scholarly journals Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols Decrease Outpatient Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Abdominally Based Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction

2020 ◽  
Vol 146 (6) ◽  
pp. 818e-819e
Author(s):  
Stefano Bonomi ◽  
Laura Sala ◽  
Umberto Cortinovis
2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (09) ◽  
pp. 695-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol E. Soteropulos ◽  
Sherry Y.Q. Tang ◽  
Samuel O. Poore

Background Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) principles have received focused attention in breast reconstruction. Many protocols have been described in the literature for both autologous and alloplastic reconstruction. This systematic review serves to better characterize successful ERAS protocols described in the literature for potential ease of adoption at institutions desiring implementation. Methods A systematic review of ERAS protocols for autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Database, and Web of Science. Results Eleven cohort studies evaluating ERAS protocols for autologous (n = 8) and alloplastic (n = 3) breast reconstruction were included for review. The majority compared with a retrospective cohort of traditional perioperative care. All studies described the full spectrum of implemented ERAS protocols including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. Most frequently reported significant outcomes were reduced length of stay and opioid use with ERAS implementation. No significant change in major complication or readmission rate was demonstrated. Conclusion Based on this systematic review, several core elements that make up a successful perioperative enhanced recovery protocol for breast reconstruction have been identified. Elements include patient counseling and education, limited preoperative fasting, appropriate thromboprophylaxis and antibiotic prophylaxis dependent on reconstructive method, preoperative antiemetics, multimodal analgesia and use of local anesthetic, goal-directed intravenous fluid management, prompt removal of drains and catheters, early diet advancement, and encouragement of ambulation postoperatively. Implementation of ERAS protocols in both autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction can positively enhance patient experience and improve outcomes by reducing length of stay and opioid use, without compromising successful reconstructive outcomes.


Author(s):  
Nicholas T. Haddock ◽  
Ricardo Garza ◽  
Carolyn E. Boyle ◽  
Sumeet S. Teotia

Abstract Background The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol is a multivariate intervention requiring the help of several departments, including anesthesia, nursing, and surgery. This study seeks to observe ERAS compliance rates and obstacles for its implementation at a single academic institution. Methods This is a retrospective study looking at patients who underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction from January 2016 to September 2019. The ERAS protocol was implemented on select patients early 2017, with patients from 2016 acting as a control. Thirteen points from the protocol were identified and gathered from the patient's electronic medical record (EMR) to evaluate compliance. Results Two hundred and six patients were eligible for the study, with 67 on the control group. An average of 6.97 components were met in the pre-ERAS group. This number rose to 8.33 by the end of 2017. Compliance peaked with 10.53 components met at the beginning of 2019. The interventions most responsible for this increase were administration of preoperative medications, goal-oriented intraoperative fluid management, and administration of scheduled gabapentin postoperatively. The least met criterion was intraoperative ketamine goal of >0.2 mg/kg/h, with a maximum compliance rate of 8.69% of the time. Conclusion The introduction of new protocols can take over a year for full implementation. This is especially true for protocols as complex as an ERAS pathway. Even after years of consistent use, compliance gaps remain. Staff-, patient-, or resource-related issues are responsible for these discrepancies. It is important to identify these issues to address them and optimize patient outcomes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 133 (1) ◽  
pp. 119S-119S ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily E. Fay ◽  
Carlos C. Delgado ◽  
Jane Hitti ◽  
Leah Savitsky ◽  
Elizabeth Mills ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 173 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anaeze C. Offodile ◽  
Cindy Gu ◽  
Stefanos Boukovalas ◽  
Christopher J. Coroneos ◽  
Abhishek Chatterjee ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e1634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arezoo Astanehe ◽  
Claire Temple-Oberle ◽  
Markus Nielsen ◽  
William de Haas ◽  
Robert Lindsay ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Merry Peckham ◽  
Erin Creighton ◽  
Mikayla Troughton ◽  
Jessica Yeh ◽  
Riley Lide ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 242 ◽  
pp. 276-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Banafsheh Sharif-Askary ◽  
Eliza Hompe ◽  
Gloria Broadwater ◽  
Rachel Anolik ◽  
Scott T. Hollenbeck

2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-519 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique Hedderson ◽  
Derrick Lee ◽  
Eric Hunt ◽  
Kimberly Lee ◽  
Fei Xu ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document