Abstract
BACKGROUND: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been consistently associated with improved patient experience and surgical outcomes. Despite the release of ERAS Society guidelines specific to gynecologic oncology, the adoption of ERAS in gynecology on global level has been disappointingly low and some centers have shown minimal improvement in clinical outcomes after adopting ERAS. The aim of this study is to describe the development and early experience of ERAS protocols in gynecologic surgery at an urban academic tertiary medical center. METHODS: This was an observational prospective cohort study. The target patient population included those with low comorbidities who were scheduled to undergo various types of gynecologic surgeries for both benign and malignant diseases between October 2020 and February 2021. Two attending surgeons implemented the protocols for their patients (ERAS cohort) while three attending surgeons maintained the conventional perioperative care for their patients (non-ERAS cohort). Baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes and patients' answers to a 12-question survey were compared. A case-matched comparative analysis was also performed between the ERAS cohort and the historical non-ERAS cohort (those who received the same types of surgical procedures from the two ERAS attending surgeons prior to the implementation of the protocols). RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were evaluated (122 in the ERAS cohort vs. 122 in the non-ERAS cohort). The number of vials of opioid analgesia used during the first two postoperative days was significantly lower whereas the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen was more frequent in the ERAS cohort group. The patients in the ERAS group reported less postoperative pain, feelings of hunger and thirst, and greater amount of exercise postoperatively. These benefits of the ERAS cohort were more pronounced in the patients who underwent laparotomic surgeries than those who underwent laparoscopic surgeries. The case-matched comparative analysis also showed similar results. The length of hospital stay did not differ between those who underwent the ERAS protocols and those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrated the safety, clinical feasibility and benefits of the ERAS protocols for patients undergoing gynecologic surgeries for both benign and malignant indications.