Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are increasingly promoted in post-mastectomy reconstruction, with several articles reporting their benefits and safety. This meta-analysis appraises the evidence for ERAS pathways in breast reconstruction.
A systematic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify reports of ERAS protocols in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Two reviewers screened studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated at least one of the following end-points of interest: length of stay (LOS), opioid use, or major complications. Risk of bias was assessed for each study. Meta-analysis was performed via a mixed-effects model to compare outcomes for ERAS versus traditional standard of care. Surgical techniques were assessed through subgroup analysis.
A total of 260 articles were identified; 9 (3.46%) met inclusion criteria with a total of 1191 patients. Most studies had “fair” methodological quality and incomplete implementation of ERAS society recommendations was noted. Autologous flaps comprised the majority of cases. In autologous breast reconstruction, ERAS significantly reduces opioid use [Mean difference (MD) = − 183.96, 95% CI − 340.27 to 27.64, p = 0.02) and LOS (MD) = − 1.58, 95% CI − 1.99 to 1.18, p < 0.00001] versus traditional care. There is no significant difference in the incidence of complications (major complications, readmission, hematoma, and infection).
ERAS pathways significantly reduce opioid use and length of hospital stay following autologous breast reconstruction without increasing complication rates. This is salient given the current US healthcare climate of rising expenditures and an opioid crisis.
KeywordsBreast reconstruction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Fast-track surgery Length of stay Post-operative opioid consumption
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 13.American Society of Plastic Surgeons (2017) Plastic surgery statistics report. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2017/plastic-surgery-statistics- report-2017.pdf. Accessed 1 Apr 2018
- 15.Astanehe A, Temple-Oberle C, Nielsen M, de Haas W, Lindsay R, Matthews J, McKenzie DC, Yeung JSC (2018) An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for microvascular breast reconstruction is safe and effective. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000001634 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Higgins J, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vers 5.1. The cochrane collaboration. http://handbook.cochrane.org/ Accessed 11 April 2018
- 23.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 27.Armstrong KA, Davidge K, Morgan P, Brown M, Li M, Cunningham L, Clarke HSJ (2016) Determinants of increased acute postoperative pain after autologous breast reconstruction within an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: a Prospective Cohort Study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(8):1157–1160CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 38.Parikh RP, Sharma K, Guffey R, Myckatyn TM (2016) Preoperative paravertebral block improves postoperative pain control and reduces hospital length of stay in patients undergoing autologous breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 23(13):4262–4269CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Dasgupta N, Funk MJ, Proescholdbell S, Hirsch A, Ribisl KM, Marshall S (2016) Cohort study of the impact of high-dose opioid analgesics on overdose mortality. Pain Med (United States) 17(1):85–98Google Scholar