- Email: [email protected]
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for elective gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Surgical Oncology journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/suronc
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for elective gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Yung Lee a, James Yu a, Aristithes G. Doumouras b, Jennifer Li b, Dennis Hong b, * a b
Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Gastric cancer Enhanced recovery ERAS Perioperative care Meta-analysis
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effective in improving postoperative recovery after major abdominal surgeries including colorectal cancer surgery, however its impact after gastric cancer surgery is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of ERAS after gastric cancer surgery. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed was searched from database inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS versus standard care in gastric cancer surgery were included. Outcomes included the postoperative length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, time to first flatus, defeca tion, oral intake, and ambulation after surgery, and complications. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The GRADE approach assessed overall quality of evidence. 18 RCTs involving 1782 patients were included. ERAS significantly reduced the LOS (Mean Difference (MD) 1.78 days, 95%CI -2.17 to 1.40, P < 0.0001), reduced hospital costs (MD -650 U S. dollars, 95%CI -840 to 460, P < 0.0001), and reduced time to first flatus, defecation, ambulation, and oral intake. ERAS had significantly lower rates of pul monary infections (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.48, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.82, P ¼ 0.007), but not surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, and postoperative complications. However, ERAS significantly increased readmissions (RR 2.43, 95%CI 1.09 to 5.43, P ¼ 0.03). The quality of evidence was low to moderate for all outcomes. Imple mentation of an ERAS protocol may reduce LOS, costs, and time to return of function after gastric cancer surgery compared to conventional recovery. However, ERAS may increase the number of postoperative readmissions, albeit with no impact on the rate of postoperative complications.
1. Introduction Gastric cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and over 1 million new cases occurred in 2018 [1]. Despite the acceptance of minimally invasive surgery, gastric cancer surgery is still associated with a high risk of morbidity ranging from 9 to 29% and mortality up to 4% [2]. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to perioperative care with evidence-supported measures that aim to reduce surgical stress and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation [3]. Typical ERAS protocols involve preoperative counselling, reduced fasting times, avoidance of bowel preparation, optimized anesthesia
protocols, use of multimodal anesthesia, avoidance of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, early mobilization and early progression to food [3]. ERAS has been applied to numerous surgical fields including colorectal cancer surgery with success, including decreased lengths of stay, decreased costs, reduced surgical morbidity, and improved post operative recovery [4,5]. A 2014 consensus guideline for ERAS in gastric surgery provided advice for components of an ERAS program but noted the scarcity of evidence including high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the need for further research [3]. Since then, numerous studies evalu ating the use of ERAS in gastric cancer surgery have emerged, including a substantial number of RCTs.
* Corresponding author. Division of General Surgery, McMaster University. St. Joseph’s Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Lee), [email protected] (J. Yu), [email protected] (A.G. Doumouras), Jennifer.zhirui.li@gmail. com (J. Li), [email protected] (D. Hong). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.11.004 Received 17 September 2019; Received in revised form 3 November 2019; Accepted 17 November 2019 Available online 25 November 2019 0960-7404/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Given the considerable number of randomized trials that have accumulated in recent years, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the impact of ERAS for gastric cancer surgery on postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, time to flatus, defecation, food intake, and ambulation, readmission rates, and complications, as well as hospital costs. Abbreviations: ERAS: enhanced recovery after surgery; RCT: ran domized controlled trials; USD: United States Dollars; PRISMA, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; LOS: length of stay; SSI: surgical site infection; GRADE: grading of rec ommendations, assessment, development and evaluation; MD: mean difference; CI: confidence interval; SD; standard deviation. 2. Methods 2.1. Eligibility criteria RCTs comparing the ERAS pathway with standard preoperative care for elective gastric cancer surgery was included. Studies containing at least one component of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative ERAS strategy implemented in their recovery strategy was included in the review. We excluded the studies that were (1) non-randomized studies, cohort studies, and case control studies (2) studies with no relevant primary or secondary outcomes of interest (3) patients who did not undergo an elective total, distal, or proximal gastrectomy (e.g. wedge resection) (4) patients who did not have gastric adenocarcinoma (e.g. gastrointestinal stromal tumor, leiomyoma, lymphoma, etc.).
Fig. 1. PRISMA Diagram – transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis flow diagram outlining the search strategy results from initial search to included studies.
2.2. Outcomes
disagreement persisted, a third reviewer was consulted. For RCTs with relevant missing data, corresponding author was contacted for the acquisition of the data. However, when the authors failed to respond, missing data was acknowledged. The two reviewers independently conducted data abstraction onto a data collection manual designed a priori. Abstracted data included study characteristics (e.g. author, year of publication, study design, funding source), patient characteristics (e.g. age, % female, number of patients per treatment arm, preoperative BMI, stage of cancer), intervention description (e.g. Open or laparoscopic surgery, type of gastrectomy, type of reconstruction), and outcomes. Reviewers also used a checklist con taining the thirteen elements of the ERAS pathway (4 preoperative, 6 perioperative, and 3 post-operative elements) to assess the type of ERAS protocol each trial implemented in their study. This checklist was based on the 2014 consensus guideline for enhanced recovery after gastrec tomy published by the ERAS society [3]. When collecting the data for total hospital cost, all foreign currency was converted to U.S. Dollar equivalent to allow for pooling of data.
The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was postoperative length of stay. Secondary outcomes were: (1) postoperative complications (surgical site infection (SSI), pulmonary infection, ileus, anastomotic leak, re-operation, readmission, and mortality) (2) recovery-related outcomes (time to first ambulation, first defecation, first flatus, first oral food intake) (3) hospital costs (USD). 2.3. Search strategy We conducted a systematic search of the following databases covering the period from database inception through December 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and the major clinical trial registries (Clin icalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP):http://apps.who.int/tri alsearch/) were searched for ongoing trials. The search terms were designed and conducted with the help of an expert medical librarian with input from study investigators. The search strategy included key words such as “gastric cancer”, “stomach neoplasm”, “ERAS”, “ran domized trial”, and more (complete search strategy available on Appendix 1). We also searched the references of published studies and grey literature manually and contacted experts in the field to ensure that relevant articles were not missed. We did not discriminate full texts by language. This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6].
2.5. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence Risk of bias for individual RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs [7]. Certainty of evidence for estimates derived from each meta-analyzed outcome was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [8,9]. 2.6. Statistical analysis
2.4. Data collection
All statistical analyses and meta-analysis were performed using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (London, United Kingdom) with a level of significance set at P of <0.05. We performed pairwise meta-analyses using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model for continuous and dichotomous variables. Pooled-effect estimates were obtained by calculating the mean difference (MD) in outcomes for continuous vari ables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to confirm the effect size estimation and
The systematically searched titles and abstracts were independently evaluated by two reviewers using a standardized, pilot-tested form. Reviewers were not blinded to authors, institution, or the journal where the manuscript was published. Discrepancies that occurred at the title and abstract screening stages were resolved by automatic inclusion to ensure that all relevant papers were not missed. Discrepancies at the fulltext stage were resolved by consensus between two reviewers and if 76
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Table 1 Study characteristics. Study
Country
Arm
N
Age (years)
% Female
Open/ Laparoscopic
Gastrectomy Type (distal/ proximal/total)
Reconstruction (B1/ B2/RNY)
Stage of Cancer (I/II/III/IV)
Wang, 2009
China
ERAS
46
58.5 (9.7)
28.3
46 Open
7
–
–
Standard
46
57.1 (9.2)
39.1
46 Open
5
–
–
ERAS
41
59
46.3
41 Open
14
–
5/21/12/0
Standard
41
61
58.5
41 Open
11
–
6/23/12/0
ERAS
21
69
42.9
21 Open
5
–
3/13/5/0
Standard
21
71
33.3
21 Open
7
–
2/12/7/0
ERAS
45
28.9
45 Open
7
–
–
Standard
47
38.3
47 Open
5
–
–
ERAS (Lap)
19
47.4
19 Lap
13/6/0
1/10/8/0
Standard (Lap)
22
54.5
22 Lap
22 distal
14/8/0
1/10/10/1
ERAS (Open)
21
57.1
21 Open
21 distal
16/5/0
1/8/11/1
Standard (Open) ERAS
20
40
20 Open
20 distal
14/6/0
1/6/11/2
40.9
22 Lap
22 distal
18/1/3
20/1/1/0
Standard
22
31.8
22 Lap
22 distal
17/2/3
20/2/0/0
ERAS
59
30.5
59 Lap
59 total
–
14/12/33/0
Standard
60
26.7
60 Lap
60 total
–
8/31/21/0
ERAS
38
47.0
38 Open
–
–
–
Standard
39
45.9
39 Open
–
–
–
ERAS Standard ERAS (45–74yrs) Standard (45–74yrs) ERAS (75–89yrs) Standard (75–89yrs) ERAS Standard ERAS (lap)
30 31 64
58.76 (9.66) 56.87 (9.16) 59 (49–71) 62.5 (45–72) 64 (40–71) 64.5 (49–75) 52.64 (11.57) 57.45 (14.54) 54.98 (11.35) 55.79 (10.06) 57.6 (10.9) 58.5 (10.1) 63 (12) 62 (11) 62.4 (7.8)
33 distal, 6 proximal, total 35 distal, 6 proximal, total 22 distal, 5 proximal, total 23 distal, 7 proximal, total 12 distal, 4 proximal, total 11 distal, 3 proximal, total 32 distal, 6 proximal, total 36 distal, 6 proximal, total 19 distal
30 35.5 51.6
30 Lap 31 Lap 64 Open
7/14/9 8/10/13 19/28/17
0/13/17/0 0/13/18/0 9/34/21/0
64
63 (7.4)
45.3
64 Open
16/23/25
13/32/19/0
64
80.1 (4)
42.2
64 Open
15/29/20
8/30/26/0
64
79.6 (3.5)
37.5
64 Open
11/29/24
9/27/28/0
67 60 21
72.9 (6.7) 71.8 (8.0) 69.2 (5.1)
26.9 21.7 52.4
67 Lap 60 Lap 21 Lap
– – 6/9/6
13/43/11/0 10/36/14/0 2/10/9/0
Standard (lap)
21
67.8 (3.9)
57.1
21 Open
5/10/4
3/9/9/0
ERAS (open) Standard (open) ERAS
21 21
70.3 (5.8) 68.6 (4.9)
42.9 47.6
21 Lap 21 Open
6/8/7 7/9/3
1/9/11/0 3/10/8/0
73
34.2
73 Lap
0/56/17
1/20/52/0
Standard
76
34.2
76 Lap
–
0/55/21
2/33/41/0
ERAS
73
32.9
63 Lap, 10 Open
55/8/10/0
69
29
60 Lap, 9 Open
25/0/30
47/7/15/0
60.0 46.7
30 Lap 30 Lap
54 distal, 5 proximal, 6 total 49 distal, 4 proximal, 6 total – –
32/0/28
Standard
61 (40–75) 63 (35–75) 68 (29–85) 67 (44–85) 60.2 (8.1) 60.12 (8.14) 56.3 (10.4) 54.5 (12.6) 42.96 (15.74)
21 distal, 9 total 23 distal, 8 total 38 distal, 11 proximal, 15 total 33 distal, 9 proximal, 22 total 35 distal, 7 proximal, 22 total 37 distal, 10 proximal, 17 total 32 distal, 35 total 36 distal, 24 total 12 distal, 4 proximal, 5 total 10 distal, 5 proximal, 6 total 9 distal, 6 proximal, 6 total 10 distal, 6 proximal, 5 total –
– –
1/15/13/1 2/12/13/3
28.3
46 Lap
46 distal
20/0/26
–
25.4
51 Lap
51 distal
21/0/30
–
45.7
35 Lap
–
–
6/14/11/4
42.9
35 Lap
–
–
He, 2010
Tang, 2010
Wang, 2010
Hu, 2012
Kim, 2012
Feng, 2013
Wang, 2014
Abdikarim, 2015 Bu, 2015
China
China
China
China
Korea
China
China
China China
Li, 2016
China
Liu, 2016
China
Mingjie, 2017
Tanaka, 2017
China
Japan
22
Xu, 2017
China
ERAS Standard
30 30
Kang, 2018
Korea
ERAS
46
Standard
51
ERAS
35
Standard
35
Zhang, 2018
China
6/12/12/5 (continued on next page)
77
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Table 1 (continued ) Study
Zhao, 2018
Country
China
Arm
ERAS Standard
N
54 52
Age (years)
% Female
Open/ Laparoscopic
Gastrectomy Type (distal/ proximal/total)
Reconstruction (B1/ B2/RNY)
Stage of Cancer (I/II/III/IV)
43.87 (16.01) 60.8 (9.4) 59.8 (7.9)
29.6 28.8
– –
24 distal, 30 total 21 distal, 31 total
0/24/30 0/21/31
3/16/14/20 1/11/17/23
(ERAS, enhanced recovery after surgery; LADG, laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy; ODG, open distal gastrectomy).
