Does enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improve clinical outcomes and reduce hospital stay in patients undergoing cesarean section?
ERAS protocols for cesarean section significantly reduce length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, pain, opioid use, and hospital costs without increasing readmissions.
Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been adopted in some maternity units and studied extensively in cesarean section (CS) in the last years, showing encouraging results in clinic practice. However, the present evidence assessing the effectiveness of ERAS for CS remains weak, and there is a paucity in the published literature, especially in improving maternal outcomes. Our study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of ERAS protocols for CS. Methods: A systematic literature search using Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library was carried out up to October 2020. The appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies applying ERAS for patients undergoing CS were included in this study, comparing the effect of ERAS protocols with conventional care on length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, incidence of postoperative complications, postoperative pain score, postoperative opioid use, and cost of hospitalization. All statistical analyses were conducted with the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Ten studies (four RCTs and six observational studies) involving 16,391 patients were included. ERAS was associated with a decreased LOS (WMD -7.47 h, 95% CI: -8.36 to -6.59 h, p p p p p p = 0.62). Conclusions: The available evidence suggested that ERAS applying to CS significantly reduced postoperative complications, lowered the postoperative pain score and opioid use, shortened the hospital stay, and potentially reduced hospital cost without compromising readmission rates. Therefore, protocols implementing ERAS in CS appear to be effective and safe. However, the results should be interpreted with caution owing to the limited number and methodological quality of included studies; hence, future large, well-designed, and better methodological quality studies are needed to enhance the body of evidence.
Meng et al. (Mon,) studied this question.