Next Article in Journal
The Presence of Bacteremia Indicates Higher Inflammatory Response and Augments Disease Severity in Adult Patients with Urinary Tract Infections
Previous Article in Journal
Repeated Femtosecond Laser-Assisted Astigmatic Keratotomies in Post-Keratoplasty Eyes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 14
10.3390/jcm11144222
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

by
Francesca Salamanna
1,†,
Deyanira Contartese
1,†,
Silvia Brogini
1,*,
Andrea Visani
1,
Konstantinos Martikos
2,
Cristiana Griffoni
2,
Alessandro Ricci
3,
Alessandro Gasbarrini
2 and
Milena Fini
1
1
Complex Structure Surgical Sciences and Technologies, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
2
Spine Surgery Unit, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
3
Anesthesia-Resuscitation and Intensive Care, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, 40136 Bologna, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(14), 4222; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11144222
Submission received: 2 May 2022 / Revised: 11 July 2022 / Accepted: 19 July 2022 / Published: 20 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Orthopedics)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have led to improvements in outcomes in several surgical fields, through multimodal optimization of patient pathways, reductions in complications, improved patient experiences and reductions in the length of stay. However, their use has not been uniformly recognized in all orthopedic fields, and there is still no consensus on the best implementation process. Here, we evaluated pre-, peri-, and post-operative key elements and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols, measurements, and associated outcomes in patients undergoing different orthopedic surgical procedures. A systematic literature search on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases was conducted to identify clinical studies, from 2012 to 2022. Out of the 1154 studies retrieved, 174 (25 on spine surgery, 4 on thorax surgery, 2 on elbow surgery and 143 on hip and/or knee surgery) were considered eligible for this review. Results showed that ERAS protocols improve the recovery from orthopedic surgery, decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates. Comparative studies between ERAS and non-ERAS protocols also showed improvement in patient pain scores, satisfaction, and range of motion. Although ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery are safe and effective, future studies focusing on specific ERAS elements, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, are mandatory to optimize the protocols.

1. Introduction

1.1. ERAS in Orthopedic Surgery

Currently, orthopedic surgery remains one of the most common hospital surgeries in the world with an ever-growing burden in low- and middle-income countries. The number of orthopedic procedures performed worldwide totaled approximately 22.3 million in 2017 [1]. Additionally, the rising life expectancy in association with the shorter disease-free life expectancy (62.6 years in males and 64.4 years in females) will lead to an ever-increasing growth in the number of these procedures [2]. As demand for orthopedic surgical procedures has increased considering the recent advances in surgical and anesthesiologic techniques, the clinical pathways and care programs have undergone considerable changes influenced by the concept of ERAS programs [3]. ERAS aims to enhance the recovery from orthopedic surgery, also decreasing the length of hospital stays (LOS) and the readmission rates after surgery [3]. The reductions in LOS and readmission lead, in turn, to cost cutting and to a lower risk of nosocomial infections and thromboembolic events, as well as to a reduction in perioperative complications [3,4].