test criteria. In addition, mean and standard deviation was estimated for studies that only reported median and interquartile range using the estimation method proposed by Wan et al. [10,11]. This allowed for one unified measure that could allow for pooling of continuous outcome. Assessment of heterogeneity was completed using the inconsistency (I2) statistic. We considered I2 higher than 50% to represent considerable heterogeneity. Funnel plot was generated to assess potential publication bias for meta-analysis containing at least 10 RCTs as fewer studies can lead to bias when distinguishing symmetry and asymmetry in the funnel plot [12]. Subgroup analysis was performed by surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic), type of gastric cancer surgery, and stage of cancer to assess for clinical and methodological sources of heterogeneity if methodologically feasible. Sensitivity analysis was performed based on studies’ risk of bias and missing data. 3. Results
publication bias (Appendix 2A). All other outcomes showed high degree of symmetry on the funnel plot, suggesting low chance of publication bias. GRADE quality of evidence profile is summarized in Table 3. All outcomes were rated down for risk of bias due to a lack of blinding and allocation concealment [35]. Evidence was rated down for inconsistency in all outcomes other than rate of complication and rate of readmission, because of high heterogeneity despite the presence of similar in terventions, comparisons, and surgeries. Overall, there was a moderate certainty of evidence for rate of complication and rate of readmission, which indicate that ERAS for gastric cancer surgery probably does not affect the rate of complications but does increase the rate of read missions compared to standard care. In addition, there was a low cer tainty of evidence for length of stay, hospital costs, time to first flatus, defecation, and oral intake, suggesting that ERAS for gastric cancer surgery may improve these outcomes.
3.1. Study characteristics
3.3. Postoperative length of stay
Among 3129 potentially eligible studies, a total of 18 RCTs [13–30] were eligible for inclusion (Fig. 1). A total of 1782 patients were included, with 890 randomized to the ERAS pathway and 892 to stan dard recovery. The median age of overall population was 61 years (range 43–80.1) with 37.5% patients being female. 8 studies performed a laparoscopic approach [19,20,22,25,26,29,31,32], 6 studies had an open approach [14,23,24,28,30,33], 2 studies had a mix of both approach with stratification of data by surgical approach [16,25], 1 had a mix of both approaches without stratification [34], and 1 did not report surgical approach [21]. 3 studies exclusively performed distal gastrectomies, 4 studies had a combination of distal and total gastrec tomies, and 7 studies had a combination of distal, proximal, and total gastrectomies. The detailed characteristics of patient and surgical characteristics of the included trials are reported in Table 1 and out comes of each trials are reported in Supplementary Table 1. Each RCT had varying elements of ERAS components, which is summarized in Table 2. In brief, most commonly implemented preoperative, perioper ative, and postoperative ERAS components were reduction of fasting times before surgery (17/18), standardization and optimization of anesthesia protocol (16/18), and early mobilization (18/18) respectively.
All trials included in this review reported postoperative length of stay (n ¼ 1782). Compared to standard recovery, patients randomized to the ERAS pathway had significantly shorter LOS by 1.78 days (MD -1.78, 95% CI -2.17 to 1.40, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 91%) (Fig. 2). ERAS arm had a significantly shorter LOS by 2.14 days in the open surgery subgroup (MD -2.14, 95% CI -2.71 to 1.57, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 82%) and 1.61 days in the laparoscopic surgery subgroup (MD -1.61, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.01, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 80%). 3.4. Hospital costs Total hospital costs were reported in 12 different trials (n ¼ 1172). Hospital costs were significantly lower in the ERAS group by 650 USD (MD -650, 95% CI -840 to 460, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 88%) (Fig. 3). Specifically, ERAS after open surgery had significantly lower cost by 510 USD (MD -510, 95% CI -890 to 140, P ¼ 0.008, I2 ¼ 89%) and by 740 USD (MD -740, 95% CI -1120 to 370, P ¼ 0.0001, I2 ¼ 88%) in lapa roscopic surgery. 3.5. Return to function related outcomes Recovery related outcomes such as time to first flatus after surgery (12 trials), first defecation after surgery (6 trials), first oral intake (7 trials), and first ambulation (3 trials) were reported. Time to first flatus (MD -0.53 days, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.33, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 91%) and time to first defecation (MD -1.03 days, 95% CI -1.43 to 0.63, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 86%) after surgery was significantly quicker in the ERAS group than the standard recovery group (Supplementary Figs. 1–2). Moreover, time to first ambulation and time to first oral intake after surgery was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (Supplementary Figs. 3–4). Subgroup analyses based on surgical approach did not alter the signifi cant difference that exists between the two groups across all recovery related outcomes except time to first ambulation for which a laparo scopic approach with ERAS did not result in a significant difference.
3.2. Quality assessment of studies A summary of the risk of bias across all studies is provided in Sup plementary Table 2. Random sequence generation was present in 100% of studies, allocation concealment in 56% of studies, blinding of par ticipants in 11% of studies, blinding of healthcare providers in 0% of studies, and blinding of outcome assessment in 17% of studies. Incom plete outcome data or loss to follow-up was adequately explained in 94% of studies, and 0% of studies had selective reporting of outcomes. Therefore, following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the majority of studies had moderate selection bias, low attrition bias, but high per formance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias. Funnel plots were generated for LOS, hospital costs, postoperative complications, SSI, pulmonary infections, and time to first flatus (Appendix 2). The funnel plot of LOS revealed minor asymmetry, thus suggesting a possibility of 78
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
The rate of pulmonary infection was significantly lower in the ERAS (RR 0.48, 95% 0.28–0.82, P ¼ 0.007, I2 ¼ 0%, 13 trials) (Supplementary Fig. 5). Conversely, there was no difference in the rate of SSI (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.46–1.42, P ¼ 0.46, I2 ¼ 0%, 16 trials), rate of anastomotic leak (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43–1.73, P ¼ 0.67, I2 ¼ 0%, 15 trials), nor the overall rate of postoperative complications (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64–1.25, P ¼ 0.51, I2 ¼ 55%) (Supplementary Fig. 6). From 8 trials (n ¼ 938) that reported the rate of readmission, ERAS group had significantly higher rate of readmission than the standard recovery group (RR 2.43, 95% 1.09–5.43, P ¼ 0.03, I2 ¼ 0%) (Supplementary Fig. 8). Discharge criteria are essential to prevent readmission in ERAS and were reported in 12 out of 18 trials (Supplementary Table 3). However, the statistical signifi cance of this outcome driven by the trial by Bu et al. in the open surgery subgroup [30]. Specific complications such as rate of reoperation (n ¼ 3), mortality (n ¼ 0), and ileus (n ¼ 15) was not meta-analyzed due to the very low event rate present across all trials, however this data was collected and is reported in Supplementary Table 4.
✓
Majority of the included trials performed surgery on Stage I to III resectable gastric cancer patients, with the exception of one trial that exclusively enrolled patients who had gastric cancer surgery after neo adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer [21]. Sensitivity analysis by removing this study from the meta-analysis revealed no change in significance across all outcomes. Moreover, sensitivity analysis based on high versus low risk of bias of studies and studies with missing SD revealed no change in significance. Subgroup analysis based on type of gastrectomy or type of reconstruction could not conducted due to majority of studies not stratifying the outcomes by these factors.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
3.7. Additional analyses
✓ ✓
In this meta-analysis of 18 RCTs enrolling 1782 patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery, an ERAS protocol was associated with reductions in the LOS, hospital costs, time to flatus, time to defecation, time to ambulation, and time to oral intake after surgery. While an ERAS pro tocol did reduce the rate of pulmonary complications, it did not affect the rate of SSI, anastomotic leak, and overall rate of postoperative complications. Conversely, rate of readmissions were higher in the ERAS group, although this was largely caused by the study by Bu et al. which included patients aged 75–89 years [30]. Despite the inclusion of only RCTs, the overall quality of evidence was low to moderate across all outcomes according to GRADE. The effect of ERAS on gastric cancer surgery was been studied with great interest and guidelines have been created by the ERAS society detailing the benefits of its individual components [3]. Several previous meta-analyses on this topic have been published, including meta-analyses from 2015 to 2018 which included 6 to 13 RCTs [36–39]. The results of the present review agree with the reduced LOS, decreased hospital costs, reduced time to flatus, and no changes in complications found by previous studies. Our review also confirms the increased rate of readmissions found in the most recent review by Wee et al. but builds on it by including an additional 4 RCTs, found by conducting a thorough search of the literature alongside the inclusion of foreign language studies [40]. The present review also examines new and patient-important outcomes including time to ambulation, oral intake, defecation, as well as specific complications data such as SSI, pulmonary infections, and anastomotic leaks. This review also reports the elements of ERAS implemented in individual RCTs, revealing the heterogeneous components of the ERAS protocol implemented across trials. Finally, our study differs from previous reviews in its rigorous assessment of included studies, both on the individual study level for risk of bias using
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4. Discussion
Wang, 2009 He, 2010 Tang, 2010 Wang, 2010 Hu, 2012 Kim, 2012 Feng, 2013 Wang, 2014 Abdikarim, 2015 Bu, 2015 Li, 2016 Liu, 2016 Mingjie, 2017 Tanaka, 2017 Xu, 2017 Kang, 2018 Zhang, 2018 Zhao, 2018
Carbohydrate Loading Reduce Fasting Times
✓ ✓
Urinary Catheter Removal
Postoperative
Narrow Incision Size Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Active prevention of hypothermia Avoidance of NG Tubes/ Intraabdominal Drains Optimize Anesthesia Protocols
Multimodal Anesthesia Perioperative
Preoperative Information/ Counselling
No Bowel Preparation Preoperative Studies
Table 2 Summary of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) elements included in the randomized controlled trials.
