KSPEN
KSSMN
ASSMN
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Ann Clin Nutr Metab > Volume 16(2); 2024 > Article
- Guideline The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines for colorectal cancer
-
Kil-yong Lee1
, Soo Young Lee2, Miyoung Choi3, Moonjin Kim4, Ji Hong Kim5, Ju Myung Song4, Seung Yoon Yang5, In Jun Yang6, Moon Suk Choi7, Seung Rim Han8, Eon Chul Han9, Sang Hyun Hong10, Do Joong Park11, Sang-Jae Park12, The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition -
Annals of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism 2024;16(2):22-42.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15747/ACNM.2024.16.2.22
Published online: August 1, 2024
1Department of Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Korea
2Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital and Medical School, Hwasun, Korea
3National Evidencebased Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea
4Department of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea
5Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
6Department of Surgery, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea
7Department of Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
8Department of Surgery, Ain Hospital, Incheon, Korea
9Department of Surgery, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Science, Busan, Korea
10Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
11Department of Surgery and Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
12Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea
- Corresponding author: Soo Young Lee, email: syleecrs@gmail.com
- Sang-Jae Park, email: spark@ncc.re.kr
• Received: July 9, 2024 • Revised: July 25, 2024 • Accepted: July 26, 2024
© 2024 The Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition · The Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 61 Views
- 5 Download
Abstract
- The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. If fewer than two RCTs were available, studies using propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.
Introduction
With advancements in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer, rapid postoperative recovery and reintegration into daily life have become essential considerations. Although existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines are available [1,2], there is a growing need to develop those that are appropriate for Korean healthcare. Consequently, the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition has established an ERAS committee to formulate evidence-based practice guidelines. The primary objective is to assist frontline physicians treating colorectal cancer by providing evidence-based recommendations with clear levels of evidence and benefits for the application of ERAS protocols in postoperative recovery. This aims to facilitate safer and more effective clinical decision-making. Furthermore, it seeks to enhance the understanding of policymakers and patients desiring treatment.
Methods
The guidelines were developed using a de novo approach. The systematic review conducted for the development followed the methodology proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration [3]. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the determination of the strength of recommendations were based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology [4]. To enhance applicability within the Korean context, supplementary local studies were identified and incorporated.
The committee examined existing ERAS guidelines [1,2] to identify pivotal yet debatable issues needing evidence. After thorough discussions, they prioritized and finalized 13 key questions (KQs) (Table 1).
A literature search was conducted by deriving primary search terms through discussions between the methodology expert and the development committee members responsible for each KQ. Search strategies were then established using MEDLINE (PubMed). The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed databases were used. Studies were collected without restrictions on publication year or language to ensure comprehensiveness, reproducibility, and homogeneity through a consistent approach for all KQs. The search was performed on August 15, 2023. At least three individuals, including the methodology expert, the committee member responsible for each KQ, and the committee chair, participated in all stages of the search process to eliminate subjective judgment. The finalized search strategies are included in Supplement Material 1.
The selection of evidence was conducted by assigning at least two reviewers to each KQ, ensuring no overlap, and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Flow Diagram (Supplement Fig. 1) [5]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each KQ were formulated and applied using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study Design framework. All KQs targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. If fewer than two RCTs were available, studies using propensity score matching were also included.
The quality assessment of the literature was conducted separately according to individual study designs (RCTs: Cochrane RoB [Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials] 2.0 [6], non-randomized studies: ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Intervention) [7]). The quality assessment of literature was conducted independently by the designated committee member for each KQ. Any discrepancies in assessment results were resolved through consensus among the committee members (Supplement Fig. 2).
Meta-analysis was conducted if there was no unexplained heterogeneity and multiple outcomes were available. Duplicate study results were managed by selecting the most recent or largest sample size. A fixed-effect model was used, and both statistical (I2 statistic) and clinical heterogeneity were evaluated. The analysis covered all relevant outcomes of the intervention.
The assessment of the level of evidence followed the grading criteria provided by the GRADE working group (Table 2). The assignment of each level of evidence was based on outcome measures. When both randomized and non-randomized studies provided evidence for the same outcome measure, the level of evidence from randomized studies was used as the reference value. The assigned level of evidence for recommendations was based on the level of evidence for the most critical primary outcome associated with each recommendation.
The members developed a preliminary recommendation and recommendation grade for each KQ based on the level of evidence. The considerations included the strengths and limitations of the evidence, the balance between benefits and harms, the size of the benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, barriers to implementation by healthcare providers, financial considerations, and applicability within the specific healthcare institution. The strength of recommendation was defined by evaluating the balance of benefits and harms for each intervention based on evidence, through a blind voting process by the committee (Table 3).
The draft recommendations underwent evaluation through a blind vote if participation from at least 70% of all internal committee members was achieved. Eleven members of the internal committee within the development committee participated in the recommendation grading process. If individual items received over 70% approval in the vote, with over 70% in favor, the committee considered it a consensus decision. If fewer than 70% of the votes were in favor, the development committee members considered amendments and a second vote was conducted.
Relevant experts were selected to evaluate the content of the guidelines to enhance their quality. The Korean Society of Coloproctology recommended 18 individuals from among colorectal surgeons specializing in primary to tertiary hospitals, who had experience in conducting systematic reviews or had experience in developing other clinical guidelines. These individuals were surveyed for their opinions on the pros and cons of the recommendations and the validity of outcome indicators related to benefits and harms.
The guidelines are planned to be revised on a three-year cycle, with the addition of new recommendations or modifications and enhancements to existing recommendations when high-quality evidence regarding new diagnostic methods, medications, or treatments is reported. The revision process for the guidelines follows the principles of new development, applying the same methods as those used in the original guideline development. However, for recommendations that are developed subsequently, evidence searching will be conducted only for evidence added after August 15, 2023.
Results
Recommendation 1.
Prehabilitation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
Prehabilitation primarily consists of increasing physical activity, improving nutritional status, and stabilizing mental well-being. Prehabilitation through exercise consists of aerobic/anaerobic exercise sessions, lasting approximately one hour, three to four times per week over a period of 3 to 6 weeks. Prehabilitation has been shown to improve postoperative outcomes by enhancing baseline physical condition and mental functional capacity before surgery. The incidence rate of postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo Classification I, II) was assessable after analyzing a total of 9 studies [8,,,,-16]. Among the studies analyzed, several demonstrated significant differences between the two groups, indicating that patients who underwent preoperative prehabilitation had a statistically significant reduction in postoperative complication rates (Clavien Dindo Classification I, II) compared to those who did not undergo prehabilitation (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.97) (Supplement Fig. 3A). However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications (Clavien Dindo Classification≥III), length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and mortality (Supplement Fig. 3B-F).
However, reflecting the situation in Korea, although there may be variations between institutions, it is generally assumed that if surgery for colorectal cancer is typically performed within three weeks of diagnosis, preoperative rehabilitation may not be feasible. Additionally, if patients prefer to undergo surgery shortly after diagnosis, the implementation of prehabilitation may be challenging. Furthermore, as described above, the introduction of comprehensive prehabilitation requires resources from various fields, including exercise, but it should be considered that it may not be feasible for all medical institutions to provide these resources within limited means.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety percent of the attending members (9 out of 10) endorsed the proposal. However, there were discussions on whether it is appropriate to allocate limited resources to prehabilitation, the practical feasibility of implementing several weeks of prehabilitation within the context of South Korea, and which patient groups should be conditionally recommended for prehabilitation.
External expert review results
The external experts’ opinions on the recommendation strength of the guideline revealed a relatively lower agreement rate (7–9 points) of 72% (13 out of 18). However, there was a high level of concordance (94%, 17 out of 18) for the response of “conditional for”regarding the appropriate recommendation level. Consequently, the committee confirmed the recommendation level as ‘conditional for’ without dissent.
Recommendation 2.
Preoperative nutritional support using oral nutritional supplements (ONS) is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
It is well established that patients at nutritional risk have a higher incidence of postoperative complications and prolonged hospital stays [17,18]. Specifically, in colorectal cancer, symptoms such as loss of appetite, diarrhea, and bowel obstruction can increase the vulnerability of patients to malnutrition [18]. Consequently, perioperative nutritional supplementation is essential for appropriate recovery in these patients. In cases where adequate nutritional intake through oral consumption is challenging, the use of ONS prior to surgery is recommended. Immunonutrition, which includes arginine, ω-3 fatty acids, nucleotides, and high concentrations of protein, is preferred [19].The meta-analysis of postoperative complications encompassed a total of 8 studies [20,,,-27]. While 6 studies did not demonstrate significant differences between the intervention and control groups, some reported that preoperative oral nutritional supplementation reduced postoperative complications [20,23]. Furthermore, the results revealed a significant association between preoperative oral nutritional supplementation and decreased postoperative complications (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–0.98) (Supplement Fig. 4A). The analysis of hospital stay length included 5 studies reporting results on this outcome [21,24,-27]. While Xu et al. [27] demonstrated a significant association between the intervention and control groups in terms of hospital stay, a meta-analysis of the 5 studies did not confirm this significance (mean difference [MD], –0.30; 95% CI, –0.95 to 0.36) (Supplement Fig. 4B). Regarding mortality, no patients were reported to have died within 30 days of surgery in any of the 8 studies included.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety percent of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the proposal. The final recommendation was subsequently decided without dissent through consensus.
External expert review results
Seventy-two percent of the external experts (17 out of 18) endorsed the recommendation strength and direction of the guideline, with scores ranging from 7 to 9. Additionally, 94% (17 out of 18) responded with “conditional for” to the question regarding the appropriate recommendation strength. Consequently, the committee confirmed the recommendation strength as ‘conditional for’ without dissent.
Recommendation 3.
