 30-d readmission, and time interval from surgery to chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Twenty patients treated with ERAS programme were compared with 40 patients receiving conventional postoperative care. Median of hospital stay was shorter in the ERAS group: 5.5 d (range: 3-16) vs 7.5 d (range: 5-25), P = 0.009. The ERAS group had a non-significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative complication (25% vs 48%, P = 0.094). No 30-d mortality and readmission occurred. Patients with ERAS programme had a shorter time to first flatus (1.6 d vs 2.8 d, P < 0.001) and time to resumption of normal diet (3.5 d vs 5.5 d, P = 0.002). Time interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (37 d vs 49 d, P = 0.009).
CONCLUSION: The ERAS programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery was safe and feasible. It achieved significantly shorter hospitalisation and faster recovery of bowel function.
Core tip: The present study is the first study examining the outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery. This study demonstrated that ERAS programme was also safe and beneficial in non-elective surgical setting. Comparing with a conventional postoperative care, ERAS programme in emergency tumour resection for obstructing colorectal cancer was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay and faster recovery of bowel function, without an increase in 30-d mortality and readmission.
Citation: Lohsiriwat V. Enhanced recovery after surgery
vsconventional care in emergency colorectal surgery. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(38): 13950-13955
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v20/i38/13950.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i38.13950
Up to 20% of patients with colorectal cancer present with acute colonic obstruction. A variety of procedures have been used to treat this condition including colonic stenting, proximal diversion and tumour resection. Even in a modern surgical era, a high rate of postoperative complication and prolonged hospital stay have been consistently reported in emergency surgery for obstructing colorectal cancer[2-4]. A potential method of improving surgical outcomes after such an operation is by optimising perioperative care. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is designed to reduce perioperative and intraoperative stress responses, and to support the recovery of organ function aiming to help patients getting better sooner after surgery. Two recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that ERAS programme is associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay and postoperative complication after elective colorectal surgery without any significant change in mortality and readmission rate[5,6]. Lately, the ERAS® Society has published evidence-based guidelines for perioperative care in elective colon surgery and rectal/pelvic surgery[7,8].
Despite a large number of clinical studies confirming the benefit of ERAS programmes in elective surgery, the feasibility and effectiveness of ERAS programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery is unknown. The aim of the present study was therefore to compare the surgical outcomes of patients with obstructing colorectal cancer undergoing surgery with an ERAS programme and those with conventional postoperative care, in a matched case-control study.
After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board, a prospectively collected database of patients undergoing emergency surgery for obstructing colorectal adenocarcinoma using an ERAS programme between January 2011 and October 2013 in the Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand were reviewed. Patients with clinical peritonitis, those with obstructing recurrent tumour, those having non-resection operation, and those receiving neoadjuvant treatments were excluded. These patients (ERAS group) were compared with a group of patients who underwent emergency resection for obstructing colorectal cancer using a conventional postoperative care management during the same period (Non-ERAS group). They were matched for age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, the ColoRectal Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (CR-POSSUM) score, duration of obstruction, location of tumour, and type of surgical procedure, with the ratio of 1 ERAS case to 2 non-ERAS cases.
In this context, emergency surgery was defined as an unplanned operation performed within 24 h after patients were admitted or consulted for acute colonic obstruction (the duration of obstruction was not longer than 1 wk). The evidence of complete or nearly complete colonic obstruction was confirmed by a computed tomography (CT) scan and/or limited contrast enema. Patients with ERAS programme were operated on by the author (who has experienced more than 100 cases with an ERAS programme in elective colorectal surgery) while non-ERAS cases were taken care of by other experienced surgical consultants in the same division (a total of 500-600 colorectal operations per annum). The choice and technique of operation were left to the discretion of each surgeon. The protocol of conventional care was previously described. The summary of major differences between ERAS programme and conventional care management is shown in Table 1. In both pathways, patients were discharged from the hospital when they had no fever, adequate pain control with oral analgesic, good ambulation, good appetite and satisfactory recovery of gastrointestinal function. Of note, according to the institute’s policy any form of bowel preparation, laparoscopic surgery and epidural analgesia were not applied in an emergency setting. Moreover, approach to left-sided colonic obstruction could be stenting, diversion or resection depended on clinical ground, patient’s health coverage scheme, and surgeon’s preference.