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3.6. Postoperative complications
Early Progression to Food
Early Mobilization
Y. Lee et al.
79
Y. Lee et al.
Table 3 GRADE certainty of evidence summary table for meta-analysis. GRADE Certainty Assessment N� of Studies
Risk of bias
Summary of Findings Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Publication bias
N� of patients ERAS
Standard
Effect (95% CI)
Overall certainty of evidence
80
Postoperative Length of Hospital Stay 18 studies serious serious
not serious
Not serious
Serious
890
892
MD -1.78 (95% CI -2.17 to
1.40)
Hospital Costs (U.S. Dollars) 12 studies serious
���� LOW
serious
not serious
Not serious
none
585
587
MD -0.65 (95% CI -0.84 to
0.46)
Time to First Flatus After Surgery 12 studies serious
���� LOW
serious
not serious
not serious
none
649
647
MD -0.53 (95% CI -0.74 to
0.33)
Time to First Defecation After Surgery 6 studies serious serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
none
297
298
MD -1.03 (95% CI -1.43 to
0.63)
Time to First Oral Intake After Surgery 7 studies serious serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
none
343
344
MD -1.90 (95% CI -2.62 to
1.19)
Rate of Complication After Surgery 15 studies serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
not serious
none
694
695
RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.25)
Rate of Readmission After Surgery 8 studies serious
���� MODERATE
not serious
not serious
not serious
none
470
468
RR 2.43 (95% CI 1.09 to 5.43)
���� MODERATE
1. Downgraded one point, majority of studies were not adequately blinded, lack of allocation concealment. 2. Downgraded one-point, high I2 heterogeneity above 80% despite similar intervention and comparison and similar surgeries. 3. Low I2 heterogeneity, overlapping confidence intervals, identical intervention and comparison, and similar surgeries (either LSG or LRYGB). 4. All included RCTs directly compare the interventions of interest, measure the outcomes of interest, and in the populations of interest. While the exact definition of ERAS did differ slightly between studies, the majority of studies in each outcome had the same key components of ERAS. 5. No imprecision because sample sizes are sufficiently large and exceed 400. 6. No publication bias upon examination of funnel plot, inclusion of foreign language studies including from unindexed journals and with small sample size.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Fig. 2. Pairwise random effects meta-analysis forest plot comparing ERAS versus standard recovery after gastric cancer surgeries on postoperative length of stay.
the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and on the body of evidence level using GRADE. The results of the present meta-analysis also agree with previous studies investigating the application of ERAS in other surgical settings, including colorectal cancer. Decreased LOS, reduced hospital costs, and earlier return to function have been previously reported as outcomes after ERAS implementation in the case of colorectal cancer as well as pancreatic cancer surgery [4,5,41–44]. However, the increase in read mission noted by the present review as well as previous reviews, is not an expected outcome of ERAS. Increased readmission rates may be caused by inadequate compliance to ERAS components, insufficient follow-up, or by symptoms missed during initial hospitalization. More over, this may be a natural consequence of ERAS in gastric cancer sur geries. A study by Francis et al. investigated factors associated with readmissions after colorectal cancer surgery in an ERAS setting, and found poor ERAS compliance to be an independent predictor of read mission [45]. Appropriate compliance may be especially difficult to ascertain given that no studies evaluated compliance with ERAS and ERAS components varied substantially amongst studies. In the setting of colorectal surgery, studies have demonstrated that when implementing a multicomponent ERAS protocol, full compliance is difficult to reach, and that while compliance prior and during surgery is high, post operative compliance decreases [46]. Two of the included studies re ported quality of life outcomes but one used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire C-30 at 2 weeks after discharge while the other measured quality of life at the time of discharge [24,26]. While a meta-analysis could not be
conducted, both studies reported improved quality of life scores in the ERAS group compared to conventional care [24,26]. This study has several limitations. First, substantial heterogeneity existed for all outcomes. This may be because the components included in an ERAS protocol varied between studies and compliance was not reported. These variations may be explained by the relatively recent publication of consensus guidelines recommending components for an ERAS protocol in gastric cancer surgery, as well as the lack of evidence supporting many individual components of ERAS [3]. Our review re ported the major ERAS components present in individual studies to provide full transparency. Second, the mean age of participants, ranged from 43 to 83, and no studies in the current literature reported outcomes stratified by cancer stage, precluding subgroup analysis. The stage of gastric cancer, a factor known to influence outcomes after surgery, varied between studies in our review [47]. However, the findings of our meta-analysis were supported by a large number of trials across a range of ages and cancer stages. Third, the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgical trials, particularly adverse events is known to be inconsistent, and in our review, the definition of an adverse event varied between included trials [48]. Consequently, we reported a wide range of complications (Supplementary Table 4) in detail and conducted separate analyses for common complications including pulmonary infection, SSI, and anastomotic leak. Fourth, all included trials were conducted in Asia, with 15 studies being conducted in China and with a high risk of bias. The prevalence of risk factors for gastric cancer such as Helicobacter pylori infection, dietary habits, and genetics are known to differ between Asian and Western countries, and both the incidence and survival after 81
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Fig. 3. Pairwise random effects meta-analysis forest plot comparing ERAS versus standard recovery after gastric cancer surgeries on total hospital costs (in U. S. Dollars).
gastric cancer is known to be higher in Asia than in Western countries such as the United States [1]. In particular, South Korea, Japan, and China have the first, third, and fourth highest incidences of gastric cancer globally, potentially limiting the applicability of the present re view to Western countries [1]. Nonetheless, a strength of the present review is the inclusion of foreign language studies that were excluded by previous reviews, allowing for a comprehensive analysis. Fifth, this re view did not identify any multicenter studies and many of the included trials had small sample sizes. Future high quality clinical trials are needed that incorporate the ERAS protocol suggested in the recently published consensus guidelines [3], report a standard set of patient outcomes, use the laparoscopic approach which has been adopted for other surgeries including colorectal surgery, and set criteria for moni toring hospital readmissions prior to the start of the trial.
patient-important outcomes including length of stay, time to ambula tion, and time to oral intake, the overall quality of evidence supporting such outcomes was low to moderate. The most important components of an ERAS protocol are still unclear due to a lack of evidence supporting individual components of ERAS in the gastric cancer surgery, and ERAS protocols varied across studies. Future trials investigating ERAS should investigate the outcomes of individual components of an ERAS protocol or implement a homogenous protocol while emphasizing and reporting protocol compliance as well as further details including reasons for readmissions and resulting healthcare costs. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
5. Conclusions
Declaration of competing interest
The findings of the present study join a growing body of literature supporting the implementation of ERAS in gastric cancer surgery. In the context of growing healthcare costs, the decreased hospital costs iden tified in this review are an appealing finding, however they must be considering against the possibility of increased readmissions, and their associated costs. Furthermore, while improvements were noted in
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.11.004.