The use of dexamethasone in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist rather than monotherapy is recommended for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: strong for
Level of evidence: high
PONV is one of the most common postoperative complications, causing patient dissatisfaction and discomfort. These symptoms can also lead to increased healthcare costs, prolonged hospital stays, or unexpected readmissions [28,-31]. A systematic review was conducted on the efficacy of combined therapy using serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 antagonists) and steroids, which is well-documented for the prevention of PONV.
A meta-analysis of 7 studies investigating PONV within 6 hours of surgery revealed that the combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone significantly lowered the incidence compared to other treatments (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31–0.76) (Supplement Fig. 5A) [32,,,-38]. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 14 studies examining PONV within 24 hours of surgery showed that combination therapy had a significantly lower incidence rate compared to serotonin receptor antagonist monotherapy (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.33–0.56) (Supplement Fig. 5B) [33,35,36,38,,,,,-48].
Common side effects of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone include headache, dizziness, fatigue, diarrhea, and pruritus. However, the most frequently reported side effects in the majority of studies were headache and dizziness. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting overall side effects found no significant difference between combination therapy and monotherapy (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.60–1.44) [33,35,41,46] (Supplement Fig. 5C). Additionally, meta-analyses of 6 studies specifically analyzing headache (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.55–1.82) and dizziness (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.38–1.57) also showed no significant differences between combination therapy and monotherapy (Supplement Fig. 5D, E) [33,35,41,43,46,47].
The committee conducted a review of commonly used pharmacological agents and their clinical outcomes, in addition to those specified in the KQs. A summary of the types and doses of various agents used for the prevention of PONV is presented in Supplement Table 1. Among NK1 receptor antagonists, aprepitant, which is available domestically, shows comparable efficacy in preventing postoperative vomiting with an oral dose of 40 mg to an intravenous palonosetron of 0.075 mg [49]. Dexamethasone monotherapy has also been used for several years and is well-known for its effectiveness in PONV prevention. It is generally recommended in doses ranging from 4 to 10 mg, although recent reports have highlighted the efficacy of 8 mg or higher [50,-52]. Among anti-dopaminergic agents, droperidol and haloperidol have shown efficacy in preventing PONV; however, there is a concern about the prolongation of QT interval [28]. Metoclopramide at doses of 25 and 50 mg is also effective in the prevention of PONV but extrapyramidal symptoms can occur as a side effect. Additionally, there are reports on the antiemetic efficacy of anticholinergic agents [53], and various combination therapies, as addressed in this study.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety-one percent of the attending members (10 out of 11) supported the recommendation strength and direction for the use of a combination of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting after elective colorectal surgery. Although there were concerns about a strong recommendation level, the committee reached consensus that the high level of evidence and the clear benefits of nausea and vomiting prevention provided by the combination therapy outweighed any minor side effects, thus justifying a strong recommendation.
External expert review results
The proportion of external experts who supported the recommendation strength for this key question was 61% (11 out of 18), which is relatively low. When asked about the appropriate recommendation strength, 50% (9 out of 18) favored a strong recommendation, while a significant number of experts chose “conditional for” (28%, 5 out of 18) or “conditional against” (22%, 4 out of 18). As mentioned, there are various methods for preventing nausea and vomiting. This guideline does not mandate the use of a combination of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone but rather strongly recommends the combination therapy over serotonin receptor antagonists alone. The choice of method for preventing nausea and vomiting should be at the discretion of the clinician, and various alternatives are detailed. After the discussion, the committee reached a consensus that a ‘strong recommendation’ is appropriate and confirmed it as the final recommendation.
Recommendation 4.
The use of oral antibiotics in conjunction with MBP is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: high
When referring to bowel preparation methods to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), previous guidelines have suggested that MBP provides no clinical benefit and is not recommended for colorectal cancer surgeries [54]. However, recent studies have demonstrated that the combination of MBP and oral antibiotic prophylaxis leads to a reduction in complications compared to using either method alone [55,56]. The incidence of SSIs was analyzed across 8 studies [57,,,-64]. Several studies demonstrated significant differences between the groups, showing that the combination of preoperative MBP and oral antibiotic administration significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs compared to MBP alone (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39–0.66) (Supplement Fig. 6A). However, there were no significant differences between the groups concerning organ-space SSIs [57,,,-63], including anastomotic leaks (Supplement Fig. 6B), or the readmission rate within 30 days (Supplement Fig. 6C) [57,-60].
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety percent of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for this key question. There were concerns about whether recommending MBP and oral antibiotics for both colon and rectal cancer might be excessive, considering the resources required and patient discomfort. However, after reviewing the current evidence, it was determined that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Therefore, it was agreed to recommend the approach with a ‘conditional for’ recommendation strength.
External expert review results
Sixty-one percent of the external experts (11 out of 18) supported the recommendation strength (scoring 7–9), with 6 experts providing a score of 6. Most experts (94%, 17 out of 18) provided scores of 6 or higher. When asked about the appropriate recommendation strength, 72% (13 out of 18) selected ‘conditional for.’ Consequently, the committee integrated the results from the consensus meeting with the external experts’ opinions and confirmed ‘conditional for’ as the final recommendation strength.
Recommendation 5.
Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before colorectal cancer surgery is recommended.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
The stress associated with surgery can induce peripheral insulin resistance, leading to hyperglycemia, which may increase the risk of postoperative complications and delay recovery [65]. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that preoperative oral carbohydrate loading may reduce insulin resistance and thereby decrease postoperative complications. The incidence of postoperative complications was assessed in 7 studies [66,,,-72]. Most studies reported no significant differences between the groups, and meta-analysis also failed to demonstrate a significant correlation between preoperative oral carbohydrate supplementation and the incidence of postoperative complications (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.49–1.19) (Supplement Fig. 7A). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of individual complications such as SSI [66,-69,71,72] and prolonged postoperative ileus [66,,,-72]. However, in the oral carbohydrate group, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter (MD, –0.52; 95% CI, –0.76 to –0.28) [66,69,-71,73] and the length of hospital stay was also shorter (MD, –1.03; 95% CI, –1.39 to –0.68) [67,,-71,74,75] (Supplement Fig. 7B-E).
Preoperative fasting induces psychological stress in patients, and reducing the duration of fasting as much as possible has been shown to be effective for patients’ psychological well-being in several studies [76]. Rizvanović et al. [74] reported that the intake of oral carbohydrate solutions before colorectal surgery positively affects patients’ subjective feelings.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety-one percent of the attending members (10 out of 11) supported the recommendation strength and direction for prescribing oral carbohydrate supplements in elective colorectal surgery. While there were concerns that intake might be restricted in patients with bowel obstruction, it was agreed by the majority that since the guideline is limited to elective surgery, there would likely be few patients unable to take oral carbohydrate supplements due to bowel obstruction.
External expert review results
Eighty-nine percent of the external experts (16 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for’ recommendation. Additionally, 67% of the external experts (12 out of 18) endorsed the recommendation strength as ‘conditional for.’ Although 4 external experts (22%) suggested that a ‘strong recommendation’ might be more appropriate, the consensus was that a strong recommendation would be unsuitable due to potential difficulties in taking oral carbohydrate supplements for patients with diabetes or bowel obstruction. Consequently, the development committee confirmed ‘conditional for’ as the final recommendation strength.
Recommendation 6.
GDFT during surgery may be considered for high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
In relation to the ERAS protocol, restrictive fluid therapy or zero-balance fluid management has been introduced and widely studied to prevent weight gain due to postoperative fluid retention [1]. This approach can accelerate the recovery of gastrointestinal motility post-surgery and potentially reduce the length of hospital stay. However, excessive restriction of fluids requires caution as it may lead to acute kidney dysfunction [1,77]. GDFT refers to the adjustment of fluid administration based on the monitoring of various hemodynamic parameters [78]. There is no standardized criterion for targets in GDFT. However, it typically involves the monitoring of cardiac output and stroke volume using transesophageal echocardiography, central venous pressure via a central venous catheter, and stroke volume variation through arterial waveform analysis. Additionally, various bioimpedance analyses are used. The group receiving GDFT demonstrated a trend toward a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications compared to the control group, though this did not reach statistical significance (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60–1.01) (Supplement Fig. 8A) [79,,,,-88]. However, the incidence of SSIs was significantly reduced in the GDFT group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI. 0.30–0.97) (Supplement Fig. 8B) [79,85,86,88,-90]. There were no significant differences between the groups concerning the frequency of anastomotic leaks (Supplement Fig. 8C) [79,82,85,,,-91], prolonged postoperative ileus (Supplement Fig. 8D) [79,82,84,-86,88,90], or mortality within 30 days post-surgery (Supplement Fig. 8E) [79,-82,84,85,87,88,90,-92]. Importantly, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the GDFT group (MD, –0.30; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.14) (Supplement Fig. 8F) [79,,,,,,-91,93].
According to previous studies, GDFT has been reported to be effective in high-risk patients [1,78]. A previous meta-analysis of patients undergoing abdominal surgery reported no benefit from the implementation of GDFT for all patients [94]. Specifically, with the application of the ERAS protocol, preoperative fasting and MBP are minimized, thereby reducing preoperative fluid deficit to a minimum, suggesting that zero-balance fluid management may be sufficient. Therefore, it is essential to select and apply GDFT to high-risk patients. While the definition of high-risk varies, it generally includes patients with severe cardiopulmonary disease, patients over 70 years old with poor general health, and surgeries expected to last longer than eight hours [1]. By applying GDFT to high-risk patients in medical institutions equipped with monitoring devices, a faster recovery can be achieved.
As stated above, this recommendation is limited to high-risk patients. In actual clinical practice, performing medical procedures such as transesophageal echocardiography for GDFT in non-high-risk patients would lead to a waste of medical resources and should be avoided. For non-high-risk patients, zero-balance fluid therapy (administration of 1–4 mL/kg/h of crystalloid solution excluding blood loss) as described in other guidelines is considered sufficient [1,2].
