Enhanced recovery after surgery and intestinal obstruction: A scoping review.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY World Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1002/wjs.12310
Marie Sin Ae Buhl, Claudia Jaensch, Anders Husted Madsen
{"title":"Enhanced recovery after surgery and intestinal obstruction: A scoping review.","authors":"Marie Sin Ae Buhl, Claudia Jaensch, Anders Husted Madsen","doi":"10.1002/wjs.12310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute intestinal obstruction is a blockage of the intestine which causes a range of clinical symptoms such as acute and severe abdominal pain, nausea, and obstipation. Intestinal obstruction is a medical emergency and can be life-threatening when left untreated. In cases where treatment involves emergency abdominal surgery, a multimodal perioperative care pathway (enhanced recovery after surgery ERAS) has shown to accelerate patient recovery after surgery, reduce hospital length of stay, and improve overall outcomes. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the implementation of ERAS components with a focus on postoperative components in patients undergoing surgery for acute intestinal obstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This scoping review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews framework. PubMed-Medline and Embase database were searched.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search identified 1860 studies of which 16 were included in the final analysis. All the studies were quantitative. Eleven studies used 10 or more ERAS interventions (range 10-28). The most common interventions were multimodal systemic analgesia, and the least common were the management of blood glucose and screening tools.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This scoping review found that 56% (n = 9/16) of the identified studies used 10 or more ERAS interventions out of a possible 35. This review highlighted the need for studies on the ERAS emergency laparotomy guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":23926,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.12310","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Acute intestinal obstruction is a blockage of the intestine which causes a range of clinical symptoms such as acute and severe abdominal pain, nausea, and obstipation. Intestinal obstruction is a medical emergency and can be life-threatening when left untreated. In cases where treatment involves emergency abdominal surgery, a multimodal perioperative care pathway (enhanced recovery after surgery ERAS) has shown to accelerate patient recovery after surgery, reduce hospital length of stay, and improve overall outcomes. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the existing evidence regarding the implementation of ERAS components with a focus on postoperative components in patients undergoing surgery for acute intestinal obstruction.

Methods: This scoping review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews framework. PubMed-Medline and Embase database were searched.

Results: The search identified 1860 studies of which 16 were included in the final analysis. All the studies were quantitative. Eleven studies used 10 or more ERAS interventions (range 10-28). The most common interventions were multimodal systemic analgesia, and the least common were the management of blood glucose and screening tools.

Conclusion: This scoping review found that 56% (n = 9/16) of the identified studies used 10 or more ERAS interventions out of a possible 35. This review highlighted the need for studies on the ERAS emergency laparotomy guidelines.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
加强手术和肠梗阻后的恢复:范围综述。
背景:急性肠梗阻是指肠道堵塞,会引起一系列临床症状,如急性剧烈腹痛、恶心和便秘。肠梗阻是一种急症,如不及时治疗可能会危及生命。在治疗涉及急腹症手术的情况下,多模式围手术期护理路径(术后强化恢复 ERAS)已被证明可加快患者术后恢复、缩短住院时间并改善总体预后。本次范围界定综述的目的是确定并综合现有的有关实施 ERAS 的证据,重点是急性肠梗阻手术患者的术后部分:本范围界定综述遵循范围界定综述框架中系统综述和荟萃分析扩展的首选报告项目。检索了PubMed-Medline和Embase数据库:结果:检索发现了 1860 项研究,其中 16 项纳入最终分析。所有研究均为定量研究。有 11 项研究使用了 10 种或更多的 ERAS 干预方法(范围为 10-28 种)。最常见的干预措施是多模式全身镇痛,最不常见的是血糖管理和筛查工具:本次范围界定审查发现,在可能的 35 项研究中,56%(n = 9/16)的研究使用了 10 项或更多 ERAS 干预措施。本综述强调了对 ERAS 紧急开腹手术指南进行研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Surgery
World Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.80%
发文量
460
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: World Journal of Surgery is the official publication of the International Society of Surgery/Societe Internationale de Chirurgie (iss-sic.com). Under the editorship of Dr. Julie Ann Sosa, World Journal of Surgery provides an in-depth, international forum for the most authoritative information on major clinical problems in the fields of clinical and experimental surgery, surgical education, and socioeconomic aspects of surgical care. Contributions are reviewed and selected by a group of distinguished surgeons from across the world who make up the Editorial Board.
期刊最新文献
Safety of thyroidectomy as day care surgery at a rural setting in Eastern Uganda. Reduction in perforated appendicitis incidence between rural and urban populations after introducing social health insurance in Vietnam: A population-based study. Author's reply: Is routine histopathological analysis of hemorrhoidectomy specimens necessary? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The utility of alcohol saliva test strips compared to the breathalyzer in trauma patients in a resource-limited setting. Author's reply: Impact of surgical specialization on emergency upper gastrointestinal surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1