82
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 1. Complete search strategy (Medline database example) OVID Medline Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Jan 2019 1. exp Stomach Neoplasms 2. Gastric cancer.mp. 3. Stomach cancer.mp. 4. Gastric carcinoma.mp. 5. Stomach carcinoma.mp. 6. Gastric carcinomas.mp. 7. Stomach carcinomas.mp. 8. exp gastrectomy/9. gastric resection.mp. 10. gastric surgery.mp. 11. or/1-10 12. ERAS.mp. 13. Enhanced recovery after surgery.mp. 14. Enhanced recovery.mp. 15. Early recovery.mp. 16. exp critical pathways/17. clinical pathway.mp. 18. multimodal perioperative.mp. 19. perioperative protocol.mp. 20. exp postoperative care/21. fast track.mp. 22. or/11-21 23. 11 and 22
Appendix 2A. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing postoperative length of stay
Appendix 2B. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing hospital costs
83
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 2C. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing time to first flatus
Appendix 2D. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing time to first oral intake
Appendix 2E. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing pulmonary infections
84
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 2F. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing surgical site infections
Appendix 2G. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing anastomotic leaks
Appendix 2H. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing overall postoperative complication
85
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
References
[22] X.-F. Zhang, W. Zhong, Effect of fast track surgery concept based nursing intervention on rehabilitation and nursing satisfaction in patients with advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic assisted D2 radical operation, World Chin. J. Dig. 26 (2018) 325–331, https://doi.org/10.11569/wcjd.v26.i5.325. [23] Y. Tang, X. Wu, B. Wei, L. Chen, R. Li, Clinical application of perioperative fasttrack and nutrition support program in elderly patients with gastric cancer, Chinese J. Clin. Nutr. 18 (2010) 137–140. [24] D. Wang, Y. Kong, B. Zhong, Fast-track Surgery Improves Postoperative Recovery in Patients with Gastric Cancer : A Randomized Comparison with Conventional Postoperative Care, 2010, pp. 620–627, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-0091139-5. [25] J. Hu, L. Jiang, L. Cai, H. Zheng, Preliminary Experience of Fast-Track Surgery Combined with Laparoscopy-Assisted Radical Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer, 2012, pp. 1830–1839, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1969-4. [26] J.W. Kim, W.S. Kim, J.-H. Cheong, W.J. Hyung, S.-H. Choi, S.H. Noh, Safety and efficacy of fast-track surgery in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial, World J. Surg. 36 (2012) 2879–2887, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00268-012-1741-7. [27] W. H, S. Y, F. M, Z. Y, J. W, X. S, T. L, Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 149 (2015) 1006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.12.063. [28] G. Wang, Y. Yang, B. Zhou, Y. Chen, C. Jin, Z. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Feng, [Promotion of postoperative recovery with fast track surgery for gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study], Chinese J. Gastrointest. Surg. 17 (2014) 489–491. [29] I. Abdikarim, X. Cao, S. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Taupyk, Q. Wang, Enhanced Recovery after Surgery with Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Stomach Carcinomas, vol 21, 2015, pp. 13339–13344, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i47.13339. [30] J. Bu, N. Li, X. Huang, S. He, J. Wen, X. Wu, Feasibility of Fast-Track Surgery in Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer, 2015, pp. 1391–1398, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11605-015-2839-7. [31] F. Feng, G. Ji, J. Li, X. Li, H. Shi, Z. Zhao, G. Wu, X. Liu, Fast-track surgery could improve postoperative recovery in radical total gastrectomy patients 19 (2013) 3642–3648, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i23.3642. [32] S. R, L. T, Buprenorphine-related complications in elderly hospitalised patients: a case series, Anaesth, Intensive Care 45 (2017) 256–261. http://www.aaic.net. au/Document/pdf.ashx?D¼20160109. [33] A.Z. LaCroix, R.T. Chlebowski, J.E. Manson, A.K. Aragaki, K.C. Johnson, L. Martin, K.L. Margolis, M.L. Stefanick, R. Brzyski, J.D. Curb, B.V. Howard, C.E. Lewis, J. Wactawski-Wende, W.H.I. Investigators, C.R.T.M.J.E.A.A.K.J.K.C.M.L.M.K.L.S. M.L.B.R.C.J.D.H.B.V.L.C.E, Health outcomes after stopping conjugated equine estrogens among postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305 (2011) 1305–1314, https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.2011.382. [34] T. Matsumoto, T. Uchida, T. Ono, K. Hirayama, F. Fukumura, H. Ando, J. Tanaka, Bronchial artery aneurysm treated using aortic stent graft alone: a case report, Ann. Vasc. Dis. 10 (2017) 152–154, https://doi.org/10.3400/avd.cr.16-00091. [35] G. H, H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, Guyatt, GRADE guidelines: rating the quality of evidence, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011) 401–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. [36] A.J. Beamish, D.S.Y. Chan, P.A. Blake, A. Karran, W.G. Lewis, Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in gastric cancer surgery, Int. J. Surg. 19 (2015) 46–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2015.05.021. [37] S. Chen, Z. Zou, F. Chen, Z. Huang, G. Li, A meta-analysis of fast track surgery for patients with gastric cancer undergoing gastrectomy, Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 97 (2015) 3–10, https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.97.1.3. [38] M.-Z. Li, W.-H. Wu, L. Li, X.-F. Zhou, H.-L. Zhu, J.-F. Li, Y.-L. He, Is ERAS effective and safe in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma? A meta-analysis, World J. Surg. Oncol. 16 (2018) 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1309-6. [39] L.-H. Wang, R.-F. Zhu, C. Gao, S.-L. Wang, L.-Z. Shen, Application of enhanced recovery after gastric cancer surgery: an updated meta-analysis, World J. Gastroenterol. 24 (2018) 1562–1578, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i14.1562. [40] I.J.Y. Wee, N.L.-X. Syn, A. Shabbir, G. Kim, J.B.Y. So, Enhanced Recovery versus Conventional Care in Gastric Cancer Surgery: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-randomized Controlled Trials, Gastric Cancer, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10120-019-00937-9. [41] M. Pędziwiatr, J. Mavrikis, J. Witowski, A. Adamos, P. Major, M. Nowakowski, A. Budzy� nski, Current status of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery, Med. Oncol. 35 (2018) 95, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12032-018-1153-0. [42] F. Paton, D. Chambers, P. Wilson, A. Eastwood, D. Craig, D. Fox, D. Jayne, E. McGinnes, Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis, BMJ Open 4 (2014) e005015, https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005015. [43] D.J. Kagedan, M. Ahmed, K.S. Devitt, A.C. Wei, Enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the evidence, HPB 17 (2015) 11–16, https://doi. org/10.1111/hpb.12265. [44] J. Xiong, P. Szatmary, W. Huang, D. de la Iglesia-Garcia, Q.M. Nunes, Q. Xia, W. Hu, R. Sutton, X. Liu, M.G. Raraty, Enhanced recovery after surgery program in
[1] F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R.L. Siegel, L.A. Torre, A. Jemal, Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA, Cancer J. Clin. 68 (2018) 394–424, https://doi.org/ 10.3322/caac.21492. [2] W.A. Papenfuss, M. Kukar, J. Oxenberg, K. Attwood, S. Nurkin, U. Malhotra, N. W. Wilkinson, Morbidity and mortality associated with gastrectomy for gastric cancer, Ann. Surg. Oncol. 21 (2014) 3008–3014, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434014-3664-z. [3] K. Mortensen, M. Nilsson, K. Slim, M. Sch€ afer, C. Mariette, M. Braga, F. Carli, N. Demartines, S.M. Griffin, K. Lassen, Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy, Br. J. Surg. 101 (2014) 1209–1229, https://doi.org/10.1002/ bjs.9582. [4] K.K. Varadhan, K.R. Neal, C.H.C. Dejong, K.C.H. Fearon, O. Ljungqvist, D.N. Lobo, 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 (2010) 434–440, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004. [5] A. Visioni, R. Shah, E. Gabriel, K. Attwood, M. Kukar, S. Nurkin, Enhanced recovery after surgery for noncolorectal surgery? Ann. Surg. 267 (2018) 57–65, https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002267. [6] A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gøtzsche, J.P.A. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, D. Moher, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, PLoS Med. 6 (2009) e1000100, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [7] J.P.T. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A.D. Oxman, J. Savovic, K.F. Schulz, L. Weeks, J.A.C. Sterne, Cochrane bias methods group, Cochrane statistical methods group, the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ 343 (2011) d5928, https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.d5928. [8] H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, G. E. Vist, Y. Falck-Ytter, J. Meerpohl, S. Norris, G.H. Guyatt, GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011) 401–406, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. [9] G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, G.E. Vist, R. Kunz, Y. Falck-Ytter, P. Alonso-Coello, H. J. Schünemann, GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, Chin. J. Evidence-Based Med. 9 (2009) 8–11, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. [10] X. Wan, W. Wang, J. Liu, T. Tong, Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14 (2014) 135, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. [11] C.J. Weir, I. Butcher, V. Assi, S.C. Lewis, G.D. Murray, P. Langhorne, M.C. Brady, Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0483-0. [12] J. Lau, The case of the misleading funnel plot, BMJ 333 (2006) 597–600, https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597. [13] D. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Kong, Q. Wang, H. Wang, [Observation of fast track surgery in patients with gastric cancer], Chinese J. Gastrointest. Surg. 12 (2009) 462–466. [14] Z. He, Y. Tang, H. Wu, B. Wei, L. Chen, R. Li, Benefits of perioperative fast-track surgery program on clinical outcome in patients with gastric cancer, Chinese J. Clin. Nutr. 18 (2010) 29–32. [15] M. T M, G. Z, G. K M, Giant cell tumour of the patella with local recurrence: successful management with excision, curettage and artificial bone grafting, BMJ Case Rep. (2018) 221275, https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2017-221275, 2018. [16] G. Liu, F. Jian, X. Wang, L. Chen, Fast-track surgery protocol in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial, OncoTargets Ther. 9 (2016) 3345, https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT. S107443. [17] X. Mingjie, Z. Luyao, T. Ze, Z. YinQuan, W. Quan, Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for resectable Advanced gastric cancer within enhanced recovery programs: a prospective randomized controlled trial, J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 27 (2017) 959–964, https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0057. [18] R. Tanaka, S.L. Masaru, K. Keitaro, Protocol for enhanced recovery after surgery improves short-term outcomes for patients with gastric cancer : a randomized clinical trial, Gastric Cancer 20 (2017) 861–871, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120016-0686-1. [19] X. Xu, J. Xu, Application of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopyassisted distal gastrectomy, Cancer Res. Clin. 29 (2017) 180–183. [20] S.H. Kang, Y. Lee, S. Min, Y.S. Park, S. Ahn, Multimodal enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is the optimal perioperative care in patients undergoing totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric Cancer : a prospective , randomized , clinical trial, Ann. Surg. Oncol. 25 (2018) 3231–3238, https://doi. org/10.1245/s10434-018-6625-0. [21] J. Zhao, G. Wang, Z.W. Jiang, C.W. Jiang, J. Liu, C.C. Xia, J.S. Li, Patients administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be enrolled into an enhanced recovery after surgery program for locally advanced, Gastric Cancer 131 (2018) 413–420, https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.225047.
86
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, Medicine (Baltim.) 95 (2016) e3497, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003497. [45] N.K. Francis, J. Mason, E. Salib, L. Allanby, D. Messenger, A.S. Allison, N.J. Smart, J.B. Ockrim, Factors predicting 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery programme, Colorectal Dis. 17 (2015) O148–O154, https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13002. [46] J. Maessen, C.H.C. Dejong, J. Hausel, J. Nygren, K. Lassen, J. Andersen, A.G. H. Kessels, A. Revhaug, H. Kehlet, O. Ljungqvist, K.C.H. Fearon, M.F. von Meyenfeldt, A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery
programme for colorectal resection, Br. J. Surg. 94 (2007) 224–231, https://doi. org/10.1002/bjs.5468. [47] M. Sasako, S. Sakuramoto, H. Katai, T. Kinoshita, H. Furukawa, T. Yamaguchi, A. Nashimoto, M. Fujii, T. Nakajima, Y. Ohashi, Five-year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 29 (2010), https://doi. org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.5691. [48] B. Alkhaffaf, J.M. Blazeby, P.R. Williamson, I.A. Bruce, A.-M. Glenny, Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review, BMJ Open 8 (2018) e021796, https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2018-021796.
87
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Surgical Oncology journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/suronc
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) versus standard recovery for elective gastric cancer surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Yung Lee a, James Yu a, Aristithes G. Doumouras b, Jennifer Li b, Dennis Hong b, * a b
Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Gastric cancer Enhanced recovery ERAS Perioperative care Meta-analysis
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been effective in improving postoperative recovery after major abdominal surgeries including colorectal cancer surgery, however its impact after gastric cancer surgery is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of ERAS after gastric cancer surgery. Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed was searched from database inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS versus standard care in gastric cancer surgery were included. Outcomes included the postoperative length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, time to first flatus, defeca tion, oral intake, and ambulation after surgery, and complications. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The GRADE approach assessed overall quality of evidence. 18 RCTs involving 1782 patients were included. ERAS significantly reduced the LOS (Mean Difference (MD) 1.78 days, 95%CI -2.17 to 1.40, P < 0.0001), reduced hospital costs (MD -650 U S. dollars, 95%CI -840 to 460, P < 0.0001), and reduced time to first flatus, defecation, ambulation, and oral intake. ERAS had significantly lower rates of pul monary infections (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.48, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.82, P ¼ 0.007), but not surgical site infections, anastomotic leaks, and postoperative complications. However, ERAS significantly increased readmissions (RR 2.43, 95%CI 1.09 to 5.43, P ¼ 0.03). The quality of evidence was low to moderate for all outcomes. Imple mentation of an ERAS protocol may reduce LOS, costs, and time to return of function after gastric cancer surgery compared to conventional recovery. However, ERAS may increase the number of postoperative readmissions, albeit with no impact on the rate of postoperative complications.