Recommendation consensus meeting results
The recommendation strength and direction for the use of GDFT during colorectal surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (11 out of 11). However, it was emphasized that GDFT should be selectively applied only to high-risk patients, as its benefits do not extend to all patients. Consequently, the guideline specifies that GDFT should be considered only for high-risk patients.
External expert review results
In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, 89% of the reviewers (16 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for’ recommendation. Additionally, 89% of the reviewers (16 out of 18) endorsed the same recommendation strength as ‘conditional for,’ indicating overall support for the recommendation. The final review by the development committee also confirmed this decision without dissent.
Recommendation 7.
It is suggested that an intra-abdominal drain is not inserted during surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional against
Level of evidence: moderate
Prophylactic drainage is believed to have several benefits [95]: (1) it can reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage by removing blood and serous fluids, which, if infected, may cause abscess formation and potentially lead to the abscess rupturing into the anastomosis [96]; (2) it helps in mitigating the severity of such complications by allowing for earlier detection [97]; and (3) it aids in identifying intraperitoneal bleeding [96]. However, surgeons who argue against the use of drainage suggest that it (1) might actually promote the production of serous fluid [98]; (2) could introduce infections from external sources [99,100]; (3) might increase the risk of leakage by hindering the movement of the omentum and nearby organs, which otherwise help seal the anastomotic site [99,101], or by causing leaks through mechanical erosion of the anastomosis [102]; and (4) is typically enclosed quickly by the body [103].
The meta-analysis revealed that drain placement did not significantly impact the overall complication rates across the studies analyzed (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62–1.19) (Supplement Fig. 9A) [95,104,-107]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage associated with drain placement (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69–1.24) (Supplement Fig. 9B) [95,104,,-108]. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the incidence of pelvic fluid collection and sepsis (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.70–1.33) [95,104,106,-108], intestinal obstruction (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42–1.05) [95,104,106,108], or the reoperation rate (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67–1.50) (Supplement Fig. 9C-E) [95,106,108]. While not statistically significant, the tendency was toward a lower incidence of each complication, except for the reoperation rate, in the group without drain placement (Supplement Fig. 9E).
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Seventy percent of the attending members (7 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for not using a drainage catheter during colorectal surgery. There were concerns that there might be insufficient evidence to deviate from traditional practices, as some felt that not using a drainage catheter did not provide clear benefits or avoid risks. However, the consensus was that given the absence of clear benefits and considering patient discomfort and the potential for earlier discharge, recommending not using a drainage catheter was justified.
External expert review results
In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, only 39% of the reviewers (7 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for ‘conditional against.’ Additionally, only 44% of the reviewers (8 out of 18) endorsed the same recommendation strength as ‘conditional against,’ while 33% of the reviewers (6 out of 18) suggested ‘conditional for’ as the appropriate recommendation strength. A significant number of clinicians use drainage catheters during colorectal surgeries, especially rectal surgeries, primarily due to concerns about anastomotic leakage. The review results from the external experts reflect this reality. Although there may be some discrepancy with actual clinical practice, the guideline is evidence-based and, considering the essence of the ERAS guidelines, the development committee agreed that a recommendation against using drainage catheters was appropriate. Consequently, the final recommendation strength was confirmed as ‘conditional against.’
Recommendation 8.
It is suggested that a nasogastric tube is not inserted during surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional against
Level of evidence: low
The necessity of nasogastric tube insertion during surgery has been widely researched in abdominal surgeries over the years. A Cochrane review published in 2007 concluded that routine insertion of nasogastric tubes for decompression purposes in all patients undergoing abdominal surgery is unnecessary [109]. Our meta-analysis also revealed results consistent with those of similar studies. No statistically significant differences were observed in anastomotic leakage (Supplement Fig. 10A), time to bowel movement (Supplement Fig. 10B) and gas passage (Supplement Fig. 10C), SSIs (Supplement Fig. 10D), or length of hospital stay (Supplement Fig. 10F) between two groups [110,111]. However, Venara et al. [111] reported a significantly higher incidence of respiratory infections in patients with a nasogastric tube insertion compared to those without (3.0% vs. 0.4%, P<0.001), which was corroborated by the meta-analysis (OR, 7.12; 95% CI. 2.48–20.47) (Supplement Fig. 10E) [110,111].
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety percent of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction regarding the use of nasogastric tubes during elective colorectal surgery. Although it has long been known that there are no benefits to nasogastric tube insertion, some suggested that the recommendation strength should be ‘strongly against.’ However, it was agreed that the evidence level is insufficient to justify a strong recommendation. Therefore, the consensus was to recommend against the use of nasogastric tubes, but not at a strong level.
External expert review results
In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, 67% (12 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for ‘conditional against.’ However, only 39% of the reviewers (7 out of 18) deemed ‘conditional against’ as the appropriate recommendation strength, which was a relatively low proportion. A significant number of reviewers (44%, 8 out of 18) suggested ‘strongly against’ as the appropriate recommendation strength. This aligns with the opinions expressed during the development committee’s consensus meetings. Considering the level of evidence, the final decision was to confirm the recommendation strength as ‘conditional against’ through the final meeting.
Recommendation 9.
Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block may be considered for pain control during surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
Effective pain management following colorectal cancer surgery is a key component of ERAS protocols, as it can aid in facilitating rapid patient recovery and early discharge from the hospital. Opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been widely used due to its ease of use, simplicity, and effectiveness in pain management [112]. However, opioids can cause side effects such as nausea and vomiting, and reduce gastrointestinal motility, which can slow recovery [1,112]. Therefore, the most crucial aspect emphasized in other ERAS guidelines for postoperative pain management is to avoid opioids and apply multimodal analgesia, which combines two or more pain control methods [1,2].
There are many options available for multimodal analgesia. Among non-opioids, the most easily prescribed medications are acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These are the easiest alternatives to opioids as they do not require special equipment or procedures. However, caution is needed with non-selective NSAIDs like diclofenac due to reports of increased anastomotic leaks. Ketorolac or COX-2 selective NSAIDs are recommended instead [1,113]. Other medications such as gabapentinoids (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) and ketamine can also be used, but their analgesic effects are disputed and side effects must be considered [1].
Thoracic epidural analgesia has been proven effective for open surgery but is not recommended for minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery due to a lack of evidence of its superiority over other analgesic methods and potential side effects [1]. The use of continuous wound infiltration with local anesthetics via a catheter is becoming more widespread, and new local pain control methods, such as the use of thermosensitive hydrogels for local anesthetic delivery, are being developed [1,114]. Additionally, nerve blocks such as TAP block and rectus sheath block have been reported to reduce opioid use and the duration of hospital stay, making them viable options for multimodal analgesia. The selection of methods to be combined for multimodal analgesia should be determined based on the available resources and the preferences of the medical staff at each hospital. This guideline establishes KQs and conducts a systematic review on the TAP block, which has been widely studied in colorectal surgery.
This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and side effects of TAP block with other pain management methods (placebo using saline solution, local anesthetic-based pain control, or traditional opioid analgesia) during colorectal surgery. The analysis of postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale indicated significantly lower pain scores in the TAP block group compared to the control group at both 2 hours (MD, –1.31; 95% CI, –1.41 to –1.21) (Supplement Fig. 11A) [115,,,,,-126] and 24 hours (MD, –1.04; 95% CI, –1.14 to –0.94) post-surgery (Supplement Fig. 11B) [115,117,,,,-126]. Additionally, the TAP block group had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (MD, –0.38 days; 95% CI, –0.53 to –0.22) (Supplement Fig. 11C) [115,-118,120,122,123,125,-128]. While variability in reporting standards and units posed challenges for aggregating opioid consumption data, several studies demonstrated consistently reduced opioid requirements in the TAP block group relative to the control group [116,117,122,123,127,-129]. A meta-analysis by Liu et al. [130], using the standardized mean difference (SMD), further confirmed the reduction in postoperative opioid use in the TAP block group compared to the control group (SMD, –0.26; 95% CI, –0.47 to –0.05).
The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the TAP block group compared to the control group (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36–0.72) (Supplement Fig. 11D) [115,-118,120,-122,125,126,128,129,131]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups concerning the incidence of postoperative ileus (Supplement Fig. 11E) [115,-118,120,123,126,128,129,131].
As described above, there are many methods for postoperative pain management. Instead of relying on a single method, combining multiple techniques in a multimodal analgesia approach is more effective for pain control. TAP block should also be used as part of this multimodal analgesia. The ultimate goal is to minimize the use of opioids.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
The recommendation strength and direction for the use of TAP block during colorectal surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (11 out of 11), with no dissenting opinions regarding the recommendation.
External expert review results
The external review of this key question by the external experts showed that the proportion of those who supported the recommendation strength (7–9 points) was 50% (9 out of 18), which was not high. However, 89% of the reviewers (16 out of 18) indicated ‘conditional for’ when asked about the appropriate recommendation strength. It is believed that this survey result reflects the fact that various pain control methods can be included in multimodal analgesia. As mentioned earlier, TAP block, as an element of multimodal analgesia, was ultimately agreed to be ‘conditional for,’ and the recommendation strength was confirmed.
Recommendation 10.
Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
For preoperative thromboprophylaxis, clinical methods include mechanical prophylaxis (such as compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression) and pharmacologic prophylaxis. Mechanical prophylaxis has been proven effective and is used in clinical practice [132,133]. However, the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis remains less established. Therefore, this analysis evaluated RCTs comparing preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with placebo or intermittent pneumatic compression.
The incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) was analyzed in two studies included in the analysis [134,135]. Both studies reported a significantly lower incidence in the group that received preoperative thromboprophylaxis. Consequently, the meta-analysis results also demonstrated a significant association between preoperative thromboprophylaxis and reduced rates of postoperative DVT or PE (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20–0.99) (Supplement Fig. 12A).
Preoperative thromboprophylaxis carries a potential risk of postoperative bleeding. Both studies included major bleeding requiring transfusion and minor bleeding not requiring transfusion in their analysis [134,135]. When combined, the studies confirmed that preoperative thromboprophylaxis was not associated with major bleeding (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 0.45–36.29) or minor bleeding (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.92–6.68) (Supplement Fig. 12B, C).
However, the limited number of RCTs supporting preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery specifically targeting Korean populations, presents a significant barrier. A prospective study conducted on a Korean cohort found no significant difference in the incidence of thrombotic complications between patients who received preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and those who did not [136], which could hinder the implementation of such measures.
As an alternative, it may be practical to selectively administer preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to patients at high risk for thromboembolic events. For example, patients with obesity or multiple underlying conditions, who are at a higher risk for thrombotic complications [137,-140], might benefit more from targeted prophylactic interventions. If nomograms for identifying patients at high risk for thrombosis are developed, they could serve as valuable tools for deciding whether to implement preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Ninety percent of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for implementing preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery. While there was an opinion in the consensus meeting that the recommendation strength should be ‘strongly recommended,’ the view that the level of evidence should be considered and that the decision should be made selectively based on the individual patient’s condition gained traction. Consequently, the consensus was to classify it as ‘conditional for.’
External expert review results
Among the external experts, the proportion of those who provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for’ recommendation was 44% (8 out of 18), which is relatively low. However, 78% of the external experts endorsed ‘conditional for‘ as the appropriate recommendation strength. Conversely, 3 experts (17%) suggested that ‘conditional against’ was more suitable. After reviewing the consensus meeting results, external expert reviews, and meta-analysis outcomes, the final recommendation strength was confirmed as ‘conditional for.’
Recommendation 11.
It is recommended that urinary catheters are removed the day after colorectal cancer surgery.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
Early removal of urinary catheters postoperatively has been reported to reduce the time to first ambulation [141,,-145] and decrease the length of hospital stay in numerous studies [141,142,144,146,147]. However, the benefits of reducing UTIs through early catheter removal must be weighed against the risks of acute urinary retention that can occur following early removal. The two studies included in the meta-analysis showed a trend toward a reduction in UTIs, but this trend was not statistically significant [148,149]. However, two other studies with relatively larger sample sizes demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in UTIs [150,151]. Therefore, the meta-analysis confirmed that early catheter removal could reduce the incidence of UTIs (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20–0.67) (Supplement Fig. 13A).
There is a potential for catheter reinsertion due to acute urinary retention following early catheter removal. This is particularly relevant in rectal cancer surgeries, where the risk of damaging the lateral pelvic nerves during pelvic surgery must be considered. In the present analysis, four studies on colorectal surgeries involving the pelvic region were included [148,-151]. The meta-analysis revealed that early catheter removal is associated with an increased risk of acute urinary retention following pelvic surgery (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.20–3.89) (Supplement Fig. 13B).
Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) has been reported not to increase the frequency of UTIs compared to indwelling catheters [152]. Therefore, after removing the catheter on the first day post-surgery, in cases where acute urinary retention occurs, the decision whether to reinsert the catheter for prolonged use based on bladder volume expansion (>600 cm3) or to implement CIC, can be determined [153].
Considering different protocols for colon cancer and rectal cancer surgeries is also warranted. A meta-analysis of colorectal surgeries that included pelvic surgeries conducted in 2019 [154], analyzed three prospective RCTs [148,150,151] and two retrospective cohort studies [155,156]. No significant difference in the frequency of UTIs or acute urinary retention between the first and third days post-surgery was confirmed. Therefore, catheter removal on the second day post-surgery for rectal cancer surgeries is also worth considering.
Additionally, in patients with urinary retention issues due to benign prostatic hyperplasia, there have been reports indicating an increased incidence of acute urinary retention following early catheter removal [157,-159]. Therefore, early catheter removal should be approached with caution, and the use of medications such as alpha blockers should be considered prior to removal [160].
Recommendation consensus meeting results
Regarding the recommendation strength and direction for early removal of urinary catheters following elective surgery for colorectal cancer, 90% of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength. There was a suggestion to create separate guidelines for colon cancer and rectal cancer. However, the meta-analysis included studies that covered both colon and rectal cancers, and there were no prospective randomized studies solely on early catheter removal for colon cancer. This limitation makes it impractical to create separate guidelines based solely on the current evidence.
External expert review results
The external review by 18 experts showed that 78% (14 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for.’ Additionally, all 18 experts unanimously agreed that ‘conditional for’ was the appropriate recommendation strength. Consequently, the final review by the development committee confirmed ‘conditional for’ as the recommendation strength without dissent.
Recommendation 12.
Early feeding is recommended to start the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
Early feeding was defined as the introduction of a liquid diet or more substantial nutrition within 24 hours post-surgery, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted accordingly. The majority of studies included in the meta-analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in complications between the two groups [161,,,,-169]. However, Zhou et al.’s study [170], which enrolled the largest number of patients, reported a statistically significant reduction in complications with early dietary advancement, leading to a significant association between early dietary advancement and reduced total postoperative complications in the meta-analysis (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38–0.65) (Supplement Fig. 14A). Although individual studies did not demonstrate statistical significance in anastomotic leakage [161,-163,165,,,-171], when pooled together, a significant association between early dietary advancement and reduced anastomotic leakage was observed (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19–0.83) (Supplement Fig. 14B). In the early dietary advancement group, time to flatus was significantly shorter (MD, –0.87; 95% CI, –1.00 to –0.74) (Supplement Fig. 14C) [161,-164,168,170,171], and hospital stay was also shorter (MD, –0.76; 95% CI, –0.89 to –0.64) (Supplement Fig. 14D) [161,,,,-170,172,173]. However, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the two groups (Supplement Fig. 14E) [161,-163,165,-168,171].
Early dietary advancement is associated with concerns about inducing ileus or vomiting before complete bowel recovery. A comprehensive analysis of nine papers reporting postoperative vomiting revealed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative vomiting in the early dietary advancement group (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11–2.26) (Supplement Fig. 14F) [163,-165,167,-169,171,-173]. Postoperative nasogastric tube insertion was more frequently performed in the early dietary advancement group, although statistical significance was not reached (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.96–2.31) (Supplement Fig. 14G) [162,-165,167,168,170,-172].
Recommendation consensus meeting results
The recommendation strength and direction for early postoperative feeding after elective surgery for colorectal cancer were unanimously supported by all attending members (10 out of 10). There were no dissenting opinions regarding the recommendation.
External expert review results
In the external review conducted by 18 experts, 78% (14 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for’ recommendation (On a scale of 1 to 9). Additionally, 94% of the experts (17 out of 18) endorsed the recommendation strength as ‘conditional for.’ This overall agreement indicates strong support for the recommendation strength. The development committee also confirmed the ‘conditional for’ recommendation strength without dissent during the final review.
| Population (P) | Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery |
| Intervention (I) | Early ambulation |
| Comparison (C) | No early ambulation |
| Outcomes (O) | Complication rate |
Recommendation 13.
Early ambulation is recommended to commence on the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.
Strength of the recommendation: conditional for
Level of evidence: moderate
Postoperative early ambulation is believed to prevent intestinal paralysis and pulmonary complications. The two studies included in the analysis both showed no overall difference in complications, and the meta-analysis result also indicated no significant difference in the occurrence rates of complications between the two groups (Supplement Fig. 15) [174,175]. Specific complications could not be analyzed due to a lack of comparable data provided by both studies. However, one study reported a decrease in hospitalization period with early ambulation [175].
Although early ambulation is considered clinically beneficial, meta-analysis results showed insufficient evidence regarding its benefits and harms. Consistent with our findings, other systematic reviews did not report the advantages of early ambulation [176]. The heterogeneity and design of the studies likely influenced these results. Additionally, there are very few RCTs focusing solely on early ambulation, and most studies included early ambulation as part of the ERAS protocol, making it difficult to synthesize the evidence.
Although this meta-analysis did not establish the benefits of early ambulation, its potential advantages as a component of the ERAS protocol cannot be ruled out, and it can be implemented to some extent without a formal program. Based on this, the committee suggests initiating early ambulation from the day after surgery, considering that its potential benefits likely outweigh the risks.
Recommendation consensus meeting results
The recommendation strength and direction for early ambulation after colorectal cancer surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (10 out of 10), with no dissenting opinions on the recommendation.
External expert review results
The external review by 18 experts showed that 89% of reviewers (16 out of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a ‘conditional for’ on a scale from 1 to 9. Sixty-one percent of the reviewers (11 out of 18) endorsed ‘conditional for’ as the appropriate recommendation strength. The remaining 39% of reviewers (7 out of 18) suggested that a ‘strong recommendation’ might be more appropriate. Despite this, considering the low level of evidence and the fact that some patients may have difficulties with mobility, the consensus was that a strong recommendation would not be suitable. Consequently, the development committee confirmed ‘conditional for’ as the final recommendation strength.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary materials can be found via https://doi.org/10.15747/ACNM.2024.16.2.22
Supplement Material 1. Literature search terms for each key question (KQ).
Supplement Table 1. Multiple pharmacological options for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting.
Supplement Fig. 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart for each key question (KQ).
Supplement Fig. 2. Risk of bias assessment for each key question (KQ) using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Intervention (ROBINS-I), and Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials 2 (RoB 2).
Supplement Fig. 3. Forest plots of (A) postoperative complication (Clavien Dindo Classification I, II), (B) postoperative complication (Clavien Dindo Classification≥III), (C) hospital stay, (D) readmission within 30 days, (E) readmission within 90 days and (F) postoperative mortality based on prehabilitation.
