The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) practices have transformed the world of perioperative care by incorporating evidence-based interventions to reduce surgical stress and ensure faster recovery [1]. Existing surgical practices are based on protracted starvation, delayed movement, and overdependence on opioid painkillers, all of which may lead to adverse aftercare results, slow recuperation, and extended hospitalization. On the contrary, ERAS pathways are multimodal and multidisciplinary and entail preoperative education, optimized nutrition, minimally invasive surgical approaches, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early oral intake reinstitution [2].ERAS was initially introduced by Kehlet in the 1990s in colorectal surgery, but has since been extended into many other classes of surgery, such as gynecology, urology, orthopedics, thoracic surgery, and neurosurgery. Many articles have indicated that ERAS plans lead to a decrease in morbidity, hospitalization, and the cost of healthcare and an increase in patient satisfaction. Major interventions that contribute to physiological homeostasis, prevention of long-term fasting, goal-oriented fluid therapy, and multimodal pain management are associated with avoiding prolonged fasting, maintaining physiological homeostasis, insulin resistance, and early functional recovery [3,4]. Surgical site infections, ileus, pulmonary problems, and thromboembolism are seen as major problems in the traditional perioperative care. ERAS pathways will attempt to alleviate such risks by using standardized evidence-based protocols that will be the best for patient outcomes [5]. A number of meta-analyses and randomized control trials have shown that complication rates and length of stay at the hospital are significantly reduced by ERAS, but readmission and mortality rates are not elevated [6]. Even with the increasing evidence of the support of ERAS, its application in various institutions is not consistent because of the disparity in surgical practices, resources, and patients. To determine the standardized protocols to use, patient safety, and optimization of performance, it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of ERAS in different clinical settings. The proposed study is designed to evaluate the effects of the ERAS protocols on the occurrence of postoperative complications and hospital stay in patients with elective major surgery [7,8]. Through a systematic comparison between ERAS and standard care, the study sheds some light on the advantages of methodical approaches to perioperative pathways to inform clinical decision-making and interdepartmental policies. It is anticipated that the findings would facilitate the high rate of implementation of ERAS, which would enhance clinical and healthcare outcomes [9,10].

Study Objectives

To assess the impacts of ERAS interventions on postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stays, and recovery in patients who have had elective major surgery.

Study Design & Setting

The study was a prospective comparative study conducted at department of general surgery PIMS hospital hayat Abad Peshawar from jan 2023 to jan 2024.over a period of more than 12 months and involved patients who had scheduled elective major surgery under either the ERAS or conventional care protocols in place in the perioperative unit.

 Participants

One hundred and eighty adult patients (18-70 years old), who received an elective major surgery, were recruited and allocated evenly into the ERAS (n=50) and conventional care (n=50) groups. They eliminated severe comorbid patients, patients requiring emergency surgery, and those unable to provide informed consent. The demographic and clinical data were taken to be used as a baseline.

 Sample Size Calculation

The confidence level of 95 and the power of 80 were used to determine the required sample size, as previous study cited complication rates of 36 and 18 percent in the conventional care and ERAS groups, respectively, making a total population requirement of 100 patients.

 Inclusion Criteria

• Adults 1870 years, elective major surgery, competent.

 Exclusion Criteria

• Emergency surgery, extreme comorbidities (cardiopulmonary failure, renal failure), and incapability of adhering to ERAS.

 Diagnostic and Management Strategy.

Standard laboratory tests, imaging, and anesthetic evaluation were done during preoperative evaluation. The management adhered to the ERAS guidelines, such as preoperative counseling, light fasting, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early intake. The traditional group was given regular perioperative care. Monitoring and recording of the postoperative complications were done systematically.

 Statistical Analysis

SPSS version 25 was used to analyze the data. Continuous variables were indicated in the form of mean and standard deviation and compared with independent t-tests. Chi-square tests were used to analyze categorical variables. A p-value less than 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. The results were complications, length of stay, and parameters of functional recovery.