1. Introduction Gastric cancer remains the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide and over 1 million new cases occurred in 2018 [1]. Despite the acceptance of minimally invasive surgery, gastric cancer surgery is still associated with a high risk of morbidity ranging from 9 to 29% and mortality up to 4% [2]. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multidisciplinary approach to perioperative care with evidence-supported measures that aim to reduce surgical stress and accelerate postoperative rehabilitation [3]. Typical ERAS protocols involve preoperative counselling, reduced fasting times, avoidance of bowel preparation, optimized anesthesia
protocols, use of multimodal anesthesia, avoidance of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, early mobilization and early progression to food [3]. ERAS has been applied to numerous surgical fields including colorectal cancer surgery with success, including decreased lengths of stay, decreased costs, reduced surgical morbidity, and improved post operative recovery [4,5]. A 2014 consensus guideline for ERAS in gastric surgery provided advice for components of an ERAS program but noted the scarcity of evidence including high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the need for further research [3]. Since then, numerous studies evalu ating the use of ERAS in gastric cancer surgery have emerged, including a substantial number of RCTs.
* Corresponding author. Division of General Surgery, McMaster University. St. Joseph’s Healthcare, 50 Charlton Avenue East, Hamilton, Ontario, L8N 4A6, Canada. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Y. Lee), [email protected] (J. Yu), [email protected] (A.G. Doumouras), Jennifer.zhirui.li@gmail. com (J. Li), [email protected] (D. Hong). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.11.004 Received 17 September 2019; Received in revised form 3 November 2019; Accepted 17 November 2019 Available online 25 November 2019 0960-7404/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Given the considerable number of randomized trials that have accumulated in recent years, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the impact of ERAS for gastric cancer surgery on postoperative outcomes such as length of stay, time to flatus, defecation, food intake, and ambulation, readmission rates, and complications, as well as hospital costs. Abbreviations: ERAS: enhanced recovery after surgery; RCT: ran domized controlled trials; USD: United States Dollars; PRISMA, preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; LOS: length of stay; SSI: surgical site infection; GRADE: grading of rec ommendations, assessment, development and evaluation; MD: mean difference; CI: confidence interval; SD; standard deviation. 2. Methods 2.1. Eligibility criteria RCTs comparing the ERAS pathway with standard preoperative care for elective gastric cancer surgery was included. Studies containing at least one component of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative ERAS strategy implemented in their recovery strategy was included in the review. We excluded the studies that were (1) non-randomized studies, cohort studies, and case control studies (2) studies with no relevant primary or secondary outcomes of interest (3) patients who did not undergo an elective total, distal, or proximal gastrectomy (e.g. wedge resection) (4) patients who did not have gastric adenocarcinoma (e.g. gastrointestinal stromal tumor, leiomyoma, lymphoma, etc.).
Fig. 1. PRISMA Diagram – transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis flow diagram outlining the search strategy results from initial search to included studies.
2.2. Outcomes
disagreement persisted, a third reviewer was consulted. For RCTs with relevant missing data, corresponding author was contacted for the acquisition of the data. However, when the authors failed to respond, missing data was acknowledged. The two reviewers independently conducted data abstraction onto a data collection manual designed a priori. Abstracted data included study characteristics (e.g. author, year of publication, study design, funding source), patient characteristics (e.g. age, % female, number of patients per treatment arm, preoperative BMI, stage of cancer), intervention description (e.g. Open or laparoscopic surgery, type of gastrectomy, type of reconstruction), and outcomes. Reviewers also used a checklist con taining the thirteen elements of the ERAS pathway (4 preoperative, 6 perioperative, and 3 post-operative elements) to assess the type of ERAS protocol each trial implemented in their study. This checklist was based on the 2014 consensus guideline for enhanced recovery after gastrec tomy published by the ERAS society [3]. When collecting the data for total hospital cost, all foreign currency was converted to U.S. Dollar equivalent to allow for pooling of data.
The primary outcome of the meta-analysis was postoperative length of stay. Secondary outcomes were: (1) postoperative complications (surgical site infection (SSI), pulmonary infection, ileus, anastomotic leak, re-operation, readmission, and mortality) (2) recovery-related outcomes (time to first ambulation, first defecation, first flatus, first oral food intake) (3) hospital costs (USD). 2.3. Search strategy We conducted a systematic search of the following databases covering the period from database inception through December 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and the major clinical trial registries (Clin icalTrials.gov: http://clinicaltrials.gov/; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (ICTRP):http://apps.who.int/tri alsearch/) were searched for ongoing trials. The search terms were designed and conducted with the help of an expert medical librarian with input from study investigators. The search strategy included key words such as “gastric cancer”, “stomach neoplasm”, “ERAS”, “ran domized trial”, and more (complete search strategy available on Appendix 1). We also searched the references of published studies and grey literature manually and contacted experts in the field to ensure that relevant articles were not missed. We did not discriminate full texts by language. This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [6].
2.5. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence Risk of bias for individual RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs [7]. Certainty of evidence for estimates derived from each meta-analyzed outcome was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [8,9]. 2.6. Statistical analysis
2.4. Data collection
All statistical analyses and meta-analysis were performed using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (London, United Kingdom) with a level of significance set at P of <0.05. We performed pairwise meta-analyses using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model for continuous and dichotomous variables. Pooled-effect estimates were obtained by calculating the mean difference (MD) in outcomes for continuous vari ables and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous variables. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to confirm the effect size estimation and
The systematically searched titles and abstracts were independently evaluated by two reviewers using a standardized, pilot-tested form. Reviewers were not blinded to authors, institution, or the journal where the manuscript was published. Discrepancies that occurred at the title and abstract screening stages were resolved by automatic inclusion to ensure that all relevant papers were not missed. Discrepancies at the fulltext stage were resolved by consensus between two reviewers and if 76
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Table 1 Study characteristics. Study
Country
Arm
N
Age (years)
% Female
Open/ Laparoscopic
Gastrectomy Type (distal/ proximal/total)
Reconstruction (B1/ B2/RNY)
Stage of Cancer (I/II/III/IV)
Wang, 2009
China
ERAS
46
58.5 (9.7)
28.3
46 Open
7
–
–
Standard
46
57.1 (9.2)
39.1
46 Open
5
–
–
ERAS
41
59
46.3
41 Open
14
–
5/21/12/0
Standard
41
61
58.5
41 Open
11
–
6/23/12/0
ERAS
21
69
42.9
21 Open
5
–
3/13/5/0
Standard
21
71
33.3
21 Open
7
–
2/12/7/0
ERAS
45
28.9
45 Open
7
–
–
Standard
47
38.3
47 Open
5
–
–
ERAS (Lap)
19
47.4
19 Lap
13/6/0
1/10/8/0
Standard (Lap)
22
54.5
22 Lap
22 distal
14/8/0
1/10/10/1
ERAS (Open)
21
57.1
21 Open
21 distal
16/5/0
1/8/11/1
Standard (Open) ERAS
20
40
20 Open
20 distal
14/6/0
1/6/11/2
40.9
22 Lap
22 distal
18/1/3
20/1/1/0
Standard
22
31.8
22 Lap
22 distal
17/2/3
20/2/0/0
ERAS
59
30.5
59 Lap
59 total
–
14/12/33/0
Standard
60
26.7
60 Lap
60 total
–
8/31/21/0
ERAS
38
47.0
38 Open
–
–
–
Standard
39
45.9
39 Open
–
–
–
ERAS Standard ERAS (45–74yrs) Standard (45–74yrs) ERAS (75–89yrs) Standard (75–89yrs) ERAS Standard ERAS (lap)
30 31 64
58.76 (9.66) 56.87 (9.16) 59 (49–71) 62.5 (45–72) 64 (40–71) 64.5 (49–75) 52.64 (11.57) 57.45 (14.54) 54.98 (11.35) 55.79 (10.06) 57.6 (10.9) 58.5 (10.1) 63 (12) 62 (11) 62.4 (7.8)
33 distal, 6 proximal, total 35 distal, 6 proximal, total 22 distal, 5 proximal, total 23 distal, 7 proximal, total 12 distal, 4 proximal, total 11 distal, 3 proximal, total 32 distal, 6 proximal, total 36 distal, 6 proximal, total 19 distal
30 35.5 51.6
30 Lap 31 Lap 64 Open
7/14/9 8/10/13 19/28/17
0/13/17/0 0/13/18/0 9/34/21/0
64
63 (7.4)
45.3
64 Open
16/23/25
13/32/19/0
64
80.1 (4)
42.2
64 Open
15/29/20
8/30/26/0
64
79.6 (3.5)
37.5
64 Open
11/29/24
9/27/28/0
67 60 21
72.9 (6.7) 71.8 (8.0) 69.2 (5.1)
26.9 21.7 52.4
67 Lap 60 Lap 21 Lap
– – 6/9/6
13/43/11/0 10/36/14/0 2/10/9/0
Standard (lap)
21
67.8 (3.9)
57.1
21 Open
5/10/4
3/9/9/0
ERAS (open) Standard (open) ERAS
21 21
70.3 (5.8) 68.6 (4.9)
42.9 47.6
21 Lap 21 Open
6/8/7 7/9/3
1/9/11/0 3/10/8/0
73
34.2
73 Lap
0/56/17
1/20/52/0
Standard
76
34.2
76 Lap
–
0/55/21
2/33/41/0
ERAS
73
32.9
63 Lap, 10 Open
55/8/10/0
69
29
60 Lap, 9 Open
25/0/30
47/7/15/0
60.0 46.7
30 Lap 30 Lap
54 distal, 5 proximal, 6 total 49 distal, 4 proximal, 6 total – –
32/0/28
Standard
61 (40–75) 63 (35–75) 68 (29–85) 67 (44–85) 60.2 (8.1) 60.12 (8.14) 56.3 (10.4) 54.5 (12.6) 42.96 (15.74)
21 distal, 9 total 23 distal, 8 total 38 distal, 11 proximal, 15 total 33 distal, 9 proximal, 22 total 35 distal, 7 proximal, 22 total 37 distal, 10 proximal, 17 total 32 distal, 35 total 36 distal, 24 total 12 distal, 4 proximal, 5 total 10 distal, 5 proximal, 6 total 9 distal, 6 proximal, 6 total 10 distal, 6 proximal, 5 total –
– –
1/15/13/1 2/12/13/3
28.3
46 Lap
46 distal
20/0/26
–
25.4
51 Lap
51 distal
21/0/30
–
45.7
35 Lap
–
–
6/14/11/4
42.9
35 Lap
–
–
He, 2010
Tang, 2010
Wang, 2010
Hu, 2012
Kim, 2012
Feng, 2013
Wang, 2014
Abdikarim, 2015 Bu, 2015
China
China
China
China
Korea
China
China
China China
Li, 2016
China
Liu, 2016
China
Mingjie, 2017
Tanaka, 2017
China
Japan
22
Xu, 2017
China
ERAS Standard
30 30
Kang, 2018
Korea
ERAS
46
Standard
51
ERAS
35
Standard
35
Zhang, 2018
China
6/12/12/5 (continued on next page)
77
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Table 1 (continued ) Study
Zhao, 2018
Country
China
Arm
ERAS Standard
N
54 52
Age (years)
% Female
Open/ Laparoscopic
Gastrectomy Type (distal/ proximal/total)
Reconstruction (B1/ B2/RNY)
Stage of Cancer (I/II/III/IV)
43.87 (16.01) 60.8 (9.4) 59.8 (7.9)
29.6 28.8
– –
24 distal, 30 total 21 distal, 31 total
0/24/30 0/21/31
3/16/14/20 1/11/17/23
(ERAS, enhanced recovery after surgery; LADG, laparoscopy-assisted radical distal gastrectomy; ODG, open distal gastrectomy).
