https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1641-9984
![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
Abstract
Objective
To assess whether an early recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway after scheduled cesarean delivery was associated with a reduction in postoperative length of stay compared with standard perioperative care.
Methods
This was a prospective pre- and post-intervention study. Women were included if they were between 18 and 45 years of age and delivered a singleton, term, non-anomalous fetus via scheduled cesarean delivery by a provider within an academic practice. The ERAS pathway consisted of 23 evidence-based components regarding preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. The primary outcome was the rate of postoperative length of stay of 3 or more days. Secondary outcomes included total postoperative narcotic use, postoperative complications, 30-day hospital readmission rates, and quality of recovery questionnaire scores.
Results
A total of 116 women were included. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the pre- and post-implementation groups in the post-implementation group, surgery time was longer (78.3 ± 27.8 vs 59.1 ± 19.2 min, p < .001) and blood loss volume was higher (910.3 ± 405.1 vs 729.1 ± 202.0, p = .003), compared to pre-implementation group. An ERAS pathway was not associated in a significant reduction in postoperative length of stay of 3 or more days (70.7% vs 75.9%, p = .529). It was also not significantly associated with a difference in postoperative narcotic use, maximum pain score, transfusion, postoperative complications or hospital readmission rates.
Conclusion
An early recovery after surgery pathway after scheduled cesarean delivery was not associated with a reduction in postoperative length of stay or narcotic use, though the recovery scores were better after implementation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).