Open AccessEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for esophagectomy protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Author(s) -
Feiyu Liu,
Wei Wang,
Chengde Wang,
Xiaonu Peng
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.59
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1536-5964
pISSN - 0025-7974
DOI - 10.1097/md.0000000000010016
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , medline , systematic review , esophagectomy , protocol (science) , randomized controlled trial , perioperative , esophageal cancer , intensive care medicine , general surgery , surgery , alternative medicine , cancer , pathology , political science , law
Abstract Background: Esophageal cancer is one of the worst malignant digestive neoplasms with poor treatment outcomes. Esophagectomy plays an important role and offers a potential curable chance to these patients. However, esophagectomy with radical lymphadenectomy is known as one of the most invasive digestive surgeries which are associated with high morbidity and mortality. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol is a patient-centered, surgeon-led system combining anesthesia, nursing, nutrition, and psychology, which is designed for reducing complications, promoting recovery, and improving treatment outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis is aiming at how beneficial, and to what extent ERAS really will be. Methods: A systematic literature search will be performed through January 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar for relevant articles published in any language. Randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and propensity-matched comparative studies will be included. All meta-analyses will be performed using Review Manager software. The quality of the studies will be evaluated using the guidelines listed in the Cochrane Handbook. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements will be followed until the findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis are reported. Results: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion: Our study will draw an objective conclusion of the comparisons between ERAS and conventional care in aspects of perioperative outcomes and provide level I evidences for clinical decision makings.