test criteria. In addition, mean and standard deviation was estimated for studies that only reported median and interquartile range using the estimation method proposed by Wan et al. [10,11]. This allowed for one unified measure that could allow for pooling of continuous outcome. Assessment of heterogeneity was completed using the inconsistency (I2) statistic. We considered I2 higher than 50% to represent considerable heterogeneity. Funnel plot was generated to assess potential publication bias for meta-analysis containing at least 10 RCTs as fewer studies can lead to bias when distinguishing symmetry and asymmetry in the funnel plot [12]. Subgroup analysis was performed by surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic), type of gastric cancer surgery, and stage of cancer to assess for clinical and methodological sources of heterogeneity if methodologically feasible. Sensitivity analysis was performed based on studies’ risk of bias and missing data. 3. Results
publication bias (Appendix 2A). All other outcomes showed high degree of symmetry on the funnel plot, suggesting low chance of publication bias. GRADE quality of evidence profile is summarized in Table 3. All outcomes were rated down for risk of bias due to a lack of blinding and allocation concealment [35]. Evidence was rated down for inconsistency in all outcomes other than rate of complication and rate of readmission, because of high heterogeneity despite the presence of similar in terventions, comparisons, and surgeries. Overall, there was a moderate certainty of evidence for rate of complication and rate of readmission, which indicate that ERAS for gastric cancer surgery probably does not affect the rate of complications but does increase the rate of read missions compared to standard care. In addition, there was a low cer tainty of evidence for length of stay, hospital costs, time to first flatus, defecation, and oral intake, suggesting that ERAS for gastric cancer surgery may improve these outcomes.
3.1. Study characteristics
3.3. Postoperative length of stay
Among 3129 potentially eligible studies, a total of 18 RCTs [13–30] were eligible for inclusion (Fig. 1). A total of 1782 patients were included, with 890 randomized to the ERAS pathway and 892 to stan dard recovery. The median age of overall population was 61 years (range 43–80.1) with 37.5% patients being female. 8 studies performed a laparoscopic approach [19,20,22,25,26,29,31,32], 6 studies had an open approach [14,23,24,28,30,33], 2 studies had a mix of both approach with stratification of data by surgical approach [16,25], 1 had a mix of both approaches without stratification [34], and 1 did not report surgical approach [21]. 3 studies exclusively performed distal gastrectomies, 4 studies had a combination of distal and total gastrec tomies, and 7 studies had a combination of distal, proximal, and total gastrectomies. The detailed characteristics of patient and surgical characteristics of the included trials are reported in Table 1 and out comes of each trials are reported in Supplementary Table 1. Each RCT had varying elements of ERAS components, which is summarized in Table 2. In brief, most commonly implemented preoperative, perioper ative, and postoperative ERAS components were reduction of fasting times before surgery (17/18), standardization and optimization of anesthesia protocol (16/18), and early mobilization (18/18) respectively.
All trials included in this review reported postoperative length of stay (n ¼ 1782). Compared to standard recovery, patients randomized to the ERAS pathway had significantly shorter LOS by 1.78 days (MD -1.78, 95% CI -2.17 to 1.40, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 91%) (Fig. 2). ERAS arm had a significantly shorter LOS by 2.14 days in the open surgery subgroup (MD -2.14, 95% CI -2.71 to 1.57, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 82%) and 1.61 days in the laparoscopic surgery subgroup (MD -1.61, 95% CI -2.21 to 1.01, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 80%). 3.4. Hospital costs Total hospital costs were reported in 12 different trials (n ¼ 1172). Hospital costs were significantly lower in the ERAS group by 650 USD (MD -650, 95% CI -840 to 460, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 88%) (Fig. 3). Specifically, ERAS after open surgery had significantly lower cost by 510 USD (MD -510, 95% CI -890 to 140, P ¼ 0.008, I2 ¼ 89%) and by 740 USD (MD -740, 95% CI -1120 to 370, P ¼ 0.0001, I2 ¼ 88%) in lapa roscopic surgery. 3.5. Return to function related outcomes Recovery related outcomes such as time to first flatus after surgery (12 trials), first defecation after surgery (6 trials), first oral intake (7 trials), and first ambulation (3 trials) were reported. Time to first flatus (MD -0.53 days, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.33, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 91%) and time to first defecation (MD -1.03 days, 95% CI -1.43 to 0.63, P < 0.00001, I2 ¼ 86%) after surgery was significantly quicker in the ERAS group than the standard recovery group (Supplementary Figs. 1–2). Moreover, time to first ambulation and time to first oral intake after surgery was significantly shorter in the ERAS group (Supplementary Figs. 3–4). Subgroup analyses based on surgical approach did not alter the signifi cant difference that exists between the two groups across all recovery related outcomes except time to first ambulation for which a laparo scopic approach with ERAS did not result in a significant difference.
3.2. Quality assessment of studies A summary of the risk of bias across all studies is provided in Sup plementary Table 2. Random sequence generation was present in 100% of studies, allocation concealment in 56% of studies, blinding of par ticipants in 11% of studies, blinding of healthcare providers in 0% of studies, and blinding of outcome assessment in 17% of studies. Incom plete outcome data or loss to follow-up was adequately explained in 94% of studies, and 0% of studies had selective reporting of outcomes. Therefore, following the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the majority of studies had moderate selection bias, low attrition bias, but high per formance bias, detection bias, and reporting bias. Funnel plots were generated for LOS, hospital costs, postoperative complications, SSI, pulmonary infections, and time to first flatus (Appendix 2). The funnel plot of LOS revealed minor asymmetry, thus suggesting a possibility of 78
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
The rate of pulmonary infection was significantly lower in the ERAS (RR 0.48, 95% 0.28–0.82, P ¼ 0.007, I2 ¼ 0%, 13 trials) (Supplementary Fig. 5). Conversely, there was no difference in the rate of SSI (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.46–1.42, P ¼ 0.46, I2 ¼ 0%, 16 trials), rate of anastomotic leak (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.43–1.73, P ¼ 0.67, I2 ¼ 0%, 15 trials), nor the overall rate of postoperative complications (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64–1.25, P ¼ 0.51, I2 ¼ 55%) (Supplementary Fig. 6). From 8 trials (n ¼ 938) that reported the rate of readmission, ERAS group had significantly higher rate of readmission than the standard recovery group (RR 2.43, 95% 1.09–5.43, P ¼ 0.03, I2 ¼ 0%) (Supplementary Fig. 8). Discharge criteria are essential to prevent readmission in ERAS and were reported in 12 out of 18 trials (Supplementary Table 3). However, the statistical signifi cance of this outcome driven by the trial by Bu et al. in the open surgery subgroup [30]. Specific complications such as rate of reoperation (n ¼ 3), mortality (n ¼ 0), and ileus (n ¼ 15) was not meta-analyzed due to the very low event rate present across all trials, however this data was collected and is reported in Supplementary Table 4.
✓
Majority of the included trials performed surgery on Stage I to III resectable gastric cancer patients, with the exception of one trial that exclusively enrolled patients who had gastric cancer surgery after neo adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced gastric cancer [21]. Sensitivity analysis by removing this study from the meta-analysis revealed no change in significance across all outcomes. Moreover, sensitivity analysis based on high versus low risk of bias of studies and studies with missing SD revealed no change in significance. Subgroup analysis based on type of gastrectomy or type of reconstruction could not conducted due to majority of studies not stratifying the outcomes by these factors.
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
3.7. Additional analyses
✓ ✓
In this meta-analysis of 18 RCTs enrolling 1782 patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery, an ERAS protocol was associated with reductions in the LOS, hospital costs, time to flatus, time to defecation, time to ambulation, and time to oral intake after surgery. While an ERAS pro tocol did reduce the rate of pulmonary complications, it did not affect the rate of SSI, anastomotic leak, and overall rate of postoperative complications. Conversely, rate of readmissions were higher in the ERAS group, although this was largely caused by the study by Bu et al. which included patients aged 75–89 years [30]. Despite the inclusion of only RCTs, the overall quality of evidence was low to moderate across all outcomes according to GRADE. The effect of ERAS on gastric cancer surgery was been studied with great interest and guidelines have been created by the ERAS society detailing the benefits of its individual components [3]. Several previous meta-analyses on this topic have been published, including meta-analyses from 2015 to 2018 which included 6 to 13 RCTs [36–39]. The results of the present review agree with the reduced LOS, decreased hospital costs, reduced time to flatus, and no changes in complications found by previous studies. Our review also confirms the increased rate of readmissions found in the most recent review by Wee et al. but builds on it by including an additional 4 RCTs, found by conducting a thorough search of the literature alongside the inclusion of foreign language studies [40]. The present review also examines new and patient-important outcomes including time to ambulation, oral intake, defecation, as well as specific complications data such as SSI, pulmonary infections, and anastomotic leaks. This review also reports the elements of ERAS implemented in individual RCTs, revealing the heterogeneous components of the ERAS protocol implemented across trials. Finally, our study differs from previous reviews in its rigorous assessment of included studies, both on the individual study level for risk of bias using
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
4. Discussion
Wang, 2009 He, 2010 Tang, 2010 Wang, 2010 Hu, 2012 Kim, 2012 Feng, 2013 Wang, 2014 Abdikarim, 2015 Bu, 2015 Li, 2016 Liu, 2016 Mingjie, 2017 Tanaka, 2017 Xu, 2017 Kang, 2018 Zhang, 2018 Zhao, 2018
Carbohydrate Loading Reduce Fasting Times
✓ ✓
Urinary Catheter Removal
Postoperative
Narrow Incision Size Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Active prevention of hypothermia Avoidance of NG Tubes/ Intraabdominal Drains Optimize Anesthesia Protocols
Multimodal Anesthesia Perioperative
Preoperative Information/ Counselling
No Bowel Preparation Preoperative Studies
Table 2 Summary of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) elements included in the randomized controlled trials.