1.2. ERAS Protocols

ERAS protocols were introduced more than 20 years ago by Henrik Kehlet, providing the involvement of a multidisciplinary team made up of orthopedic surgeons, nursing staff, anesthesiologists, internists, physiatrists, physiotherapists, and nutritionists [5]. The procedures manage the patients’ care using a multi-modal approach that includes patient selection, patient-specific education and information on the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative steps, improvements in surgical and anesthetic practices, advances in post-operative multi-modal analgesia, early rehabilitation and ambulation, early nutrition hydration, and discharge within 24 h post-surgery [6,7]. Preoperative patient education is of key importance in orthopedic care programs, particularly in ERAS programs, although its real impact with respect to traditional (standard) care in terms of anxiety, postoperative pain management, function, quality of life and complications is not yet clear [8,9]. Nevertheless, several studies recognized that satisfactory patient information is a critical element for early discharge and managing daily home life in ERAS programs, also supporting the value of multimodal education of the patient [10,11]. Additional key issues in ERAS programs in orthopedic surgery include effective pain treatment and management, which undoubtedly influence an early hospital discharge and a fast recovery period at home [10,12]. However, some studies evaluating the discharge procedure and patients’ experiences after hospital discharge showed that the early discharge, especially in elderly patients, may be stressful in terms of managing daily life and rehabilitation [10,11,12,13]. Although this type of ERAS pathway has undeniable advantages and represents the standard of care in many institutions, to date, the clinical effectiveness of ERAS procedures has not been homogeneously recognized or accepted for all orthopedic areas, and there is still significant work and research to be done [14,15,16]. In addition, the ERAS pathways are always undergoing improvement, thanks to the constant contribution that can derive from multiple perspectives such as that of the patient, the surgeon, or the hospital unit with the aim of improving the protocols. Continuous evidence-based revisions for ERAS use in different orthopedic areas are mandatory to properly update orthopedic surgeons and their staff on the use of these ERAS pathways and on their potential advantages over standard/traditional protocols in terms of safety and efficacy. In addition, within an optimized and clear ERAS protocol, selected high-risk patients may benefit from a planned longer stay in hospital as the best means of accelerating recovery and reducing complications, readmissions, and morbidity, and allowing the medical staff to monitor patients for longer periods of time. Thus, to highlight recent improvements in the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative ERAS components and their clinical evidence in patients undergoing different types of orthopedic surgery, we carried out a systematic review to provide an evidenced-based assessment of specific interventions, measurement, and associated clinical outcomes linked to ERAS pathways in the orthopedic field.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The PICOS framework (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design) [17] was used to formulate the questions for this study: (1) patients undergoing orthopedic surgery (population) submitted to, (2) ERAS pathways (interventions), (3) with or without a comparison group (standard protocol) (comparisons), (4) that reported preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative key components and clinical outcomes of the ERAS protocols (outcomes), in (5) randomized, non-randomized, controlled, non-controlled, retrospective, and prospective studies (study design). The focused question was “What are the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative key components and the clinical outcomes of ERAS interventions in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery?”. Studies from 1 August 2011 to 1 August 2021, were included in this review if they met the PICOS criteria.
We excluded studies (1) in which the use of an ERAS protocol was declared but which then did not follow any of the indications of an ERAS protocol, and studies that evaluated (2) surgeries other than orthopedic ones, (3) patients undergoing orthopedic surgery with other concomitant severe pathological conditions (e.g., tumor, metastases, diabetes, rare neurological diseases, opioid use disorders), (4) different surgeries within a single ERAS protocol, (5) novel intervention/drugs/therapies not associated with ERAS protocols, and (6) articles with incorrect or incomplete data, or articles whose data could not be extracted. Additionally, we excluded abstracts, protocol studies, editorials, pilot studies, case reports or series, animal experiments, letters, comments to editors, reviews, meta-analyses, book chapters and articles not written in English.

2.2. Information Source and Search Strategies

Our literature review involved a systematic search conducted on 1 August 2021. We performed our review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [18]. The search was carried out on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases to identify studies that evaluated preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative key components and clinical evidence of ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery. The search was conducted combining the terms (orthopedic disorders OR orthopedic surgery) AND (fast-track OR enhanced recovery after surgery OR enhanced recovery programs); for each of these terms, free words and controlled vocabulary specific to each bibliographic database were combined using the operator “OR”. The combination of free-vocabulary and/or medical subject headings (MeSH) terms for the identification of studies in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection are reported in Table S1 (Supplementary Materials).

2.3. Selection Process

Possible relevant articles were screened using titles and abstracts by three reviewers (DC, FS, SB). After screening the titles and abstracts, articles were submitted to a public reference manager (Mendeley Desktop 1.19.8) to eliminate duplicates. Three reviewers (DC, FS, SB) performed 100% double title and abstract screening independently with inter-reviewer agreement of 90.1%. Studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from full text review, and any disagreement was resolved through discussion until a consensus was reached, or with the involvement of a fourth reviewer (MF). Subsequently, the studies were subjected to full text review by three reviewers independently (DC, FS, SB). Disagreements after full text review were resolved through discussion, and the remaining studies were included in the final stage of data extraction. The inter-reviewer agreement for the final stage of data extraction was 95.3%.

2.4. Assessment of Methodological Quality

Two reviewers (DC, FS) independently assessed the methodological quality of selected studies. In case of disagreement, they attempted to reach consensus; if this failed, a third reviewer made the final decision (MF). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the quality assessment tools of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [19] (Table S2, Supplementary Materials).