|Primary component||ERAS programme||Conventional care pathway|
|Before surgery||Detailed information and education, including breathing exercise, mobilisation, dietary goal, and estimated length of hospital stay||Advice given by an on-call consultant surgeon|
|During surgery||Standard anaesthetic protocol (balanced general anaesthesia) and surgical management||Standard anaesthetic protocol (balanced general anaesthesia) and surgical management|
|Transverse abdominal incision for right-sided colon cancer surgery||Midline incision with the application of Balfour self-retaining retractor|
|Manual colonic decompression prior to primary anastomosis in obstructing left-sided colorectal cancer||Intra-abdominal or pelvic drainage at the surgeon’s discretion|
|No intra-abdominal or pelvic drainage||No standard protocol for prophylaxis of PONV|
|Application of O-ring wound retractor (Alexis® Retractor)|
|Active warming (warm intravenous fluid, Bair Hugger®, warm saline-soaked swab around the intestine)|
|Infiltration of 0.5% bupivacaine into fascial layer and skin before wound closure|
|Prophylaxis of PONV based on risk factors|
|After surgery||Fluid therapy to keep a urine output of 0.5-1 mL/kg per hour, with deliberate administration of colloid solution if needed||Care decided by consultant surgeon|
|Early removal of NGT at 24-48 h postoperatively unless there was > 400 mL drainage in a 24-h period||Crystalloid fluid replacement|
|Early ingestion of oral intake after NGT removal||NPO until patients passed flatus, had an active bowel sound and NGT content < 400 mL/d|
|Multimodal analgesia with the preferential use of selective cyclo-oxygenese 2 inhibitors||Intravenous opioids as a primary modality for postoperative analgesia|
|Scheduled removal of urinary catheter at 48-72 h postoperatively in a stable patient|
|Regular mobilisation with daily physiotherapy|
|Aim to discharge on postoperative d5|
|After discharge||Telephone call 3 d and 1 wk after discharge||2 wk and 30 d follow-up in clinic|
|2 wk and 30 d follow-up in clinic|
All data were recorded including patient demographic, operative details (tumour location, procedure type, operative time and blood loss), pathological staging and postoperative outcomes. The postoperative outcomes include postoperative complication (graded I-V according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system), time to first flatus, time to first defaecation, time to resumption of normal diet, length of hospital stay, hospital readmission and death within 30 d, and time interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (if appropriate). All patients were scheduled for follow-up at 30 d postoperatively. Notably, unless patients had the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status more than two, adjuvant chemotherapy is routinely recommended after curative resection of the obstructed colorectal cancer. However, the decision of whether and when to start adjuvant treatment was depended on the agreement of patients and medical oncologists. Time interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy was defined as the period from surgery to the day of the first chemotherapy session.
All data were prepared and compiled using SPSS computer software (version 15.0 for Windows). Mean and standard deviation, or median (range) are presented for continuous data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to test for the pattern of data distribution. Student unpaired t-tests were used to compare data between the two groups when they showed normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney U tests were used when data were not normally distributed. The Pearson χ2 tests or Fisher’s exact tests were used for categorical data. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
During the study period of 34 mo, 131 patients were hospitalised for acutely obstructed colorectal adenocarcinoma. Twenty-eight patients had colonic stent insertion (for palliative care or bridge-to-surgery purpose), 26 patients had diverting stoma, and the others (77 cases) underwent emergency tumour resection. Of 77 patients having tumour removal, 20 patients (26%) were taken care using the ERAS programme. For comparison purpose, 40 patients with conventional postoperative care treated during the study period were matched. The two groups were comparable with respect to their age, gender, body mass index, ASA grade, CR-POSSUM score, preoperative haematocrit level, preoperative serum albumin level, duration of obstruction, and type of procedure. Characteristics and operative details of ERAS patients and non-ERAS patients are shown in Table 2. Of note, no diverting stoma was performed in cases of tumour resection with primary anastomosis.