 Ethical Approval Statement.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board/Ethics Committee prior to study initiation. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained where applicable. Patient confidentiality and data privacy were strictly maintained, and all data were anonymized before analysis and reporting.

A total of 100 patients were included, with 50 in the ERAS group and 50 in the conventional group. The mean age was 45.6 ± 12.3 years in ERAS and 47.2 ± 11.8 years in controls (p=0.52). Both groups were comparable regarding gender distribution, comorbidities, and type of surgery. Postoperative complications occurred in 18% of ERAS patients versus 36% in the conventional group (p=0.04). Surgical site infections were 6% in ERAS versus 14% in controls (p=0.18), and postoperative ileus occurred in 4% versus 16% (p=0.03). Pulmonary complications and thromboembolism were also lower in ERAS, though not statistically significant. The mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (4.2 ± 1.1 days) compared to controls (6.8 ± 1.5 days) (p<0.001). Early mobilization within 24 hours occurred in 90% of ERAS patients versus 52% in controls (p<0.001), and oral intake resumed earlier (1.2 ± 0.5 days vs 2.8 ± 0.9 days, p<0.001). Readmission rates were similar (6% vs 8%, p=0.65).

Intervention Outcome

The ERAS protocols have contributed greatly to the recovery results through postoperative complications and shortening of the hospital stay. The patients have become mobilized more quickly, their oral intake has recovered sooner, and the general functional recovery has improved, which points to the effectiveness of ERAS as a perioperative intervention in comparison to traditional care.

Table 1: Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients

Comparison of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between ERAS and conventional care groups. There were no statistically significant differences, indicating comparable groups at baseline.

Table 2: Postoperative Complications

Postoperative complications were significantly lower in the ERAS group, particularly overall complications and ileus. *p<0.05 indicates statistical significance.

Table 3: Hospital Stay and Recovery Outcomes

ERAS patients had significantly shorter hospital stays, earlier mobilization, and faster oral intake. Readmission rates were similar between groups. *p<0.05 indicates statistical significance.

Table 4: Intervention Outcomes

ERAS intervention led to improved recovery outcomes, lower pain scores, higher patient satisfaction, and earlier return to normal activity. *p<0.05 indicates statistical significance.