2.5. Data Collection Process and Synthesis Methods

The data extraction and synthesis process commenced with cataloguing the studies in detail. Subsequently, to increase validity and avoid potentially omitting findings for the synthesis, three authors (DC, FS, SB) extracted the data and generated tables taking into consideration the study design, pathological condition, patient numbers, ages and genders, surgical procedures, follow-up and outcomes/endpoints (Tables S3–S6, Supplementary Materials). Another table included ERAS protocols (preoperative, perioperative, postoperative) (Table S7, Supplementary Materials). Finally, a supplementary table (Table S8, Supplementary Materials) with a numerical designation of positive, neutral and negative outcomes for each study was reported.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

The initial literature search retrieved 1154 studies. Of those, 763 studies were identified using PubMed and 263 using Scopus, and 128 were found in the Web of Science Core Collection. Articles were submitted to a public reference manager to eliminate duplicate articles. The resulting 930 articles were screened for titles and abstracts, and 229 articles were then reviewed to establish whether the publication met the inclusion criteria. Finally, 174 (two on elbow orthopedic surgery, four on thorax orthopedic surgery, 25 on spine orthopedic surgery, and 143 on hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery, of which 52 were only on knee, 39 only on hip, and 52 on both knee and hip) were considered eligible for this review. Search research and study inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed in Figure 1.
Of these articles, 82 were retrospective cohort studies (one on elbow, four on thorax, 18 on spine, 59 on knee and/or hip), 68 were prospective cohort studies (two of which were with a retrospective, historical cohort as control; six on spine, 62 on knee and/or hip) and 24 were randomized clinical trials (RCT) (one on elbow, one on spine, 22 on knee and/or hip) (Figure 2).

3.2. Assessment of Methodological Quality

The quality assessment for the two studies on orthopedic elbow surgery was strong for the single RCT and moderate for the one retrospective study, with weaknesses in the patient’s eligibility, sample size justification, blinded assessor, and potential confounding variables. Regarding the four studies on orthopedic thorax surgery, three studies were classified as moderate and one as weak, with weaknesses in, sample size justification, blinded assessor, and potential confounding variables examination. In the quality assessment of the 25 studies on orthopedic spine surgery, 12% of the studies were rated strong, 80% were rated moderate, and 8% were rated weak. Methodological weaknesses that led to study quality scores of moderate or weak often included the lack of a sample size justification and/or lack of variance and effect estimates, the lack of ERAS results evaluation more than once over time, the lack of blinded assessor and the lack of measurement of potential confounding variables. For the 143 studies on hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery, 39.2% were rated strong, 40.5% as moderate, and 20.3% as weak. The quality scores of moderate or weak studies included lack of a sample size justification and/or lack of variance and effect estimates, lack of ERAS results evaluation more than once over time, lack of blinded assessor and lack of measurement of potential confounding variables. Risks of bias assessments for each study are summarized in Table S2 (Supplementary Materials).

3.3. Study Results and Synthesis

3.3.1. Types of Orthopedic Surgery in ERAS Protocols

Of the 174 articles on ERAS selected and included in this review, 36.2% had a comparison with a standard/traditional protocol (non-ERAS), while all the others (64%) evaluated different ERAS protocols in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Of the 174 articles, 1.1% were on elbow orthopedic surgery, 2.3% on thorax orthopedic surgery, 14.4% on spine orthopedic surgery, and 82.2% on hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery. These data highlighted that the highest percentage of articles on ERAS were on total and mono-compartmental hip arthroplasty and knee arthroplasty, mainly performed due to osteoarthritis (OA) (62.2%) but, in some cases, also for fractures, avascular necrosis and revision surgery. However, it was also shown that ERAS programs are starting to apply to other orthopedic surgical specialties such as for spine, principally for spinal stenosis (36%), spinal scoliosis and deformities (32%) and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (16%). Four articles on thorax orthopedic surgery were also present and used ERAS protocols for pectus deformities (n = 3) and for traumatic rib fracture (n = 1). Finally, two studies on ERAS protocols were present for patients with elbow post-traumatic stiffness and with elbow primary or secondary OA.