|ERAS group (n = 20)||Non-ERAS group (n = 40)||P value|
|Age (yr)||57.6 ± 13.2||62.0 ± 13.2||0.22|
|Male||14 (70)||24 (60)||0.45|
|BMI (kg/m2)||21.7 ± 3.3||22.8 ± 3.4||0.22|
|ASA grade ≥ 3||4 (20)||4 (10)||0.42|
|CR-POSSUM predicted mortality rate||3.34 ± 2.83||3.56 ± 2.47||0.76|
|Preoperative haematocrit (%)||36.1 ± 6.4||36.1 ± 5.8||0.98|
|Preoperative serum albumin (g/dL)||3.6 ± 0.6||3.7 ± 0.6||0.63|
|Duration of obstruction (d)||3.5 ± 1.6||3.3 ± 1.6||0.69|
|Left-sided colonic obstruction1||10 (50)||21 (53)||0.71|
|Obstructing rectal cancer2||2 (10)||5 (13)||1.00|
|Detailed procedure type||0.93|
|(Extended) right hemicolectomy||10 (50)||19 (48)|
|Left hemicolectomy/sigmoidectomy||3 (15)||5 (13)|
|Hartmann’s procedure||4 (20)||7 (18)|
|Anterior resection||2 (10)||4 (10)|
|Subtotal colectomy||1 (5)||5 (13)|
|Tumor removal with primary anastomosis||16 (80)||33 (83)||1.00|
|Multi-visceral organ resection||3 (15)||5 (13)||1.00|
|Operative time (min)||216 ± 85||190 ± 59||0.17|
|Estimated blood loss (mL)||233 ± 200||192 ± 166||0.42|
|Maximal tumour size (cm)||6.3 ± 2.5||5.6 ± 2.2||0.34|
|Pathological staging 3 or 4||14 (70)||26 (65)||0.70|
Median of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS group compared with non-ERAS group [5.5 d (range: 3-16) vs 7.5 d (range: 5-25), P = 0.009]. Incidence of overall postoperative complication tended to be reduced in the ERAS group (25% vs 48%) but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.094). There was no 30-d mortality and readmission in both groups. Patients with ERAS programme had a shorter time to first flatus (1.6 d vs 2.8 d, P < 0.001) and time to resumption of normal diet (3.5 d vs 5.5 d, P = 0.002), but not time to first defaecation (3.4 d vs 3.7 d, P = 0.428). 80% of patients in the ERAS group (16 of 20) and 68% of patients in the non-ERAS group (27 of 40) received adjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.375). Time interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (37 d vs 49 d, P = 0.009). Comparison of the primary and secondary outcomes between ERAS patients and non-ERAS patients are shown in Table 3.
|ERAS group(n = 20)||Non-ERAS group(n = 40)||P value|
|Median length of hospital stay (d)||5.5 (3-16)||7.5 (5-25)||0.009|
|Average length of hospital stay (d)||6.0 ± 2.9||9.4 ± 5.1||0.002|
|Overall complications||5 (25)||19 (48)||0.090|
|Complications excluding Grade I1||2 (10)||8 (20)||0.470|
|Time to first flatus (d)||1.6 ± 0.7||2.8 ± 1.3||< 0.001|
|Time to first defaecation (d)||3.4 ± 1.2||3.7 ± 1.4||0.430|
|Time to resumption of normal diet (d)||3.4 ± 1.7||5.5 ± 2.4||0.002|
|Unplanned 30-d readmission||0||0||NA|
|Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy||16 (80)||27 (68)||0.380|
|Interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (d)||37.0 ± 8.9||49.4 ± 20.4||0.009|
This case-matched study has demonstrated the feasibility and effectiveness of ERAS programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery. Compared with those having a conventional care pathway, patients within an ERAS programme had a shorter length of hospital stay, faster bowel recovery and shorter time to start adjuvant therapy. The reduction in hospital stay did not lead to an increase in 30-d readmission, or a higher rate of postoperative complication. In fact, the incidence of postoperative complication tended to be reduced in the ERAS group.
