Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols is extermely beneficial in liver surgeries. A metaanalysis.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs aim to improve postoperative outcomes.. This metaanalysis aims to evaluate the impact of ERAS programmes on outcomes following liver surgeries. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and the Cochrane Database were searched for studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing liver surgery utilizing ERAS principles with those patients receiving conventional care. The primary outcome was occurrence of 30 day morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included length of stay , functional recovery ,readmission rates,time to pass flatus,blood loss and hospital costs. RESULTS: Ten articles were included in the metaanalysis. Overall 30 days mortality rates were 0.65% in ERAS group while 0.97% in standard group (p=0.997). 30 days morbidity rates were not different in ERAS group compared to conventional care patients. (20.2 % in ERAS vs. 25 % in non ERAS). (p=0.329).Hospital stay, time to pass flatus, time to complete recovery and hospital costs were also significantly reduced due to ERAS protocols. (p value <0.001 ,0.005,<0.001,and 0.038 respectively ). There was no significant difference in blood loss and readmission rates between the two groups. (p=0.594, and 0.916 respectively) CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of ERAS protocols significantly reduced morbidity, hospital stay, readmission rates, time to recovery, hospital costs, time to pass flatus. There were no significant differences in 30 day mortality and blood loss. KEYWORDS: Enhanced recovery after surgery, liver surgery, HPB surgery, morbidity, mortality, liver resection, fast track surgery.

Exclusion criteria: 1. Studies whose full texts can not be obtained.

Studies with no comparable groups [ERAS vs conventional]
3. Duplicate studies.

Assessment of Bias:
Characteristics of the studies are described in table 1. Identified studies were broadly grouped into 1 of 2 types, either randomized trials or cohort studies. Cohort studies were assessed for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (10) . Randomized trials were assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook. (11) ( Table 2 and table 3) Results: . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Secondary outcomes:
We also evaluated hospital stay,time to functional recovery ,readmission rates, time to pass flatus, hospital coses and blood loss in ERAS protocols in liver surgery.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https: //doi.org/10.1101//doi.org/10. /2020 As shown in figure 3 hospital stay (p<0.001 WMD -2.191 and time to functional recovery (p<0.001, WMD -2.462) were significantly less in ERAS group however there was no differene in readmission rates.(p=0.916) There was no difference in blood loss between ERAS and conventional group.

Discussion:
Enhanced recovery after surgery though initially described for colorectal surgery is now becoming standard protocol for all surgeries and it has significantly reduced hospital stay and cost without affecting morbidity and mortality. [1][2][3][4][5] Started from colorectal surgeries ERAS protocols has now moved to other branches of surgeries. Many authors have tried to study applications of ERAS protocols on liver surgeries. (13-22) and showed ERAS protocol has significant benefit over standard protocols however large number studies and quality metaanalysis are still missing. Purpose of this metaanalysis to compare outcomes between ERAS and conventional group.
We evaluated 30 days mortality and morbidity as primary outcomes and hospital stay,time to complete recovery (time to complete physical independence), readmission rates,time to pass flatus, blood loss and hospital costs as secondary out comes.
. CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020 There was no difference in mortality and morbidity between the two groups.( figure   2). Hospital stay, time to functional recovery and time to pass flatus (4 studies) were also significantly different in both the groups. ,Odds ratio 0.016, and WMD-2.462 respectively).
There was no difference between blood loss and readmission rates between the two group in the metaanalysis. Only 3 studies out of 10 evaluated hospital cost which was signiicantly lesser in ERAS group. (WMD -1803.536$).
There are some limitations of this metaanalysis as heterogeneity of studies was significantly random effect models were used. Except hospital stay at least one study did not evaluate other factors.
In conclusion ERAS programs in liver surgeries reduce hospital stay, readmission rates, time to recovery, time to pass flatus, hospital cost without affecting 30 days mortality and morbidity. . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.

Melnyk M , Casey
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20061689 doi: medRxiv preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20061689 doi: medRxiv preprint  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020     . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https: //doi.org/10.1101//doi.org/10. /2020  . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.11.20061689 doi: medRxiv preprint   author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
is the (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint . https://doi.org/10. 1101/2020