3.3.2. Key Components in ERAS Protocols

Preoperative

Preoperative ERAS components are defined in this review as interventions that occur any time before the day of surgery, elements planned to optimize the patient’s condition prior to surgery. They also include advice about behavioral health and psychology referral to guide patients’ expectations as well as to inform them on the risks about intra- and postoperative pathways. Below are reported the preoperative ERAS components for the different orthopedic specialties (Figure 3).
-
Elbow: In elbow orthopedic surgery, the most common preoperative interventions were patient education and the provision of information (on the surgical procedure, analgesia, anesthesia, LOS, and physiotherapy) (100%).
-
Thorax: The most common preoperative interventions reported in thorax orthopedic surgery were patient education and the provision of information (50%). Supplementary pre-emptive interventions were analgesia and multimodal pain management (50%) (defined as the use of one or more analgesic modes, such as acetaminophen, pregabalin, gabapentin, ketamine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors)), clear fluid fasting (25%), physiotherapy (25%) and nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (25%).
-
Spine: In spine orthopedic surgery, among the principal interventions of ERAS protocol were patient education and the provision of information associated with a multidisciplinary consultation (geriatric, psychological, nutritional, behavioral health) (88%). Clear fluid and solid fluid fasting for 2–6 h before surgery (48%), pre-emptive analgesia and multimodal pain management (32%), antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (32%), nausea and vomiting prevention (20%), thromboprophylaxis (16%), tranexamic acid (TXA) (including oral or parenteral formulations) used to minimize bleeding (8%) and physiotherapy (4%) were other key interventions in spine orthopedic surgery.
-
Hip and/or knee: For hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery, the most common pre-operative interventions were patient education, the provision of information, and multidisciplinary consultation (43.3%), followed by pre-emptive analgesia and multimodal pain management (30%), comorbidities assessment (21.7%), antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (9.7%), clear fluid and solid fluid fasting for 2–6 h before surgery (8.3%), TXA use (7%) and thromboprophylaxis (4.9%).

Perioperative

Perioperative ERAS components/elements refer to all the interventions that occur from surgery until patient transfer to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Below, and in Figure 3, are reported the perioperative ERAS components for the different orthopedic specialties (Figure 3).
-
Elbow: In elbow orthopedic surgery frequent perioperative interventions were local anesthesia (50%), antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (50%), TXA use (50%) and avoidance of catheter/drain (50%).
-
Thorax: The most common perioperative interventions in thorax surgery included local anesthesia (50%), avoidance of catheter/drain (50%), antibiotic/antimicrobial prophylaxis (50%), fluid management (50%) and multimodal pain management (50%).
-
Spine: For spine surgery, perioperative components were multimodal analgesia and pain management (68%), local anesthesia (56%), normothermia/normovolemia maintenance (32%), TXA use (28%), antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (28%), postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (24%), transfusion control (20%) and avoidance of catheter/drain (20%).
-
Hip and/or knee: For hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery, the most common perioperative elements were local anesthesia (70%), multimodal pain management (55.2%), TXA use (36%), avoidance of catheter/drain (23%), intraoperative fluid management (14%), thromboprophylaxis (10.4%), compression bandage use (7%) and antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (5.6%).

Postoperative

Postoperative ERAS components are defined as interventions that occur during and after admission to the recovery area. Below, and in Figure 3, are described the postoperative ERAS components for the different orthopedic specialties (Figure 3).
-
Elbow: The principal postoperative elements were early mobilization and rehabilitation/physiotherapy within 24 h (100% of studies) and multimodal analgesia and pain management (50%).
-
Thorax: In thorax surgery, key postoperative elements were represented by multimodal analgesia and pain management (75% of studies), early mobilization and rehabilitation/physiotherapy (50%), early nutrition (50%), catheter/drain removal within 24 h after surgery (25%) and nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (25%)
-
Spine: In spine surgery, postoperative elements were multimodal analgesia and pain management (84% of studies), early mobilization and rehabilitation/physiotherapy (64%), early nutrition (64%), catheter/drain removal within 24 h after surgery (32%), nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (12% in spine), thromboprophylaxis (12% spine), patient satisfaction survey (12%) and normothermia (4%).
-
Hip and/or knee: Principal postoperative elements were early mobilization and rehabilitation/physiotherapy (82% of studies), multimodal analgesia and pain management (61%), thromboprophylaxis (22.3%), early nutrition (7%), catheter/drain removal within 24 h after surgery (7%) and antimicrobial/antibiotic prophylaxis (5%).