In this study, ERAS programme shorten a median length of hospital stay by 2 d. The magnitude of reduction in hospital stay is fairly comparable to those reported from the ERAS pathway for elective colorectal surgery[5,6]. A recent meta-analysis of 13 randomised trials including 1910 patients has shown that ERAS programmes in an elective setting were associated with a significant reduction in primary and total hospital stay with a weighted mean difference of 2.44 d and 2.39 d, respectively. This meta-analysis also demonstrated a significant 30% reduction in postoperative complications within the ERAS setting. Likewise, the present study revealed a tendency towards a lower incidence of both major and minor postoperative complications in the ERAS group. The reduction of postoperative complication in ERAS programme for patient undergoing emergency resection for obstructing colorectal cancer is likely to result from a combination of multimodal perioperative interventions, rather than single manoeuvre alone, aiming to attenuate metabolic response to surgery, to support the recovery of organ function, and to preserve postoperative immune system[7,8,12].
Postoperative gastrointestinal recovery seems to be quicker in patients with ERAS programme as they had a shorter period to pass the first flatus and they were able to resume normal diet in less than 4 d postoperatively. These results might be partly due to the combination of the administration of postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis, judicious fluid therapy, and the preferential use of non-opioid analgesia in the ERAS pathway. It remains unclear why patients with ERAS programme passed flatus sooner than the controls, but there was no difference in time to first defaecation.
So far, most studies of ERAS programme in colorectal surgery have focused on short-term benefits[5,6]. Nevertheless, longer-term measures of recovery are also of great importance. Time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy is potentially a mid-term outcome measure because it could reflect patient’s overall postoperative recovery and performance. In the present study, patients with ERAS programme received postoperative chemotherapy 12 d earlier than patients with conventional care pathway. A reduction in convalescence between surgery and chemotherapy in the ERAS group could be partly explained by a fewer incidence of postoperative complication and quicker overall recovery with ERAS programme. Knowingly various factors have contributed to determine whether and when to start adjuvant treatment including physician’s opinion and social support, but patient’s postoperative condition is a significant determinant[14,15]. Interestingly, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis has demonstrated that colorectal cancer patients with shorter convalescence between surgery and chemotherapy had a better overall survival and disease-free survival.
Some limitations of this study included a relatively small sample size with a selected group of patients. Low-risk patients (i.e., low ASA grade and CR-POSSUM score) were likely to be included, while high-risk patients with obstructed colorectal cancer were subjected to other less invasive management such as colonic stenting or diverting colostomy. Consequently, based on this study, ERAS protocol might be safely applied in only low-risk patients. However, it is of great interest to investigate the effect of ERAS program on emergency colorectal surgery in high-risk individuals; in which optimal perioperative care is fundamentally required.
Another limitation of this study was the fact that a performance bias may occur since patients with ERAS programme were taken care of by single surgeon while non-ERAS cases were treated by other experienced surgeons. However, the performance and quality of care in both studied groups are likely to be invariable, except the different protocols, because all patients were treated by highly-experienced academic surgeons and nursing staffs in the same surgical unit of a tertiary referral center. Additionally, the patients included in this comparative study were carefully matched with well-known confounders such as age, ASA grade, CR-POSSUM score, tumour location and type of procedure.
Considering the fact that protocols of conventional care might be not uniform and some ERAS components could be applied within the conventional care pathway, it is possible that the different outcomes in this study were due to the application of more ERAS items in the ERAS group than the conventional care group. Interestingly, it was evident that the optimal outcomes of ERAS pathway were dependent on the number of ERAS components and adherence to the protocol, like a dose-response relationship[17,18]. Therefore, in order to make a definite conclusion on ERAS programme in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery, larger studies and randomised trials are required.
Since there is little information on ERAS programme in an emergency setting[19,20] and the randomised trials on ERAS pathway in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery are lacking (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ClinicalTrials.gov ; accessed on 30 March 2014), the present study has provided encouraging results. This case-matched study suggests that ERAS programme could be applied safely and effectively in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery. It led to better outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay and faster recovery of bowel function, without an increased in 30-d readmission or a higher rate of postoperative complication. In fact, the incidence of postoperative complication tended to be reduced in the ERAS group.
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is a modern pathway for perioperative care. It is a multidisciplinary and multimodal approach which is designed to reduce surgical stress responses and to support function of vital organs - aiming to achieve early recovery of patients undergoing major surgery. The strategies of ERAS has been developed and applied into elective colorectal surgery since 2000.
Several studies and systematic reviews have shown that, when compared with a conventional perioperative care, ERAS programme was associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay and rates of complication following elective colorectal surgery. Whether such a programme is feasible and beneficial in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery remains unknown.
