Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objective To assess the relative influence of ERAS and conventional perioperative regimens on both short-term clinical outcomes and long-term prognosis in individuals diagnosed with gastric cancer.Methods A retrospective examination was undertaken on individuals who underwent radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer at the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from December 2015 to March 2017. The subjects were stratified into two cohorts: the conventional group and the ERAS group, based on the implementation of ERAS protocols. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was employed to minimize potential confounding variables between the two cohorts. Subsequently, the recent clinical outcomes of both groups were systematically observed and compared. The 5-year survival rates of patients in the respective groups were evaluated, and factors influencing survival were subjected to analysis.Results A total of 211 patients were initially enrolled in the study, with 15 patients excluded based on predefined exclusion criteria. This resulted in the inclusion of 196 patients before matching, and after PSM, a total of 82 patients were ultimately included in the analysis. Relative to the conventional cohort, the ERAS group demonstrated statistically noteworthy reductions in intraoperative hemorrhage, postoperative duration until commencement of enteral feeding, time required for postoperative ambulation, duration until the onset of anal exhaust, and overall hospitalization period. The 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in ERAS group compared to the traditional group.Conclusions Implementation of ERAS in patients with gastric cancer is deemed feasible and safe. The recent clinical outcomes under ERAS demonstrated significant improvements. Furthermore, ERAS exhibited the potential to enhance the 5-year survival rate.
Lai et al. (Fri,) studied this question.