3.4. Outcomes and Clinical Evidence of ERAS Protocols

All of the studies examined in this review confirmed the safety and efficacy of ERAS protocols in orthopedic surgery, showing an enhancement in the recovery from orthopedic surgery.
The primary outcomes in studies on elbow orthopedic surgery were a LOS reduction (50%), decrease in postoperative pain score (50%), especially in the first days after surgery, an abatement in drain removal time (50%), and an improvement in range of motion after ERAS pathway (50%).
Similarly, studies on thorax orthopedic surgery reported a significantly reduced LOS at 3 days after ERAS protocol, in patients undergoing minimally invasive repair of pectus excavatum (50%). Furthermore, a reduction in opioid consumption (50%), catheter removal time (50%), postoperative pain score (50%) and intraoperative time (25%), without an increase in the complication and readmission rate, was also noted after ERAS protocol.
In spine orthopedic surgery studies, a LOS of 1–3 days was observed for spinal deformities such as scoliosis and radiculopathy, while a LOS of 5–10 days was detected for lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis. Sixteen percent of studies also reported a significant reduction in intra-operative time after ERAS protocol. A reduction in catheter and drain removal time (12%), opioid consumption (12%), total health costs (16%), blood transfusion rate (8%), intraoperative blood loss (24%), postoperative pain score (24%), and complication and readmission rate (24%) were also detected in studies on spine orthopedic surgery. Finally, better functional recovery and early food recovery were observed in 20% and 12% of studies, respectively.
Concerning hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery, the most common reported outcomes were reductions in LOS (66.4%), postoperative pain score (25.2%), complication rate (16.8%) and bleeding rate/transfusion (13.3%), an increase in range of motion/walking anatomy/extension/flexion (13.3%), a reduction in readmission rate (9.8%) and opioid consumption (8.3%), a reduction in circulating markers of inflammation, anemia and endothelial activation (C-reactive protein, hemoglobin, tumor necrosis factor alpha) (8.3%), an increase in patient satisfaction (5.6%), and a reduction in intraoperative time (4.2%).
Almost all of the studies on elbow, thorax, spine and hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery that evaluated an ERAS vs. more conventional (non-fast track) (36%) protocol reported a significantly reduced LOS, without increasing complications or readmission rates in patients treated with ERAS regardless of follow-up (from 12 h to 5 years), surgical approach used, as well as surgeon. Only one study on spinal surgery did not find a significant change in LOS compared with the standard non-ERAS group [20]. In this study, an overall LOS increase, due to 5 h of observation in the PACU for a potential respiratory compromise, was detected. However, a variation in mean/median LOS, ranging from several hours to several days after surgery (from 12 h to 5.3 days), was observed between all the analyzed studies. Despite these variations, in all studies, the LOS reduction in the ERAS group was associated with a reduction in post-operative pain, bleeding rate and transfusion rate. The pain reduction during these ERAS pathways were associated with pre-emptive analgesia, perioperative local infiltration of analgesics (LIA) and post-operative analgesia. Several opioid-sparing agents were also used for pain relief in almost all studies. Specifically, paracetamol and NSAIDs were the most used. Analgesic protocols not only reduced the opioid requirements but also helped to reduce post-operative nausea-vomiting, post-operative stress, and the risk of complications. A reduction in transfusion rate with ERAS protocols vs. standard non-ERAS protocols was also seen in all of the studies that evaluated this element; this aspect was due not only to the optimization of hemoglobin mass performed in the preoperative phase but also to the prevention of perioperative blood loss. The main blood-saving strategy applied in this review was the TXA use. Depending on the study, TXA, an antifibrinolytic medication that stops the breakdown of fibrin clots by inhibiting activation of plasminogen, plasmin, and tissue plasminogen activator, was used in pre-, peri-, and post-operative phases. Several analyzed studies also evaluated different doses and administration routes (oral vs. intra-articular) of TXA, showing no differences with respect to blood loss and related thromboembolic events [21,22,23]. These ERAS elements not only improved the treatment management of the patients, increasing their satisfaction, but also aided the range of motion and return of function in all of the examined studies that evaluated these parameters (14.2%). Post-operatively, standard physiotherapy (kinesiotherapy) as well as other methods, including electrical stimulation, were also applied to strengthen the muscles, increase the range of motion, reduce swelling, and enhance independent gait, as it is known that early and persistent muscle loss occurs after these interventions, impairing balance and walking ability. The improvements in range of motion and return of function were undoubtedly helped by the early mobilization, but also by pain management as well as by the information and support given to the patients by the interdisciplinary team, because it increased their sense of self-efficacy, security, and satisfaction. Paradoxically, in their analysis 90 days after hip and knee arthroplasty, Jørgensen et al. found that fall-related hospital readmissions were due to physical activity and extrinsic factors other than surgery because of patient success and intent to return to a normal level of activity [24]. As emerged from all of the studies examined in this review, in turn, all of these interventions reduce the LOS as patients could be discharged sooner without increasing the risk of complications (References [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192] are cited in the Supplementary Materials).

