Complications and length of stay after enhanced recovery after surgery compared to conventional care in colorectal cancer patients in Northern Italy.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
319 patients were included, divided into the non-ERAS group (113 patients) and the ERAS group (206 patients).
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
추출되지 않음
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
Multivariate analysis revealed an increased risk in patients with ASA 4 [OR 6.6; 95% CI 1.9-22.6] and a modest, non-significant increase risk in the non-ERAS group [OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.7-2.5]. [CONCLUSIONS] ERAS procedures appear to be able to allow intervention even in older patients and those with comorbidities, without compromising the results.
[BACKGROUND] This study aims to evaluate postoperative complications and length of stay in colorectal cancer patients undergoing ERAS vs.
- 95% CI 1.9-22.6
APA
Fabozzi M, Mereu F, et al. (2025). Complications and length of stay after enhanced recovery after surgery compared to conventional care in colorectal cancer patients in Northern Italy.. Frontiers in surgery, 12, 1694304. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2025.1694304
MLA
Fabozzi M, et al.. "Complications and length of stay after enhanced recovery after surgery compared to conventional care in colorectal cancer patients in Northern Italy.." Frontiers in surgery, vol. 12, 2025, pp. 1694304.
PMID
41459430
Abstract
[BACKGROUND] This study aims to evaluate postoperative complications and length of stay in colorectal cancer patients undergoing ERAS vs. non-ERAS procedures in a population-based cohort in northern Italy.
[METHODS] Patient characteristics (ASA, tumor site, stage, treatment, BMI) were used. Complications, stratified by Clavien-Dindo and length of stay (LOS), were reported. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the difference between ERAS and non-ERAS patients.
[RESULTS] A total of 319 patients were included, divided into the non-ERAS group (113 patients) and the ERAS group (206 patients). Non-ERAS vs. ERAS group showed more complications (16.8% vs. 13.6%; -value 0.44) and more days of hospitalization (7.3 vs. 4.8; -value < 0.01), but less re-surgery (3.5% vs. 4.4%; -value 0.72), new hospitalizations (3.5% vs. 5.8%; -value 0.37) and death at 30 days (0.9% vs. 1.5%; -value 0.66). Multivariate analysis revealed an increased risk in patients with ASA 4 [OR 6.6; 95% CI 1.9-22.6] and a modest, non-significant increase risk in the non-ERAS group [OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.7-2.5].
[CONCLUSIONS] ERAS procedures appear to be able to allow intervention even in older patients and those with comorbidities, without compromising the results.
[METHODS] Patient characteristics (ASA, tumor site, stage, treatment, BMI) were used. Complications, stratified by Clavien-Dindo and length of stay (LOS), were reported. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the difference between ERAS and non-ERAS patients.
[RESULTS] A total of 319 patients were included, divided into the non-ERAS group (113 patients) and the ERAS group (206 patients). Non-ERAS vs. ERAS group showed more complications (16.8% vs. 13.6%; -value 0.44) and more days of hospitalization (7.3 vs. 4.8; -value < 0.01), but less re-surgery (3.5% vs. 4.4%; -value 0.72), new hospitalizations (3.5% vs. 5.8%; -value 0.37) and death at 30 days (0.9% vs. 1.5%; -value 0.66). Multivariate analysis revealed an increased risk in patients with ASA 4 [OR 6.6; 95% CI 1.9-22.6] and a modest, non-significant increase risk in the non-ERAS group [OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.7-2.5].
[CONCLUSIONS] ERAS procedures appear to be able to allow intervention even in older patients and those with comorbidities, without compromising the results.