Supplement Fig. 4. Forest plots comparing oral nutritional supplement for (A) total postoperative complications and (B) length of hospital stay.
Supplement Fig. 5. Forest plots of (A) nausea and vomit (within 6 hours), (B) nausea and vomit (within 24 hours), (C) overall side effects, (D) headache, and (E) dizziness between combination therapy and monotherapy.
Supplement Fig. 6. Forest plots of (A) surgical site infections, (B) organ-space surgical site infections, and (C) readmission rates (within 30 days) in the combination of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prophylaxis versus mechanical bowel preparation alone.
Supplement Fig. 7. Forest plots of (A) postoperative complications, (B) surgical site infections, (C) prolonged postoperative ileus, (D) time to flatus, and (E) hospital stay based on preoperative oral carbohydrate loading.
Supplement Fig. 8. Forest plots of (A) postoperative complications, (B) surgical site infections, (C) anastomotic leakage, (D) prolonged postoperative ileus, (E) mortality, and (F) hospital stay based on goal-directed fluid therapy.
Supplement Fig. 9. Forest plots of (A) total postoperative complication, (B) anastomotic leakage, (C) pelvic fluid collection and sepsis, (D) intestinal obstruction, and (E) reoperation based on drain insertion.
Supplement Fig. 10. Forest plots of (A) anastomotic leakage, (B) time to first bowel movement, (C) time to first flatus, (D) surgical site infections, (E) respiratory infections, and (F) hospital stay based on nasogastric tube insertion.
Supplement Fig. 11. Forest plots of (A) postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (within 2 hours), (B) postoperative pain using the visual analogue scale (within 24 hours), (C) hospital stay, (D) postoperative nausea and vomit, and (E) prolonged postoperative ileus in transversus abdominis plane block versus conventional pain control method.
Supplement Fig. 12. Forest plots of (A) venous thromboembolism, (B) major bleeding, and (C) minor bleeding based on preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.
Supplement Fig. 13. Forest plots of (A) urinary infection and (B) acute urinary retention comparing early versus late urinary catheter removal.
Supplement Fig. 14. Forest plots of (A) total postoperative complications, (B) anastomotic leakage, (C) time to flatus, (D) hospital stay, (E) mortality, (F) postoperative vomit, and (G) postoperative nasogastric tube insertion comparing early versus late feeding.
Supplement Fig. 15. Forest plots of total postoperative complication comparing early versus late mobilization.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Korean Cancer Management Guideline Network for the technical support.
Authors’ contribution
Conceptualization: KL, SYL, MC, SYY, SRH, ECH, DJP, SJP. Data curation: all authors. Formal analysis: MC. Funding acquisition: DJP, SJP. Investigation: all authors. Methodology: SYL, MC. Project administration: SYL, SJP. Resources: SJP. Software: MC. Supervision: SYL, DJP, SJP. Visualization: all authors. Writing – original draft: all authors. Writing – review & editing: all authors.
Conflict of interest
Do Joong Park is an editorial board member of the journal, but was not involved in the review process of this manuscript. Otherwise, there is no conflict of interest to disclose.
Funding
This work was supported by a research fund from the National Cancer Center, Republic of Korea (NCC-2112570-4).
Data availability
Contact the corresponding author for data availability.
Table 1
Summary of recommendations
Table 2
Level of evidence
Table 3
The definition of the strength of recommendation
- 1. Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Surg Endosc 2023;37:5-30. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 2. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Hubner M, Nygren J, Demartines N, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 2019;43:659-95. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 3. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons; 2023.
- 4. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A. GRADE Handbook [Internet]. London: Cochrane; 2013. [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html
- 5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 6. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. ArticlePubMed
- 7. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. 2016;ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 8. Berkel AEM, Bongers BC, Kotte H, Weltevreden P, de Jongh FHC, Eijsvogel MMM, et al. 2022;Effects of community-based exercise prehabilitation for patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with high risk for postoperative complications: results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 275:e299-306. PubMed
- 9. Bousquet-Dion G, Awasthi R, Loiselle SÈ, Minnella EM, Agnihotram RV, Bergdahl A, et al. Evaluation of supervised multimodal prehabilitation programme in cancer patients undergoing colorectal resection: a randomized control trial. Acta Oncol 2018;57:849-59. ArticlePubMed
- 10. Carli F, Bousquet-Dion G, Awasthi R, Elsherbini N, Liberman S, Boutros M, et al. Effect of multimodal prehabilitation vs postoperative rehabilitation on 30-day postoperative complications for frail patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2020;155:233-42. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 11. de Klerk M, van Dalen DH, Nahar-van Venrooij LMW, Meijerink WJHJ, Verdaasdonk EGG. A multimodal prehabilitation program in high-risk patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:2849-56. ArticlePubMed
- 12. Gillis C, Li C, Lee L, Awasthi R, Augustin B, Gamsa A, et al. Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: a randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. Anesthesiology 2014;121:937-47. PubMed
- 13. Gloor S, Misirlic M, Frei-Lanter C, Herzog P, Müller P, Schäfli-Thurnherr J, et al. Prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery fails to confer reduction in overall morbidity: results of a single-center, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022;407:897-907. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 14. Li C, Carli F, Lee L, Charlebois P, Stein B, Liberman AS, et al. Impact of a trimodal prehabilitation program on functional recovery after colorectal cancer surgery: a pilot study. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1072-82. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 15. López-Rodríguez-Arias F, Sánchez-Guillén L, Aranaz-Ostáriz V, Triguero-Cánovas D, Lario-Pérez S, Barber-Valles X, et al. Effect of home-based prehabilitation in an enhanced recovery after surgery program for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Support Care Cancer 2021;29:7785-91. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 16. van der Hulst HC, Bastiaannet E, Portielje JEA, van der Bol JM, Dekker JWT. Can physical prehabilitation prevent complications after colorectal cancer surgery in frail older patients? Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:2830-40. ArticlePubMed
- 17. García-Malpartida K, Aragón-Valera C, Botella-Romero F, Ocón-Bretón MJ, López-Gómez JJ. Effects of immunonutrition on cancer patients undergoing surgery: a scoping review. Nutrients 2023;15:1776.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 18. Lee SY, Park H, Kim CH, Kim HR. Role of preoperative immunonutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a narrative review. Ann Clin Nutr Metab 2023;15:46-50. Article
- 19. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Higashiguchi T, Hübner M, Klek S, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr 2021;40:4745-61. ArticlePubMed
- 20. Horie H, Okada M, Kojima M, Nagai H. Favorable effects of preoperative enteral immunonutrition on a surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer without malnutrition. Surg Today 2006;36:1063-8. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 21. Lee SY, Lee J, Park HM, Kim CH, Kim HR. Impact of preoperative immunonutrition on the outcomes of colon cancer surgery: results from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2023;277:381-6. PubMed
- 22. Moya P, Miranda E, Soriano-Irigaray L, Arroyo A, Aguilar MD, Bellón M, et al. Perioperative immunonutrition in normo-nourished patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4946-53. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 23. Moya P, Soriano-Irigaray L, Ramirez JM, Garcea A, Blasco O, Blanco FJ, et al. Perioperative standard oral nutrition supplements versus immunonutrition in patients undergoing colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery (ERAS) protocol: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (SONVI study). Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3704. PubMedPMC
- 24. Tesar M, Kozusnikova V, Martinek L, Durdik S, Ihnat P. 2023;Preoperative nutritional support for patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery - does it really work? Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 167:145-51. ArticlePubMed
- 25. Tesař M, Ostruzska P, Kožušníková V, Martínek L, Zádrapová M, Grasslová L, et al. Preoperative non-selective administration of nutritional supplements to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection - standard of perioperative care? Rozhl Chir 2022;101:232-8. PubMed
- 26. Wierdak M, Surmiak M, Milian-Ciesielska K, Rubinkiewicz M, Rzepa A, Wysocki M, et al. Immunonutrition changes inflammatory response in colorectal cancer: results from a pilot randomized clinical trial. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:1444.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 27. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg 2006;30:1284-9. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 28. Gan TJ, Belani KG, Bergese S, Chung F, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, et al. Fourth consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2020;131:411-48. PubMed
- 29. Habib AS, Chen YT, Taguchi A, Hu XH, Gan TJ. Postoperative nausea and vomiting following inpatient surgeries in a teaching hospital: a retrospective database analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1093-9. ArticlePubMed
- 30. Fortier J, Chung F, Su J. Unanticipated admission after ambulatory surgery--a prospective study. Can J Anaesth 1998;45:612-9. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 31. Hill RP, Lubarsky DA, Phillips-Bute B, Fortney JT, Creed MR, Glass PS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, or placebo. Anesthesiology 2000;92:958-67. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 32. Ahsan K, Abbas N, Naqvi SM, Murtaza G, Tariq S. Comparison of efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone combination and ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Pak Med Assoc 2014;64:242-6.PubMed
- 33. Biswas BN, Rudra A. Comparison of granisetron and granisetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47:79-83. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 34. Blitz JD, Haile M, Kline R, Franco L, Didehvar S, Pachter HL, et al. A randomized double blind study to evaluate efficacy of palonosetron with dexamethasone versus palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in subjects undergoing laparoscopic surgeries with high emetogenic risk. Am J Ther 2012;19:324-9. ArticlePubMed
- 35. Gautam B, Shrestha BR, Lama P, Rai S. Antiemetic prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting with ondansetron-dexamethasone combination compared to ondansetron or dexamethasone alone for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2008;6:319-28. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 36. Ghosh S, Pal A, Acharya A, Biswas C, Ghosh TR, Ghosh S. Palonosetron and palonosetron plus dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative study. Anesth Essays Res 2011;5:134-7. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 37. Nagappa SU, Kallappa S, Policepatil M, Katappa V. To study the efficacy of granisetron and granisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Arch Anesth Crit Care 2022;8(Supp. 1):364-9.