4. Discussion

The ERAS philosophy focuses on patient experience, multidisciplinary teamwork (among surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, and physical therapists), evidence-based data gathering, and an iterative review process to improve protocol details across preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases [4,193]. Although the concept of ERAS was widely examined in orthopedic hip and/or knee replacement, its use in other orthopedic surgery has been employed only in recent years [194,195]. This aspect was specifically highlighted in this review where the presence of studies on ERAS in the elbow, thorax and spine emerged starting from 2018–2019, while numerous studies on ERAS in hip and/or knee replacement were present already in 2011. Although ERAS protocols seem to be well established and studied for specific orthopedic fields, this review highlighted the presence of numerous preliminary cohort studies lacking formal control groups (only 36.2% of the analyzed studies had a control group) and nonrandomized data sets as well as showing differences in postoperative follow-up, variability in operation and surgical indication in most of the studies, also for hip and/or knee replacement surgery [194].
A critical aspect that should be addressed with ERAS protocols would be to know which of the many elements really have an impact, thus, to understand if any of these elements may be skipped without resulting in inferior results, to further improve clinical outcomes and cost-efficacy of the protocol. However, it is important to underline that individual elements may not necessarily have significant benefits when studied in isolation, but their combination with other elements of the pathway is thought to have a synergistic effect. In this review, most impactful ERAS elements seemed to be patient education, NSAIDs with minimization of opioid use, local anesthesia, thromboprophylaxis, antibiotic prophylaxis, urinary catheters and drainage avoidance or removal within 24 h after surgery, TXA use and early mobilization within 24 h after surgery. The combined effects of these interventions have been shown to improve patient recovery with shorter LOS and decreases in hospital infections, complications, readmission rates and pain scores, with an increase in patients’ satisfaction due also to their active role and commitment. These aspects also lead to total cost savings, which accompany streamlined and less invasive methods. In this context, it is important to underline that, to date, ERAS costs have been estimated only in studies on THA and TKH surgery, and all indicated a reduction in medical costs compared with standard care with a prolonged LOS [29,66,188]. A recent study by Jansen et al. [195] also conduct a full economic evaluation with a cost-effectiveness analysis by using functional outcomes, LOS, thromboembolic complications, healthcare costs, and quality of life in TKA patients 12 months after surgery. Results showed a mean reduction in costs of EUR 268 per patient in favor of ERAS protocols, mostly due to the shorter LOS, which resulted in lower costs associated with nursing staff [195]. However, in general, and also in view of these cost analyses, it is difficult to extrapolate those elements that are less influential than others, also considering that good-quality data were not always available; thus, no recommendation can currently be made because either equipoise exists or there is a paucity of evidence. Stronger recommendations could be obtained from the 24 RCTs examined in this review, one on elbow, one on spine and 22 on hip and/or knee replacement surgery. In these RCTs, patient education and pre-emptive anesthetics and analgesics were the main pre-operative ERAS elements. A preoperative ERAS element of key importance little considered in these studies was the nutritional status [196]. in only two RCTs, it was reported that carbohydrate loading with a clear carbohydrate liquid 2 h prior to surgery was used in order to present the patient to surgery in a metabolically fed state leading to less postoperative protein loss and preservation of muscle mass [196]. This is probably due to the fact that this ERAS element requires special attention for those patients with specific comorbidities, such as obesity and diabetes, pathological conditions more common in aged patients [196]. Considering the intra-operative elements in the 24 RCTs, neuraxial anesthesia was frequently preferred to general anesthesia as well as multimodal analgesia, TXA use and urinary catheters and drainage avoidance or removal within 24 h after surgery. Although normothermia has been considered part of the anesthetic management in ERAS programs, no RCTs considered this aspect [3,196,197]. Hypothermia is common in patients who have undergone orthopedic surgery and may increase infection, coagulopathy, blood transfusion rate, cardiovascular complications, and opioid need, which may adversely affect the postoperative outcome [196]. Finally, in the post-operative phase, the main ERAS elements used in this RCT were early mobilization, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia and thromboprophylaxis. Additoinally, as a post-operative element, no studies investigated the direct relationship between postoperative nutritional supplementation and accelerating the achievement of discharge criteria. However, encouraging patients to eat and drink as soon as possible is considered an essential component of the ERAS protocol, as returning to normal food intake can help patients return to normal behavior [3,196,197]. Considering all of these aspects of ERAS in orthopedic surgery, more investigations are mandatory to adapt and/or adjust several elements of the protocol [195]. Recently, under the impetus of the ERAS® society, a multidisciplinary guideline development group was constituted by bringing together international experts involved in the practice of ERAS in spine surgery. This group identified 22 ERAS items specifically for lumbar fusion [197]. However, ERAS recommendations/guidelines also for other spinal procedures, cervical spine surgery, anterior or combined approaches, complex deformities, scoliosis, etc., and other orthopedic specialties are necessary.
Other critical key points to consider are whether further advances and implementations can be made to further reduce the risk of complications and, as the global trend is to shift to outpatient surgery, whether such orthopedic ERAS protocols can be performed on an ambulatory or semi-ambulatory basis without any increased risk of morbidity or cardiopulmonary and thromboembolic complications, as well as cognitive dysfunctions, especially in geriatric patients that have specific needs for rehabilitation. Last but not least, another important factor that emerged from the analyzed studies is the need for a unique, well-defined and updated guideline in every step and, importantly, a coordinated interaction between all the subjects involved, beginning from the very first ambulance’s intervention to the patient’s call. Based on these open questions, rigorous RCTs may serve to provide robust evidence and establish the efficacy of enhanced-recovery programs for particular patient populations and procedures within orthopedic surgery.

