Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway developed to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress after major surgery. In colorectal surgery, ERAS pathways reduced perioperative morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Similar concept should be applied for liver surgery. This study presents the specific ERAS Society recommendations for liver surgery based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus. Methods A systematic review was performed on ERAS for liver surgery by searching EMBASE and Medline. Five independent reviewers selected relevant articles. Quality of randomized trials was assessed according to the Jadad score and CONSORT statement. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the GRADE system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations. Results A total of 157 full texts were screened. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review, and 16 of the 23 standard ERAS items were studied specifically for liver surgery. Consensus was reached among experts after 3 rounds. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation and prophylactic abdominal drainage should be omitted. The use of postoperative oral laxatives and minimally invasive surgery results in a quicker bowel recovery and shorter hospital stay. Goal-directed fluid therapy with maintenance of a low intraoperative central venous pressure induces faster recovery. Early oral intake and mobilization are recommended. There is no evidence to prefer epidural to other types of analgesia. Conclusions The current ERAS recommendations were elaborated based on the best available evidence and endorsed by the Delphi method. Nevertheless, prospective studies need to confirm the clinical use of the suggested protocol.

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are now implemented worldwide with strong evidence that adhesion to such protocol reduces medical complications, costs and hospital stay. This concept has been applied for pancreatic surgery since the first published guidelines in 2012. This study presents the updated ERAS recommendations for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in three databases (Embase, Medline Ovid and Cochrane Library Wiley) for the 27 developed ERAS items. Quality of randomized trials was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement checklist. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations. Results A total of 314 articles were included in the systematic review. Consensus among experts was reached after three rounds. A well-implemented ERAS protocol with good compliance is associated with a reduction in medical complications and length of hospital stay. The highest level of evidence was available for five items: avoiding hypothermia, use of wound catheters as an alternative to epidural analgesia, antimicrobial and thromboprophylaxis protocols and preoperative nutritional interventions for patients with severe weight loss ([ 15%). Conclusions The current updated ERAS recommendations for PD are based on the best available evidence and processed by the Delphi method. Prospective studies of high quality are encouraged to confirm the benefit of current updated recommendations.

Background The aim if this study was to compare percutaneous drainage (PD) of the gallbladder to emergency cholecystectomy (EC) in a well-defined patient group with sepsis related to acute calculous/acalculous cholecystitis (ACC/AAC). Methods Between 2001 and 2007, all consecutive patients of our ICU treated by either PD or EC were retrospectively analyzed. Cases were collected from a prospective database. Percutaneous drainage was performed by a transhepatic route and EC by open or laparoscopic approach. Patients' general condition and organ dysfunction were assessed by two validated scoring systems (SAPS II and SOFA, respectively). Morbidity, mortality, and longterm outcome were systematically reviewed and analyzed in both groups. Results Forty-two patients [median age = 65.5 years (range = 32-94)] were included; 45% underwent EC (ten laparoscopic, nine open) and 55% PD (n = 23). Both patient groups had similar preoperative characteristics. Percutaneous drainage and EC were successful in 91 and 100% of patients, respectively. Organ dysfunctions were similarly improved by the third postoperative/postdrainage days. Despite undergoing PD, two patients required EC due to gangrenous cholecystitis. The conversion rate after laparoscopy was 20%. Overall morbidity was 8.7% after PD and 47% after EC (P = 0.011). Major morbidity was 0% after PD and 21% after EC (P = 0.034). The mortality rate was not different (13% after PD and 16% after EC, P = 1.0) and the deaths were all related to the patients' preexisting disease. Hospital and ICU stays were not different. Recurrent symptoms (17%) occurred only after ACC in the PD group. Conclusions In high-risk patients, PD and EC are both efficient in the resolution of acute cholecystitis sepsis. However, EC is associated with a higher procedure-related morbidity and the laparoscopic approach is not always possible. Percutaneous drainage represents a valuable intervention, but secondary cholecystectomy is mandatory in cases of acute calculous cholecystitis.

No abstract