- 38. Rajeeva V, Bhardwaj N, Batra YK, Dhaliwal LK. 1999;Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in diagnostic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesth 46:40-4. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 39. Alia I, Gillani M, Hanif A, Dar UF, Mirza A. Comparison of ondansetron and combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pakistan J Med Health Sci 2015;9:1387-9.
- 40. Bala I, Bharti N, Murugesan S, Gupta R. Comparison of palonosetron with palonosetron-dexamethasone combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minerva Anestesiol 2014;80:779-84.PubMed
- 41. Bhattarai B, Shrestha S, Singh J. Comparison of ondansetron and combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone as a prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2011;4:168-72. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 42. Chatterjee A, Sahu S, Paul M, Singh T, Singh S, Mishra P. Comparison of efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination with palonosetron or dexamethasone alone for prophylaxis against post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth 2017;61:978-84. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 43. Jo YY, Lee JW, Shim JK, Lee WK, Choi YS. Ramosetron, dexamethasone, and their combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2306-11. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 44. Kumar A, Patodia M, Pandove P, Sharda VK. A randomized, placebo controlled study evaluating preventive role of ondansetron, dexamethasone and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Int Med Sci Acad 2013;26:217-8.
- 45. Mohammadi SS, Tabasi ZG. Comparing ondansetron with ondansetron-dexamethasone combination on postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective abdominal surgeries: a randomized double blinded clinical trial. Arch Anesth Crit Care 2018;4:444-7.
- 46. Ryoo SH, Yoo JH, Kim MG, Lee KH, Kim SI. The effect of combination treatment using palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting versus dexamethasone alone in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Korean J Anesthesiol 2015;68:267-73. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 47. Ryu JH, Chang JE, Kim HR, Hwang JW, Oh AY, Do SH. Ramosetron vs. ramosetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective, randomized, and double-blind study. Int J Surg 2013;11:183-7. ArticlePubMed
- 48. Sadhoo N, Prakash J, Kumar V, Kharwar RK, Ahmad S, Sethi BK. A comparison of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone as single-agents or in combination in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomized trial. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2023;13:4-10. PubMedPMC
- 49. Moon HY, Baek CW, Choi GJ, Shin HY, Kang H, Jung YH, et al. Palonosetron and aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery: a double-blind randomised trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:68.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 50. Yamanaga S, Posselt AM, Freise CE, Kobayashi T, Tavakol M, Kang SM. A single perioperative injection of dexamethasone decreases nausea, vomiting, and pain after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Transplant 2017;2017:3518103. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 51. Yue C, Wei R, Liu Y. 2017;Perioperative systemic steroid for rapid recovery in total knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Orthop Surg Res 12:100.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 52. Mihara T, Ishii T, Ka K, Goto T. Effects of steroids on quality of recovery and adverse events after general anesthesia: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. PLoS One 2016;11:e0162961. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 53. Kranke P, Morin AM, Roewer N, Wulf H, Eberhart LH. 2002;The efficacy and safety of transdermal scopolamine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 95:133-43. ArticlePubMed
- 54. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2019. Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment [Internet]. London: NICE; [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542473/
- 55. Koo CH, Chok AY, Wee IJY, Seow-En I, Zhao Y, Tan EJKW. Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;38:151.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 56. Tan J, Ryan ÉJ, Davey MG, McHugh FT, Creavin B, Whelan MC, et al. Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery: network meta-analysis. BJS Open 2023;7:zrad040. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 57. Anjum N, Ren J, Wang G, Li G, Wu X, Dong H, et al. 2017;A randomized control trial of preoperative oral antibiotics as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty type of colorectal surgeries. Dis Colon Rectum 60:1291-8. ArticlePubMed
- 58. Arezzo A, Mistrangelo M, Bonino MA, Salusso P, Forcignanò E, Vettoretto N, et al. Oral neomycin and bacitracin are effective in preventing surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, randomized, parallel, single-blinded trial (COLORAL-1). Updates Surg 2021;73:1775-86. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 59. Ikeda A, Konishi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, et al. Randomized clinical trial of oral and intravenous versus intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2016;103:1608-15. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 60. Koskenvuo L, Lehtonen T, Koskensalo S, Rasilainen S, Klintrup K, Ehrlich A, et al. Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial. Lancet 2019;394:840-8. ArticlePubMed
- 61. Oshima T, Takesue Y, Ikeuchi H, Matsuoka H, Nakajima K, Uchino M, et al. Preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis reduce the incidence of surgical site infections in patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing IPAA. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:1149-55. ArticlePubMed
- 62. Sadahiro S, Suzuki T, Tanaka A, Okada K, Kamata H, Ozaki T, et al. Comparison between oral antibiotics and probiotics as bowel preparation for elective colon cancer surgery to prevent infection: prospective randomized trial. Surgery 2014;155:493-503. ArticlePubMed
- 63. Uchino M, Ikeuchi H, Bando T, Chohno T, Sasaki H, Horio Y, et al. Efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections in patients with crohn disease: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2019;269:420-6. PubMed
- 64. Yabata E, Okabe S, Endo M. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of preoperative bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery--comparison among oral, systemic, and intraoperative luminal antibacterial preparations. J Med Dent Sci 1997;44:75-80.PubMed
- 65. Amer MA, Smith MD, Herbison GP, Plank LD, McCall JL. Network meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative carbohydrate loading on recovery after elective surgery. Br J Surg 2017;104:187-97. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 66. Hamamoto H, Yamamoto M, Masubuchi S, Ishii M, Osumi W, Tanaka K, et al. The impact of preoperative carbohydrate loading on intraoperative body temperature: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2018;32:4393-401. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 67. Kaska M, Grosmanová T, Havel E, Hyspler R, Petrová Z, Brtko M, et al. The impact and safety of preoperative oral or intravenous carbohydrate administration versus fasting in colorectal surgery--a randomized controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2010;122:23-30. ArticlePDF
- 68. Lidder P, Thomas S, Fleming S, Hosie K, Shaw S, Lewis S. A randomized placebo controlled trial of preoperative carbohydrate drinks and early postoperative nutritional supplement drinks in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2013;15:737-45. ArticlePubMed
- 69. Noblett SE, Watson DS, Huong H, Davison B, Hainsworth PJ, Horgan AF. Pre-operative oral carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2006;8:563-9. ArticlePubMed
- 70. Rizvanović N, Nesek Adam V, Kalajdžija M, Čaušević S, Dervišević S, Smajić J. Effects of preoperative oral carbohydrate loading on neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and postoperative complications following colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled study. Eur Surg Res 2023;64:278-85. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 71. Webster J, Osborne SR, Gill R, Chow CF, Wallin S, Jones L, et al. Does preoperative oral carbohydrate reduce hospital stay? A randomized trial. AORN J 2014;99:233-42. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 72. Wongyingsinn M, Luangchan S, Tungsongsawat S, Trakarnsanga A, Lohsiriwat V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative carbohydrate drinks on postoperative walking capacity in elective colorectal surgery. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2019;28:727-33.PubMed
- 73. Henriksen MG, Hessov I, Dela F, Hansen HV, Haraldsted V, Rodt SA. Effects of preoperative oral carbohydrates and peptides on postoperative endocrine response, mobilization, nutrition and muscle function in abdominal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47:191-9. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 74. Rizvanović N, Nesek Adam V, Čaušević S, Dervišević S, Delibegović S. A randomised controlled study of preoperative oral carbohydrate loading versus fasting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34:1551-61. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 75. Sada F, Krasniqi A, Hamza A, Gecaj-Gashi A, Bicaj B, Kavaja F. A randomized trial of preoperative oral carbohydrates in abdominal surgery. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:93.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 76. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures; An updated report by the american society of anesthesiologists task force on preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration. Anesthesiology 2017;126:376-93. PubMed
- 77. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2263-74. ArticlePubMed
- 78. Kendrick JB, Kaye AD, Tong Y, Belani K, Urman RD, Hoffman C, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy in the perioperative setting. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019;35(Suppl 1):S29-34. PubMedPMC
- 79. Brandstrup B, Svendsen PE, Rasmussen M, Belhage B, Rodt SÅ, Hansen B, et al. 2012;Which goal for fluid therapy during colorectal surgery is followed by the best outcome: near-maximal stroke volume or zero fluid balance? Br J Anaesth 109:191-9. ArticlePubMed
- 80. Challand C, Struthers R, Sneyd JR, Erasmus PD, Mellor N, Hosie KB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in aerobically fit and unfit patients having major colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth 2012;108:53-62. ArticlePubMed
- 81. Conway DH, Mayall R, Abdul-Latif MS, Gilligan S, Tackaberry C. Randomised controlled trial investigating the influence of intravenous fluid titration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring during bowel surgery. Anaesthesia 2002;57:845-9. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 82. Gómez-Izquierdo JC, Trainito A, Mirzakandov D, Stein BL, Liberman S, Charlebois P, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy does not reduce primary postoperative ileus after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2017;127:36-49. PubMed
- 83. Mahrose R, Kasem AA. Pulse pressure variation-based intraoperative fluid management versus traditional fluid management for colon cancer patients undergoing open mass resection and anastomosis: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Pain Med 2023;13:e135659. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 84. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, Horgan AF. 2006;Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg 93:1069-76. PubMed
- 85. Phan TD, D'Souza B, Rattray MJ, Johnston MJ, Cowie BS. A randomised controlled trial of fluid restriction compared to oesophageal Doppler-guided goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major colorectal surgery within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program. Anaesth Intensive Care 2014;42:752-60. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 86. Srinivasa S, Taylor MH, Singh PP, Yu TC, Soop M, Hill AG. Randomized clinical trial of goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery protocol for elective colectomy. Br J Surg 2013;100:66-74. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 87. Wakeling HG, McFall MR, Jenkins CS, Woods WG, Miles WF, Barclay GR, et al. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:634-42. ArticlePubMed
- 88. Zakhaleva J, Tam J, Denoya PI, Bishawi M, Bergamaschi R. The impact of intravenous fluid administration on complication rates in bowel surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2013;15:892-9. ArticlePubMed
- 89. Liu F, Lv J, Zhang W, Liu Z, Dong L, Wang Y. Randomized controlled trial of regional tissue oxygenation following goal-directed fluid therapy during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2019;12:4390-9.PubMedPMC
- 90. Reisinger KW, Willigers HM, Jansen J, Buurman WA, Von Meyenfeldt MF, Beets GL, et al. Doppler-guided goal-directed fluid therapy does not affect intestinal cell damage but increases global gastrointestinal perfusion in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2017;19:1081-91. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 91. Lee KY, Yoo YC, Cho JS, Lee W, Kim JY, Kim MH. The effect of intraoperative fluid management according to stroke volume variation on postoperative bowel function recovery in colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Med 2021;10:1857.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 92. Senagore AJ, Emery T, Luchtefeld M, Kim D, Dujovny N, Hoedema R. Fluid management for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment of goal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarch coupled with an enhanced recovery program. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:1935-40. ArticlePubMed
- 93. Cesur S, Çardaközü T, Kuş A, Türkyılmaz N, Yavuz Ö. Comparison of conventional fluid management with PVI-based goal-directed fluid management in elective colorectal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2019;33:249-57. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 94. Rollins KE, Lobo DN. Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2016;263:465-76. PubMed
- 95. Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 1998;133:309-14. ArticlePubMed
- 96. Averbach AM, Sugarbaker PH. The use of drains in elective surgery for colorectal cancer: always, never or selectively? Tumori 1995;81 Suppl 3:89-97.
