Conventional versus enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in emergency gastrointestinal tract surgery: a randomized clinical trial

Background
Compared with elective operations, emergency abdominal surgery is more likely to result in perioperative morbidity and mortality. Implementation of care programs could be beneficial for such patients to decrease complication rates. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a complex perioperative approach that has proven its efficacy in multiple elective procedures. Nonetheless, its efficacy in emergency abdominal surgery has been questioned. Herein, we compared the ERAS and conventional approaches in the management of such patients.
Patients and methods
Sixty adult patients were enrolled in our randomized prospective trial, and they were assigned to two groups; the conventional and ERAS groups. The duration of hospitalization was the main outcome.
Results
Preoperative characteristics, presentation, and surgical operations were comparable between the two study groups. A perforated duodenal ulcer was the most common diagnosis and was treated by through and through suture with the omental patch (36%) followed by resection anastomosis (36%) in patients with ischemic loop or patients with severely injured loops, and primary repair in simple injury (28%). The hospitalization period decreased significantly in ERAS patients (5.9 vs. 10.5 days in the conventional group <0.001). The ERAS protocol had a significant beneficial impact on postoperative recovery, which manifested in earlier nasogastric tube removal, drain removal, bowel sounds, bowel motion, and oral intake compared with the conventional group. The incidence of postoperative complications especially surgical site infection increased significantly with the conventional perioperative regimen (36.7% vs. 13.3% after ERAS =0.034).
Conclusion
ERAS has multiple advantages over the conventional approach when implemented in emergency surgery patients and is recommended in emergency surgical practice.