✓
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
3.6. Postoperative complications
Early Progression to Food
Early Mobilization
Y. Lee et al.
79
Y. Lee et al.
Table 3 GRADE certainty of evidence summary table for meta-analysis. GRADE Certainty Assessment N� of Studies
Risk of bias
Summary of Findings Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Publication bias
N� of patients ERAS
Standard
Effect (95% CI)
Overall certainty of evidence
80
Postoperative Length of Hospital Stay 18 studies serious serious
not serious
Not serious
Serious
890
892
MD -1.78 (95% CI -2.17 to
1.40)
Hospital Costs (U.S. Dollars) 12 studies serious
���� LOW
serious
not serious
Not serious
none
585
587
MD -0.65 (95% CI -0.84 to
0.46)
Time to First Flatus After Surgery 12 studies serious
���� LOW
serious
not serious
not serious
none
649
647
MD -0.53 (95% CI -0.74 to
0.33)
Time to First Defecation After Surgery 6 studies serious serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
none
297
298
MD -1.03 (95% CI -1.43 to
0.63)
Time to First Oral Intake After Surgery 7 studies serious serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
none
343
344
MD -1.90 (95% CI -2.62 to
1.19)
Rate of Complication After Surgery 15 studies serious
���� LOW
not serious
not serious
not serious
none
694
695
RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.25)
Rate of Readmission After Surgery 8 studies serious
���� MODERATE
not serious
not serious
not serious
none
470
468
RR 2.43 (95% CI 1.09 to 5.43)
���� MODERATE
1. Downgraded one point, majority of studies were not adequately blinded, lack of allocation concealment. 2. Downgraded one-point, high I2 heterogeneity above 80% despite similar intervention and comparison and similar surgeries. 3. Low I2 heterogeneity, overlapping confidence intervals, identical intervention and comparison, and similar surgeries (either LSG or LRYGB). 4. All included RCTs directly compare the interventions of interest, measure the outcomes of interest, and in the populations of interest. While the exact definition of ERAS did differ slightly between studies, the majority of studies in each outcome had the same key components of ERAS. 5. No imprecision because sample sizes are sufficiently large and exceed 400. 6. No publication bias upon examination of funnel plot, inclusion of foreign language studies including from unindexed journals and with small sample size.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Fig. 2. Pairwise random effects meta-analysis forest plot comparing ERAS versus standard recovery after gastric cancer surgeries on postoperative length of stay.
the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and on the body of evidence level using GRADE. The results of the present meta-analysis also agree with previous studies investigating the application of ERAS in other surgical settings, including colorectal cancer. Decreased LOS, reduced hospital costs, and earlier return to function have been previously reported as outcomes after ERAS implementation in the case of colorectal cancer as well as pancreatic cancer surgery [4,5,41–44]. However, the increase in read mission noted by the present review as well as previous reviews, is not an expected outcome of ERAS. Increased readmission rates may be caused by inadequate compliance to ERAS components, insufficient follow-up, or by symptoms missed during initial hospitalization. More over, this may be a natural consequence of ERAS in gastric cancer sur geries. A study by Francis et al. investigated factors associated with readmissions after colorectal cancer surgery in an ERAS setting, and found poor ERAS compliance to be an independent predictor of read mission [45]. Appropriate compliance may be especially difficult to ascertain given that no studies evaluated compliance with ERAS and ERAS components varied substantially amongst studies. In the setting of colorectal surgery, studies have demonstrated that when implementing a multicomponent ERAS protocol, full compliance is difficult to reach, and that while compliance prior and during surgery is high, post operative compliance decreases [46]. Two of the included studies re ported quality of life outcomes but one used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality-of-life questionnaire C-30 at 2 weeks after discharge while the other measured quality of life at the time of discharge [24,26]. While a meta-analysis could not be
conducted, both studies reported improved quality of life scores in the ERAS group compared to conventional care [24,26]. This study has several limitations. First, substantial heterogeneity existed for all outcomes. This may be because the components included in an ERAS protocol varied between studies and compliance was not reported. These variations may be explained by the relatively recent publication of consensus guidelines recommending components for an ERAS protocol in gastric cancer surgery, as well as the lack of evidence supporting many individual components of ERAS [3]. Our review re ported the major ERAS components present in individual studies to provide full transparency. Second, the mean age of participants, ranged from 43 to 83, and no studies in the current literature reported outcomes stratified by cancer stage, precluding subgroup analysis. The stage of gastric cancer, a factor known to influence outcomes after surgery, varied between studies in our review [47]. However, the findings of our meta-analysis were supported by a large number of trials across a range of ages and cancer stages. Third, the reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgical trials, particularly adverse events is known to be inconsistent, and in our review, the definition of an adverse event varied between included trials [48]. Consequently, we reported a wide range of complications (Supplementary Table 4) in detail and conducted separate analyses for common complications including pulmonary infection, SSI, and anastomotic leak. Fourth, all included trials were conducted in Asia, with 15 studies being conducted in China and with a high risk of bias. The prevalence of risk factors for gastric cancer such as Helicobacter pylori infection, dietary habits, and genetics are known to differ between Asian and Western countries, and both the incidence and survival after 81
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Fig. 3. Pairwise random effects meta-analysis forest plot comparing ERAS versus standard recovery after gastric cancer surgeries on total hospital costs (in U. S. Dollars).
gastric cancer is known to be higher in Asia than in Western countries such as the United States [1]. In particular, South Korea, Japan, and China have the first, third, and fourth highest incidences of gastric cancer globally, potentially limiting the applicability of the present re view to Western countries [1]. Nonetheless, a strength of the present review is the inclusion of foreign language studies that were excluded by previous reviews, allowing for a comprehensive analysis. Fifth, this re view did not identify any multicenter studies and many of the included trials had small sample sizes. Future high quality clinical trials are needed that incorporate the ERAS protocol suggested in the recently published consensus guidelines [3], report a standard set of patient outcomes, use the laparoscopic approach which has been adopted for other surgeries including colorectal surgery, and set criteria for moni toring hospital readmissions prior to the start of the trial.
patient-important outcomes including length of stay, time to ambula tion, and time to oral intake, the overall quality of evidence supporting such outcomes was low to moderate. The most important components of an ERAS protocol are still unclear due to a lack of evidence supporting individual components of ERAS in the gastric cancer surgery, and ERAS protocols varied across studies. Future trials investigating ERAS should investigate the outcomes of individual components of an ERAS protocol or implement a homogenous protocol while emphasizing and reporting protocol compliance as well as further details including reasons for readmissions and resulting healthcare costs. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
5. Conclusions
Declaration of competing interest
The findings of the present study join a growing body of literature supporting the implementation of ERAS in gastric cancer surgery. In the context of growing healthcare costs, the decreased hospital costs iden tified in this review are an appealing finding, however they must be considering against the possibility of increased readmissions, and their associated costs. Furthermore, while improvements were noted in
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.11.004.