- 97. Lennox MS. Prophylactic drainage of colonic anastomoses. Br J Surg 1984;71:10-1. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 98. Elboim CM, Goldman L, Hann L, Palestrant AM, Silen W. Significance of post-cholecystectomy subhepatic fluid collections. Ann Surg 1983;198:137-41. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 99. Berliner SD, Burson LC, Lear PE. Use and abuse of intraperitoneal drains in colon surgery. Arch Surg 1964;89:686-9. ArticlePubMed
- 100. Nora PF, Vanecko RM, Bransfield JJ. Prophylactic abdominal drains. Arch Surg 1972;105:173-6. ArticlePubMed
- 101. Ellis H. The aetiology of post-operative abdominal adhesions. An experimental study. Br J Surg 1962;50:10-6. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 102. Smith SR, Connolly JC, Crane PW, Gilmore OJ. The effect of surgical drainage materials on colonic healing. Br J Surg 1982;69:153-5. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 103. Shear L, Swartz C, Shinaberger JA, Barry KG. Kinetics of peritoneal fluid absorption in adult man. N Engl J Med 1965;272:123-7. ArticlePubMed
- 104. Brown SR, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Heah SM, Tang CL. A prospective randomised study of drains in infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses. Tech Coloproctol 2001;5:89-92. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 105. Johnson CD, Lamont PM, Orr N, Lennox M. Is a drain necessary after colonic anastomosis? J R Soc Med 1989;82:661-4. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 106. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pélissier E, et al. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery 1999;125:529-35. ArticlePubMed
- 107. Sagar PM, Hartley MN, Macfie J, Mancey-Jones B, Sedman P, May J. Randomized trial of pelvic drainage after rectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:254-8. ArticlePubMed
- 108. Denost Q, Rouanet P, Faucheron JL, Panis Y, Meunier B, Cotte E, et al. French Research Group of Rectal Cancer Surgery (GRECCAR). To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: the GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann Surg 2017;265:474-80. PubMed
- 109. Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B. Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2007:CD004929.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 110. Lei WZ, Zhao GP, Cheng Z, Li K, Zhou ZG. 2004;Gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract. World J Gastroenterol 10:1998-2001. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 111. Venara A, Hamel JF, Cotte E, Meillat H, Sage PY, Slim K. GRACE Group*. Intraoperative nasogastric tube during colorectal surgery may not be mandatory: a propensity score analysis of a prospective database. Surg Endosc 2020;34:5583-92. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 112. Yeo J, Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ, Kim JK, Oh J, et al. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia and morphine-based patient-controlled analgesia in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2022;46:1788-95. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 113. Bakker N, Deelder JD, Richir MC, Cakir H, Doodeman HJ, Schreurs WH, et al. Risk of anastomotic leakage with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs within an enhanced recovery program. J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:776-82. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 114. Choi BM, Hwang CS, Yoon YS, Park IJ, Yoo MW, Kim BS. Novel temperature-responsive hydrogel injected to the incision site for postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a single-blind, randomized, pivotal clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2022;36:5794-802. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 115. Haruethaivijitchock P, Ng JL, Taksavanitcha G, Theerawatanawong J, Rattananupong T, Lohsoonthorn V, et al. Postoperative analgesic efficacy of modified continuous transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 2020;24:1179-87. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 116. Keller DS, Ermlich BO, Schiltz N, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL Jr, Stein SL, et al. The effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:1290-7. PubMed
- 117. Oh TK, Yim J, Kim J, Eom W, Lee SA, Park SC, et al. Effects of preoperative ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block on pain after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2017;31:127-34. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 118. Pedrazzani C, Park SY, Conti C, Turri G, Park JS, Kim HJ, et al. Analgesic efficacy of pre-emptive local wound infiltration plus laparoscopic-assisted transversus abdominis plane block versus wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection: results from a randomized, multicenter, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3329-38. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 119. Ping-Chen , Lin QS, Lin XZ. Optimal concentration of the transversus abdominis plane block in enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for patients of advanced age undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. J Int Med Res 2018;46:4437-46. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 120. Tikuisis R, Miliauskas P, Lukoseviciene V, Samalavicius N, Dulskas A, Zabuliene L, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain relief after hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Tech Coloproctol 2016;20:835-44. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 121. Walter CJ, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Pinkney TD, Conaghan PJ, Bedforth N, Gornall CB, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2366-72. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 122. Xu YJ, Sun X, Jiang H, Yin YH, Weng ML, Sun ZR, et al. Randomized clinical trial of continuous transversus abdominis plane block, epidural or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2020;107:e133-41. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 123. Zaghiyan KN, Mendelson BJ, Eng MR, Ovsepyan G, Mirocha JM, Fleshner P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic versus ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62:203-10. ArticlePubMed
- 124. Zhang Z, Hao D. Effect of transversus abdominis plane block combined with low-dose dexmedetomidine on elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2023;18:524-32. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 125. Zhao Y, Zhang HY, Yuan ZY, Han Y, Chen YR, Liu QL, et al. Analgesic efficacy of postoperative bilateral, ultrasound-guided, posterior transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized, prospective, controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol 2021;21:107.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 126. Zheng J, Feng Z, Zhu J. Effect of preintravenous injection of parecoxib, combined with transversus abdominis plane block in strategy of enhanced recovery after radical resection of colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2018;14:1583-8. ArticlePubMed
- 127. Damadi AA, Lax EA, Smithson L, Pearlman RD. Comparison of therapeutic benefit of bupivacaine HCl transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block as part of an enhanced recovery pathway versus traditional oral and intravenous pain control after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Am Surg 2019;85:1363-8. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 128. Liang M, Xv X, Ren C, Yao Y, Gao X. Effect of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with rectus sheath block on patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2021;21:89.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 129. Smith SR, Draganic B, Pockney P, Holz P, Holmes R, Mcmanus B, et al. Transversus abdominis plane blockade in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015;30:1237-45. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 130. Liu KY, Lu YJ, Lin YC, Wei PL, Kang YN. Transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Surg 2022;104:106825. ArticlePubMed
- 131. Ren L, Qin P, Min S, Wang W, Jin J. 2022;Transversus abdominis plane block versus local wound infiltration for postoperative pain after laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: a randomized, double-blinded study. J Gastrointest Surg 26:425-32. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 132. Kakkos S, Kirkilesis G, Caprini JA, Geroulakos G, Nicolaides A, Stansby G, et al. Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;1:CD005258. ArticlePubMed
- 133. Sachdeva A, Dalton M, Lees T. 2018;Graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD001484. ArticlePubMed
- 134. Becattini C, Pace U, Pirozzi F, Donini A, Avruscio G, Rondelli F, et al. 2022;Rivaroxaban vs placebo for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Blood 140:900-8. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 135. Kamachi H, Homma S, Kawamura H, Yoshida T, Ohno Y, Ichikawa N, et al. Intermittent pneumatic compression versus additional prophylaxis with enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic surgery for gastric and colorectal malignancies: multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS Open 2020;4:804-10. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 136. Lee E, Kang SB, Choi SI, Chun EJ, Kim MJ, Kim DW, et al. Prospective study on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in Korean patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:978-89. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 137. Kreutzer L, Minami C, Yang A. JAMA PATIENT PAGE. Preventing venous thromboembolism after surgery. JAMA 2016;315:2136.ArticlePubMed
- 138. D'Astous J, Liederman Z, Douketis JD. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk orthopedic and cancer surgery. Postgrad Med 2021;133(sup1):20-6. Article
- 139. Spyropoulos AC, Douketis JD. 2012;How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery. Blood 120:2954-62. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 140. Anderson DR, Morgano GP, Bennett C, Dentali F, Francis CW, Garcia DA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv 2019;3:3898-944. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 141. Ahmed MR, Sayed Ahmed WA, Atwa KA, Metwally L. Timing of urinary catheter removal after uncomplicated total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;176:60-3. ArticlePubMed
- 142. Nollen JM, Pijnappel L, Schoones JW, Peul WC, Van Furth WR, Brunsveld-Reinders AH. Impact of early postoperative indwelling urinary catheter removal: a systematic review. J Clin Nurs 2023;32:2155-77. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 143. Liang CC, Lee CL, Chang TC, Chang YL, Wang CJ, Soong YK. Postoperative urinary outcomes in catheterized and non-catheterized patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy--a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20:295-300. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 144. Sekhavat L, Farajkhoda T, Davar R. The effect of early removal of indwelling urinary catheter on postoperative urinary complications in anterior colporrhaphy surgery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:348-52. ArticlePubMed
- 145. Vallabh-Patel V, Popiel P, Salamon C. Indwelling versus immediate removal of transurethral catheter after robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26:617-21. ArticlePubMed
- 146. Hung LY, Benlice C, Jia X, Steele SR, Valente MA, Holubar SD, et al. Outcomes after early versus delayed urinary bladder catheter removal after proctectomy for benign and malignant disease in 2,429 patients: an observational cohort study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2021;22:310-7. ArticlePubMed