The present study demonstrates, for the first time, that ERAS programme could be applied safely and effectively in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery. It led to better outcomes, such as a shorter length of hospital stay and faster recovery of bowel function, without an increased in 30-d readmission or a higher rate of postoperative complication. In fact, ERAS programme tended to have a fewer rate of overall complication. Time interval between operation and initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy (which could be a potential mid-term measure of patient’s recovery) was also significantly shorter with an ERAS programme.
The study results suggest that ERAS programme was a safe and effective perioperative care pathway which could be used in the setting of emergency colorectal surgery.
The author showed the usefulness of ERAS programme for patients undergoing emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer, compared to conventional postoperative care. Although this is a retrospective case-matched study performed by a limited number of doctors in a single centre, this is the first study performed in the set of emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer. The manuscript was well written. The results were reliable and encouraging. This work provided convincing evidence of the advantages of ERAS programme.
|1.||Ansaloni L, Andersson RE, Bazzoli F, Catena F, Cennamo V, Di Saverio S, Fuccio L, Jeekel H, Leppäniemi A, Moore E. Guidelenines in the management of obstructing cancer of the left colon: consensus conference of the world society of emergency surgery (WSES) and peritoneum and surgery (PnS) society. World J Emerg Surg. 2010;5:29. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|2.||Aslar AK, Ozdemir S, Mahmoudi H, Kuzu MA. Analysis of 230 cases of emergent surgery for obstructing colon cancer--lessons learned. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:110-119. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|3.||Gatsoulis N, Roukounakis N, Kafetzis I, Mavrakis G. Surgical management of large bowel obstruction due to colonic cancer. Tech Coloproctol. 2004;8 Suppl 1:s82-s84. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|4.||Lee YM, Law WL, Chu KW, Poon RT. Emergency surgery for obstructing colorectal cancers: a comparison between right-sided and left-sided lesions. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;192:719-725. [PubMed]|
|5.||Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ. Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD007635. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|6.||Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:667-678. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|7.||Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, McNaught CE, Macfie J, Liberman AS, Soop M. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013;37:259-284. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|8.||Nygren J, Thacker J, Carli F, Fearon KC, Norderval S, Lobo DN, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Ramirez J. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society recommendations. World J Surg. 2013;37:285-305. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|9.||Lohsiriwat V, Chinswangwatanakul V, Lohsiriwat S, Akaraviputh T, Boonnuch W, Methasade A, Lohsiriwat D. Hypoalbuminemia is a predictor of delayed postoperative bowel function and poor surgical outcomes in right-sided colon cancer patients. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2007;16:213-217. [PubMed]|
|10.||Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205-213. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|11.||Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET, Carbone PP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5:649-655. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|12.||Wang G, Jiang Z, Zhao K, Li G, Liu F, Pan H, Li J. Immunologic response after laparoscopic colon cancer operation within an enhanced recovery program. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16:1379-1388. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|13.||Strouch MJ, Zhou G, Fleshman JW, Birnbaum EH, Hunt SR, Mutch MG. Time to initiation of postoperative chemotherapy: an outcome measure for patients undergoing laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56:945-951. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|14.||Kutner JS, Vu KO, Prindiville SA, Byers TE. Patient age and cancer treatment decisions. Patient and physician views. Cancer Pract. 2000;8:114-119. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|15.||Merkow RP, Bentrem DJ, Mulcahy MF, Chung JW, Abbott DE, Kmiecik TE, Stewart AK, Winchester DP, Ko CY, Bilimoria KY. Effect of postoperative complications on adjuvant chemotherapy use for stage III colon cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;258:847-853. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|16.||Biagi JJ, Raphael MJ, Mackillop WJ, Kong W, King WD, Booth CM. Association between time to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival in colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011;305:2335-2342. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|17.||Cakir H, van Stijn MF, Lopes Cardozo AM, Langenhorst BL, Schreurs WH, van der Ploeg TJ, Bemelman WA, Houdijk AP. Adherence to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery and length of stay after colonic resection. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:1019-1025. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|18.||Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg. 2011;146:571-577. [PubMed] [DOI]|
|19.||Larsson G, Holgers KM. Fast-track care for patients with suspected hip fracture. Injury. 2011;42:1257-1261. [PubMed] [DOI]|