82
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 1. Complete search strategy (Medline database example) OVID Medline Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R) 1946 to Jan 2019 1. exp Stomach Neoplasms 2. Gastric cancer.mp. 3. Stomach cancer.mp. 4. Gastric carcinoma.mp. 5. Stomach carcinoma.mp. 6. Gastric carcinomas.mp. 7. Stomach carcinomas.mp. 8. exp gastrectomy/9. gastric resection.mp. 10. gastric surgery.mp. 11. or/1-10 12. ERAS.mp. 13. Enhanced recovery after surgery.mp. 14. Enhanced recovery.mp. 15. Early recovery.mp. 16. exp critical pathways/17. clinical pathway.mp. 18. multimodal perioperative.mp. 19. perioperative protocol.mp. 20. exp postoperative care/21. fast track.mp. 22. or/11-21 23. 11 and 22
Appendix 2A. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing postoperative length of stay
Appendix 2B. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing hospital costs
83
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 2C. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing time to first flatus
Appendix 2D. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing time to first oral intake
Appendix 2E. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing pulmonary infections
84
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
Appendix 2F. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing surgical site infections
Appendix 2G. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing anastomotic leaks
Appendix 2H. Funnel plot of meta-analysis assessing overall postoperative complication
85
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
References
[22] X.-F. Zhang, W. Zhong, Effect of fast track surgery concept based nursing intervention on rehabilitation and nursing satisfaction in patients with advanced gastric cancer after laparoscopic assisted D2 radical operation, World Chin. J. Dig. 26 (2018) 325–331, https://doi.org/10.11569/wcjd.v26.i5.325. [23] Y. Tang, X. Wu, B. Wei, L. Chen, R. Li, Clinical application of perioperative fasttrack and nutrition support program in elderly patients with gastric cancer, Chinese J. Clin. Nutr. 18 (2010) 137–140. [24] D. Wang, Y. Kong, B. Zhong, Fast-track Surgery Improves Postoperative Recovery in Patients with Gastric Cancer : A Randomized Comparison with Conventional Postoperative Care, 2010, pp. 620–627, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-0091139-5. [25] J. Hu, L. Jiang, L. Cai, H. Zheng, Preliminary Experience of Fast-Track Surgery Combined with Laparoscopy-Assisted Radical Distal Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer, 2012, pp. 1830–1839, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-012-1969-4. [26] J.W. Kim, W.S. Kim, J.-H. Cheong, W.J. Hyung, S.-H. Choi, S.H. Noh, Safety and efficacy of fast-track surgery in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized clinical trial, World J. Surg. 36 (2012) 2879–2887, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00268-012-1741-7. [27] W. H, S. Y, F. M, Z. Y, J. W, X. S, T. L, Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches, J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 149 (2015) 1006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.12.063. [28] G. Wang, Y. Yang, B. Zhou, Y. Chen, C. Jin, Z. Wang, Z. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Feng, [Promotion of postoperative recovery with fast track surgery for gastric cancer patients undergoing gastrectomy: a prospective randomized controlled study], Chinese J. Gastrointest. Surg. 17 (2014) 489–491. [29] I. Abdikarim, X. Cao, S. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Taupyk, Q. Wang, Enhanced Recovery after Surgery with Laparoscopic Radical Gastrectomy for Stomach Carcinomas, vol 21, 2015, pp. 13339–13344, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i47.13339. [30] J. Bu, N. Li, X. Huang, S. He, J. Wen, X. Wu, Feasibility of Fast-Track Surgery in Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer, 2015, pp. 1391–1398, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11605-015-2839-7. [31] F. Feng, G. Ji, J. Li, X. Li, H. Shi, Z. Zhao, G. Wu, X. Liu, Fast-track surgery could improve postoperative recovery in radical total gastrectomy patients 19 (2013) 3642–3648, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i23.3642. [32] S. R, L. T, Buprenorphine-related complications in elderly hospitalised patients: a case series, Anaesth, Intensive Care 45 (2017) 256–261. http://www.aaic.net. au/Document/pdf.ashx?D¼20160109. [33] A.Z. LaCroix, R.T. Chlebowski, J.E. Manson, A.K. Aragaki, K.C. Johnson, L. Martin, K.L. Margolis, M.L. Stefanick, R. Brzyski, J.D. Curb, B.V. Howard, C.E. Lewis, J. Wactawski-Wende, W.H.I. Investigators, C.R.T.M.J.E.A.A.K.J.K.C.M.L.M.K.L.S. M.L.B.R.C.J.D.H.B.V.L.C.E, Health outcomes after stopping conjugated equine estrogens among postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial, J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305 (2011) 1305–1314, https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jama.2011.382. [34] T. Matsumoto, T. Uchida, T. Ono, K. Hirayama, F. Fukumura, H. Ando, J. Tanaka, Bronchial artery aneurysm treated using aortic stent graft alone: a case report, Ann. Vasc. Dis. 10 (2017) 152–154, https://doi.org/10.3400/avd.cr.16-00091. [35] G. H, H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, Guyatt, GRADE guidelines: rating the quality of evidence, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011) 401–406, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. [36] A.J. Beamish, D.S.Y. Chan, P.A. Blake, A. Karran, W.G. Lewis, Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in gastric cancer surgery, Int. J. Surg. 19 (2015) 46–54, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2015.05.021. [37] S. Chen, Z. Zou, F. Chen, Z. Huang, G. Li, A meta-analysis of fast track surgery for patients with gastric cancer undergoing gastrectomy, Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 97 (2015) 3–10, https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2015.97.1.3. [38] M.-Z. Li, W.-H. Wu, L. Li, X.-F. Zhou, H.-L. Zhu, J.-F. Li, Y.-L. He, Is ERAS effective and safe in laparoscopic gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma? A meta-analysis, World J. Surg. Oncol. 16 (2018) 17, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1309-6. [39] L.-H. Wang, R.-F. Zhu, C. Gao, S.-L. Wang, L.-Z. Shen, Application of enhanced recovery after gastric cancer surgery: an updated meta-analysis, World J. Gastroenterol. 24 (2018) 1562–1578, https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i14.1562. [40] I.J.Y. Wee, N.L.-X. Syn, A. Shabbir, G. Kim, J.B.Y. So, Enhanced Recovery versus Conventional Care in Gastric Cancer Surgery: a Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-randomized Controlled Trials, Gastric Cancer, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10120-019-00937-9. [41] M. Pędziwiatr, J. Mavrikis, J. Witowski, A. Adamos, P. Major, M. Nowakowski, A. Budzy� nski, Current status of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery, Med. Oncol. 35 (2018) 95, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12032-018-1153-0. [42] F. Paton, D. Chambers, P. Wilson, A. Eastwood, D. Craig, D. Fox, D. Jayne, E. McGinnes, Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis, BMJ Open 4 (2014) e005015, https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005015. [43] D.J. Kagedan, M. Ahmed, K.S. Devitt, A.C. Wei, Enhanced recovery after pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of the evidence, HPB 17 (2015) 11–16, https://doi. org/10.1111/hpb.12265. [44] J. Xiong, P. Szatmary, W. Huang, D. de la Iglesia-Garcia, Q.M. Nunes, Q. Xia, W. Hu, R. Sutton, X. Liu, M.G. Raraty, Enhanced recovery after surgery program in
[1] F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R.L. Siegel, L.A. Torre, A. Jemal, Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA, Cancer J. Clin. 68 (2018) 394–424, https://doi.org/ 10.3322/caac.21492. [2] W.A. Papenfuss, M. Kukar, J. Oxenberg, K. Attwood, S. Nurkin, U. Malhotra, N. W. Wilkinson, Morbidity and mortality associated with gastrectomy for gastric cancer, Ann. Surg. Oncol. 21 (2014) 3008–3014, https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434014-3664-z. [3] K. Mortensen, M. Nilsson, K. Slim, M. Sch€ afer, C. Mariette, M. Braga, F. Carli, N. Demartines, S.M. Griffin, K. Lassen, Consensus guidelines for enhanced recovery after gastrectomy, Br. J. Surg. 101 (2014) 1209–1229, https://doi.org/10.1002/ bjs.9582. [4] K.K. Varadhan, K.R. Neal, C.H.C. Dejong, K.C.H. Fearon, O. Ljungqvist, D.N. Lobo, 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 (2010) 434–440, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004. [5] A. Visioni, R. Shah, E. Gabriel, K. Attwood, M. Kukar, S. Nurkin, Enhanced recovery after surgery for noncolorectal surgery? Ann. Surg. 267 (2018) 57–65, https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002267. [6] A. Liberati, D.G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P.C. Gøtzsche, J.P.A. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, D. Moher, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, PLoS Med. 6 (2009) e1000100, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [7] J.P.T. Higgins, D.G. Altman, P.C. Gøtzsche, P. Jüni, D. Moher, A.D. Oxman, J. Savovic, K.F. Schulz, L. Weeks, J.A.C. Sterne, Cochrane bias methods group, Cochrane statistical methods group, the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials, BMJ 343 (2011) d5928, https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.d5928. [8] H. Balshem, M. Helfand, H.J. Schünemann, A.D. Oxman, R. Kunz, J. Brozek, G. E. Vist, Y. Falck-Ytter, J. Meerpohl, S. Norris, G.H. Guyatt, GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence, J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64 (2011) 401–406, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015. [9] G.H. Guyatt, A.D. Oxman, G.E. Vist, R. Kunz, Y. Falck-Ytter, P. Alonso-Coello, H. J. Schünemann, GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, Chin. J. Evidence-Based Med. 9 (2009) 8–11, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. [10] X. Wan, W. Wang, J. Liu, T. Tong, Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14 (2014) 135, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-135. [11] C.J. Weir, I. Butcher, V. Assi, S.C. Lewis, G.D. Murray, P. Langhorne, M.C. Brady, Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review, BMC Med. Res. Methodol. (2018), https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0483-0. [12] J. Lau, The case of the misleading funnel plot, BMJ 333 (2006) 597–600, https:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597. [13] D. Wang, Y. Zhou, Y. Kong, Q. Wang, H. Wang, [Observation of fast track surgery in patients with gastric cancer], Chinese J. Gastrointest. Surg. 12 (2009) 462–466. [14] Z. He, Y. Tang, H. Wu, B. Wei, L. Chen, R. Li, Benefits of perioperative fast-track surgery program on clinical outcome in patients with gastric cancer, Chinese J. Clin. Nutr. 18 (2010) 29–32. [15] M. T M, G. Z, G. K M, Giant cell tumour of the patella with local recurrence: successful management with excision, curettage and artificial bone grafting, BMJ Case Rep. (2018) 221275, https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2017-221275, 2018. [16] G. Liu, F. Jian, X. Wang, L. Chen, Fast-track surgery protocol in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a randomized controlled trial, OncoTargets Ther. 9 (2016) 3345, https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT. S107443. [17] X. Mingjie, Z. Luyao, T. Ze, Z. YinQuan, W. Quan, Laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for resectable Advanced gastric cancer within enhanced recovery programs: a prospective randomized controlled trial, J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 27 (2017) 959–964, https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2016.0057. [18] R. Tanaka, S.L. Masaru, K. Keitaro, Protocol for enhanced recovery after surgery improves short-term outcomes for patients with gastric cancer : a randomized clinical trial, Gastric Cancer 20 (2017) 861–871, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120016-0686-1. [19] X. Xu, J. Xu, Application of enhanced recovery after surgery in laparoscopyassisted distal gastrectomy, Cancer Res. Clin. 29 (2017) 180–183. [20] S.H. Kang, Y. Lee, S. Min, Y.S. Park, S. Ahn, Multimodal enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program is the optimal perioperative care in patients undergoing totally laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric Cancer : a prospective , randomized , clinical trial, Ann. Surg. Oncol. 25 (2018) 3231–3238, https://doi. org/10.1245/s10434-018-6625-0. [21] J. Zhao, G. Wang, Z.W. Jiang, C.W. Jiang, J. Liu, C.C. Xia, J.S. Li, Patients administered neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be enrolled into an enhanced recovery after surgery program for locally advanced, Gastric Cancer 131 (2018) 413–420, https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.225047.
86
Y. Lee et al.
Surgical Oncology 32 (2020) 75–87
patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, Medicine (Baltim.) 95 (2016) e3497, https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000003497. [45] N.K. Francis, J. Mason, E. Salib, L. Allanby, D. Messenger, A.S. Allison, N.J. Smart, J.B. Ockrim, Factors predicting 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery programme, Colorectal Dis. 17 (2015) O148–O154, https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.13002. [46] J. Maessen, C.H.C. Dejong, J. Hausel, J. Nygren, K. Lassen, J. Andersen, A.G. H. Kessels, A. Revhaug, H. Kehlet, O. Ljungqvist, K.C.H. Fearon, M.F. von Meyenfeldt, A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery
programme for colorectal resection, Br. J. Surg. 94 (2007) 224–231, https://doi. org/10.1002/bjs.5468. [47] M. Sasako, S. Sakuramoto, H. Katai, T. Kinoshita, H. Furukawa, T. Yamaguchi, A. Nashimoto, M. Fujii, T. Nakajima, Y. Ohashi, Five-year outcomes of a randomized phase III trial comparing adjuvant chemotherapy with S-1 versus surgery alone in stage II or III gastric cancer, J. Clin. Oncol. 29 (2010), https://doi. org/10.1200/JCO.2011.37.5691. [48] B. Alkhaffaf, J.M. Blazeby, P.R. Williamson, I.A. Bruce, A.-M. Glenny, Reporting of outcomes in gastric cancer surgery trials: a systematic review, BMJ Open 8 (2018) e021796, https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOPEN-2018-021796.
87