The evidence provided in this paper reveals that Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines are more effective in decreasing the number of postoperative complications and reducing the length of stay in a hospital as compared to regular perioperative care. Such findings are in line with an increasing amount of recent literature that demonstrates the utility of ERAS pathways in various surgical specialties [11]. The advantages of ERAS in terms of decreasing the total postoperative complications and hospitalization have been proven in several large-scale meta-analyses over the last five years. A meta-analysis of 74 randomized clinical trials and 9,076 participants found that there was a significant decrease in length of stay in the hospital of approximately 1.9 days, and the risk of complication was lower in ERAS groups as opposed to controls, with no significant difference in readmission or mortality rates [12]. Our results are consistent with the reduction in complications (18% vs 36%, p=0.04) and the mean length of stay (4.2 + -1.1 vs 6.8 + 1.5 days, p<0.001), which supports the consistency and reproducibility of the ERAS benefits [13].On the same note, a set of systematic reviews on colorectal surgery, which is one of the most studyed areas in the ERAS study, has shown that ERAS regimens are linked with faster bowel recovery, less postoperative morbidity, and lower hospitalization rates than traditional care [14]. According to meta-analytical data, it was found that there were massive cuts in surgical site infection and total complications (e.g., OR: 0.33) and that the standardized mean difference in length of stay was toward ERAS [15]. These findings are consistent with our findings, in which early mobilization and earlier initiation of oral intake played an important role in PR [16]. There is also the emerging evidence that has highlighted the usefulness of ERAS when undertaking surgery in a less invasive manner. In a systematic study of minimally invasive colorectal resection, ERAS pathways minimized overall complications, ileus, and length of stay by a large margin compared to the conventional care (WMD −2.38 days; p<0.01). This points out that the advantages of ERAS are not limited to open or laparoscopic and robotic procedures, but also contribute to the validity of generalizing enhanced recovery concepts, as also indicated by the results in our cohort [17,18]. Existing comparative studies in the real world also support the efficacy of ERAS in modern practice. Indicatively, multicenter retrospective studies have shown that ERAS application is independently linked with a shortcoming in complications and length of stay in robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery [19]. These clinical real-life data support the clinical trial and meta-analysis results, confirming the pragmatic viability and usefulness of ERAS protocols in a variety of clinical practices. Although strong evidence has been delivered in favor of ERAS, the aspect of protocol compliance and adherence continues to be a key factor. Compliance with ERAS components, including preoperative counseling, early feeding, and multimodal pain management, may also determine the outcome. In meta-analytic study, increased adherence to ERAS factors was linked to a decrease in length of stay [20,21]. This implies that monitoring and standardization of the implementation of ERAS play an important role in maximizing clinical benefits. Despite numerous studies demonstrating decreased complications and reduced hospitalization, there is some evidence that supports miscellaneous outcomes on particular outcomes, such as readmission and mortality. There is no significant difference in 30-day readmissions or mortality between the ERAS and standard care groups [22], which is not surprising given that we have also found similar readmission rates (6% vs 8%, p=0.65). This highlights the fact that ERAS improves recovery with no harm to safety. The findings of this study are in line with the extensive evidence in recent literature that ERAS guidelines can enhance the postoperative recovery process through the minimization of complications and length of stay. The fact that recent high-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews have been consistent with the argument advances the systematic application of ERAS in surgical practice. Further attempts at a standardization of implementation and higher compliance rates of clinicians will be essential to ensure the maximum potential of enhanced recovery pathways.

Limitations

The study took place in one center, and the sample size used was quite small, which might not be very generalizable. The differences in the experience of the surgeon, patient adherence, and compliance with the ERAS protocols may have an effect. No long-term follow-up was conducted, and thus, no evaluation of late complications or functional recovery after hospital discharge was conducted.

ERAS protocols are highly effective in preventing complications after the operation and reducing the length of stay without raising the readmission rates. Mobilization early, multimodal analgesia, and early oral intake are related to better recovery. These results justify the continued use of ERAS pathways in the realm of surgical practice to improve patient outcomes, efficiency, and overall, the quality of perioperative care.

Disclaimer: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil

Funding Disclosure: Nil

Authors Contributions

Concept & Design of Study:Ghulam Younus¹

Drafting:Tahir Ullah²

Data Collection & Data Analysis:Arsalan khan³

Critical Review: Muhammad Noor khan

Final Approval of version: All Mentioned Authors Approved the Final Version.

1. Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A Review. JAMA Surg. 2017 Mar 1;152(3):292-298. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952.
2. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Hashiguchi T, Hübner M, Klak S, Laviano A, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Martindale R, Weitzberg DL, Bischoff SC, Singer P. ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutra. 2017 Jun;36(3):623-650. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.02.013.
3. Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Miller T, Radtke FF, Ruiz Garces T, Schricker T, Scott MJ, Thacker JK, Ytterby LM, Carli F. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesia Scand. 2016 Mar;60(3):289-334. doi: 10.1111/aas.12651.
4. Forsmo HM, Pfeffer F, Rascal A, Santonin H, Körner H, Erichsen C. Pre- and postoperative stoma education and guidance within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Programme reduces length of hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Int J Surg. 2016 Dec;36(Pt A):121-126. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.10.031.
5. Semen Kovich TR, Hudson JL, Subramanian M, Koozer BD. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in Thoracic Surgery. Semin Thoric Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Autumn;30(3):342-349. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2018.06.001.
6. Podiatry M, Mavrakis J, Witowski J, Adamos A, Major P, Nowakowski M, Budzynski A. Current status of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery. Med Oncol. 2018 May 9;35(6):95. doi: 10.1007/s12032-018-1153-0.
7. Paduraru M, Pinciotti L, Casas IM, Svenningsen P, Pereira J, Landale-Olavarria A, Font RF, Miguel IP, Ugarte-Sierra B. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) - The Evidence in Geriatric Emergency Surgery: A Systematic Review. Chirurgic (Bucur). 2017 Sept-Oct;112(5):546-557. doi: 10.21614/chirurgia.112.5.546.
8. Jaradat H, Daneshmand S. Gastrointestinal Complications in Patients Who Undergo Radical Cystectomy with Enhanced Recovery Protocol. Curr Ural Rep. 2016 Jul;17(7):50. doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0607-1.
9. Grosh T, Elsassian NM. Enhanced Recovery After Shoulder Arthroplasty. Anesthesia Clin. 2018 Sep;36(3):417-430. doi: 10.1016/j.anclin.2018.04.006.
10. Feldman LS, Lee L, Fiore J Jr. What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways? Can J Anaesth. 2015 Feb;62(2):120-30. doi: 10.1007/s12630-014-0263-1.
11. Sanchez-Lorente D, Navarro-Ripoll R, Guzman R, Moises J, Gimeno E, Boada M, Molins L. Prehabilitation in thoracic surgery. J Thoric Dis. 2018 Aug;10(Suppl 22): S2593-S2600. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.08.18.
12. Wainwright TW, Imjins T, Middleton RG. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and its applicability for major spine surgery. Best Pact Res Clin Anaesthesia. 2016 Mar;30(1):91-102. doi: 10.1016/j.bpa.2015.11.001.
13. Stojanovic MD, Markovic DZ, Vukovic AZ, Dynic VD, Nikolic AN, Maricic TG, Janković RJ. Enhanced Recovery after Vascular Surgery. Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Jan 19; 5:2. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00002.
14. Allawi Z, Laffin M, Gramlich L, Senior P, McAlister FA. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) in Individuals with Diabetes: A Systematic Review. World J Surg. 2017 Aug;41(8):1927-1934. doi: 10.1007/s00268-017-3982-y.
15. Bazargani ST, Jaradat H, Ahmadi H, Miranda G, Cai J, Schuckman AK, Daneshmand S. Gastrointestinal Complications Following Radical Cystectomy Using Enhanced Recovery Protocol. Eury Ural Focus. 2018 Dec;4(6):889-894. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.003.
16. Off Odile AC 2nd, Gu C, Bukovina’s S, Coroneos CJ, Chatterjee A, Largo RD, Butler C. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019 Jan;173(1):65-77. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4991-8.
17. Saidian A, Nix JW. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Urology. Surg Clin North Am. 2018 Dec;98(6):1265-1274. doi: 10.1016/j.suc.2018.07.012.
18. Zhao Y, Qin H, Wu Y, Xiang B. Enhanced recovery after surgery program reduces length of hospital stay and complications in liver resection: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Aug;96(31): e7628. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007628.
19. Ding J, Sun B, Song P, Liu S, Chen H, Feng M, Guan W. The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)/fast-track surgery in gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nontarget. 2017 Jun 20;8(43):75699-75711. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.18581.
20. Song W, Wang K, Zhang RJ, Dai QX, Zou SB. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in liver surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Springer plus. 2016 Feb 29; 5:207. doi: 10.1186/s40064-016-1793-5.
21. Confetti A, Viggiano D, Bombilate S, Bertolucci L, Solli P, Bertani A, Voltolini L, Crisci R, Righetti A. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) in thoracic surgical oncology. Future Oncol. 2018 Mar;14(6s):33-40. doi: 10.2217/fon-2017-0471.
22. Manso M, Schmelz J, Aloia T. ERAS-Anticipated outcomes and realistic goals. J Surg Oncol. 2017 Oct;116(5):570-577. doi: 10.1002/jso.24791.