- 147. El-Mazny A, El-Sharkawy M, Hassan A. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing immediate versus delayed removal of urinary catheter following elective cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;181:111-4. ArticlePubMed
- 148. Zmora O, Madbouly K, Tulchinsky H, Hussein A, Khaikin M. Urinary bladder catheter drainage following pelvic surgery--is it necessary for that long? Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:321-6. ArticlePubMed
- 149. Coyle D, Joyce KM, Garvin JT, Regan M, McAnena OJ, Neary PM, et al. Early post-operative removal of urethral catheter in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with epidural analgesia - a prospective pilot clinical study. Int J Surg 2015;16(Pt A):94-8. ArticlePubMed
- 150. Benoist S, Panis Y, Denet C, Mauvais F, Mariani P, Valleur P. 1999;Optimal duration of urinary drainage after rectal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Surgery 125:135-41. ArticlePubMed
- 151. Patel DN, Felder SI, Luu M, Daskivich TJ, N Zaghiyan K, Fleshner P. Early urinary catheter removal following pelvic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2018;61:1180-6. ArticlePubMed
- 152. Han CS, Kim S, Radadia KD, Zhao PT, Elsamra SE, Olweny EO, et al. Comparison of urinary tract infection rates associated with transurethral catheterization, suprapubic tube and clean intermittent catheterization in the postoperative setting: a network meta-analysis. J Urol 2017;198:1353-8. ArticlePubMed
- 153. Okrainec A, Aarts MA, Conn LG, McCluskey S, McKenzie M, Pearsall EA, et al. members of the iERAS Group. Compliance with urinary catheter removal guidelines leads to improved outcome in enhanced recovery after surgery patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21:1309-17. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 154. Lee Y, McKechnie T, Springer JE, Doumouras AG, Hong D, Eskicioglu C. Optimal timing of urinary catheter removal following pelvic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34:2011-21. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 155. Yoo BE, Kye BH, Kim HJ, Kim G, Kim JG, Cho HM. Early removal of the urinary catheter after total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is safe. Dis Colon Rectum 2015;58:686-91. ArticlePubMed
- 156. Lee SY, Kang SB, Kim DW, Oh HK, Ihn MH. Risk factors and preventive measures for acute urinary retention after rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg 2015;39:275-82. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 157. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, et al. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol 1997;158:481-7. ArticlePubMed
- 158. Kolman C, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Lieber MM. Distribution of post-void residual urine volume in randomly selected men. J Urol 1999;161:122-7. ArticlePubMed
- 159. Kim IK, Lee CS, Bae JH, Han SR, Lee DS, Lee IK, et al. Immediate urinary catheter removal after colorectal surgery with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;38:162.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 160. Sandhu JS, Bixler BR, Dahm P, Goueli R, Kirkby E, Stoffel JT, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): AUA guideline amendment 2023. J Urol 2024;211:11-9. ArticlePubMed
- 161. da Fonseca LM, Profeta da Luz MM, Lacerda-Filho A, Correia MI, Gomes da Silva R. A simplified rehabilitation program for patients undergoing elective colonic surgery--randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26:609-16. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 162. Dag A, Colak T, Turkmenoglu O, Gundogdu R, Aydin S. A randomized controlled trial evaluating early versus traditional oral feeding after colorectal surgery. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011;66:2001-5. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 163. El Nakeeb A, Fikry A, El Metwally T, Fouda E, Youssef M, Ghazy H, et al. Early oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colonic anastomosis. Int J Surg 2009;7:206-9. ArticlePubMed
- 164. Feo CV, Romanini B, Sortini D, Ragazzi R, Zamboni P, Pansini GC, et al. Early oral feeding after colorectal resection: a randomized controlled study. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:298-301. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 165. Hartsell PA, Frazee RC, Harrison JB, Smith RW. Early postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 1997;132:518-20. discussion 520-1. ArticlePubMed
- 166. Ortiz H, Armendariz P, Yarnoz C. Is early postoperative feeding feasible in elective colon and rectal surgery? Int J Colorectal Dis 1996;11:119-21. ArticlePubMedPDF
- 167. Reissman P, Teoh TA, Cohen SM, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Is early oral feeding safe after elective colorectal surgery? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 1995;222:73-7. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 168. Stewart BT, Woods RJ, Collopy BT, Fink RJ, Mackay JR, Keck JO. Early feeding after elective open colorectal resections: a prospective randomized trial. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:125-8. ArticlePubMed
- 169. Yoo CO, Lee KK, Lee JK. Safety of early postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 1998;14:605-10.
- 170. Zhou T, Wu XT, Zhou YJ, Huang X, Fan W, Li YC. Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients' rehabilitation after colorectostomy. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:2459-63. ArticlePubMedPMC
- 171. Nematihonar B, Salimi S, Noorian V, Samsami M. Early versus delayed (traditional) postoperative oral feeding in patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis. Adv Biomed Res 2018;7:30.ArticlePubMedPMC
- 172. Binderow SR, Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Nogueras JJ. Must early postoperative oral intake be limited to laparoscopy? Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:584-9. ArticlePubMed
- 173. Nie J, Su X, Wei L, Li H. Early enteral nutrition support for colon carcinoma patients can improve immune function and promote physical recovery. Am J Transl Res 2021;13:14102-8.PubMedPMC
- 174. Fiore JF Jr, Castelino T, Pecorelli N, Niculiseanu P, Balvardi S, Hershorn O, et al. Ensuring early mobilization within an enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2017;266:223-31. PubMed
- 175. Min J, An KY, Park H, Cho W, Jung HJ, Chu SH, et al. Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2023;23:127.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
- 176. Willner A, Teske C, Hackert T, Welsch T. 2023;Effects of early postoperative mobilization following gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 7:zrad102. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
References
Figure & Data
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
Cite
XML DownloadThe 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines for colorectal cancer
The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines for colorectal cancer
Summary of recommendations
| Recommendation | Strength | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|
| KQ 1. Is prehabilitation effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Prehabilitation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 2. Is preoperative oral nutritional supplement effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Preoperative nutritional support using oral nutritional supplements is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 3. What are the appropriate methods to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - The use of dexamethasone in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist rather than monotherapy is recommended for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery. |
Strong for | High |
| KQ 4. Is the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery? - The use of oral antibiotics in conjunction with mechanical bowel preparation is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery. |
Conditional for | High |
| KQ 5. Is preoperative oral carbohydrate loading effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery? - Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before colorectal cancer surgery is recommended. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 6. Is goal-directed fluid therapy beneficial during elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery may be considered for high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 7. Is the insertion of an intra-abdominal drain necessary during elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - It is suggested that an intra-abdominal drain is not inserted during surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional against | Moderate |
| KQ 8. During elective surgery for colorectal cancer, does the insertion of a nasogastric tube aid in the patient’s recovery? - It is suggested that a nasogastric tube is not inserted during surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional against | Low |
| KQ 9. Is transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block effective for postoperative pain control following elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - TAP block may be considered for pain control during surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 10. Is thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 11. How long should urinary catheters be maintained after elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - It is recommended that urinary catheters are removed the day after colorectal cancer surgery. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 12. Is early feeding effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Early feeding is recommended to start the day after surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
| KQ 13. Is early ambulation effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer? - Early ambulation is recommended to commence on the day after surgery for colorectal cancer. |
Conditional for | Moderate |
Level of evidence
| Level | Definition |
|---|---|
| High | Evidence from a well-conducted RCT/meta-analysis with low risk of bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study with no bias in study design or conduct and an effect size rated as very large |
| Moderate | Evidence derived from RCT or meta-analysis with bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study without bias in study design or conduct and a large effect size |
| Low | Evidence resulting from RCT or meta-analysis with biases reported in two or more aspects of study design and conduct, or from an observational study without biases in study design and conduct |
| Very low | Evidence from observational studies, case reports, or inadequately conducted observational studies with biases in study design and conduct |
RCT = randomized controlled trial.
The definition of the strength of recommendation
| Strength of recommendation | Strength | Direction | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strong recommendation | Strong | For | When the benefits of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the associated risks, burdens, and costs |
| Conditional recommendation | Conditional | When the benefits of treatment or testing potentially exceed the associated risks, burdens, and costs but remain uncertain | |
| Conditional against | Conditional | Against | When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing potentially exceed the benefits but remain uncertain |
| Strong against | Strong | When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the benefits |
Table 1
Summary of recommendations
Table 2
Level of evidence
RCT = randomized controlled trial.
Table 3
The definition of the strength of recommendation