4.1. Limitation and Strengths

A methodological limitation of this review is correlated with the quality of the studies that were included. Most of these studies were retrospective studies, which are more likely subjected to biases than prospective randomized controlled trials. As highlighted by the quality assessment conducted, the moderate and weak scores were mainly associated with lack of a sample size justification and lack of blinded assessor or other potential confounding variables that could limit the validity of the review’s conclusions. On the other hand, to overcome these potential biases, the strength of this review stands in the development of an explicit and well-designed research protocol centered on a researchable and clinically relevant question that provide a clear description of the eligibility criteria such as population, intervention and outcomes of interest, the definition of explicit but also broad inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the selection process. All of these methodological aspects were focused on extracting the best available evidence relevant to the review question. Additionally, as a patient-centered approach and evidence-based intervention, safety aspects following ERAS include morbidity and mortality, the first in the form of complications and readmissions. To the authors’ best knowledge, no disadvantages specifically related to the ERAS protocol in orthopedic surgery have been reported in the literature analyzed. However, several potential disadvantages should be assessed, such as the most demanding preoperative phase for the healthcare professional and for the patient, a phase that requires continuous multidisciplinary communication and collaboration. Furthermore, it would be essential to evaluate the real cost-effectiveness of ERAS protocol, examining and balancing the costs of all additional interventions with the specific patient advantages. Finally, the degree of independence of patients and the satisfaction associated with the shorter hospital stay should be analyzed in greater detail.

4.2. Future Prospects

Future studies focused on the elements of ERAS specific to orthopedic interventions, in particular for elbow, thorax and spine, may serve to optimize the protocol. Another critical key point to consider is whether further advances and implementations can be made to reduce even more the risk of complications and, as the global trend is to shift to outpatient surgery, whether such orthopedic ERAS protocols can be performed on an ambulatory or semi-ambulatory basis without any increased risk of morbidity or cardiopulmonary and thromboembolic complications, as well as cognitive dysfunctions, especially in geriatric patients that have specific needs for rehabilitation. Finally, another important factor that emerged from the analyzed studies is the need for a unique, well-defined and updated guideline in every step and, importantly, a coordinated interaction between all of the subjects involved, beginning from the very first ambulance’s intervention to the patient’s call. Based on these open questions, rigorous RCTs may serve to provide robust evidence and establish the efficacy of ERAS programs for particular patient populations and procedures within orthopedic surgery.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11144222/s1. Table S1: Search terms used in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection; Table S2: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) quality assessment tool; Table S3: Basic characteristics of included studies from the literature on spine orthopedic surgery; Table S4: Basic characteristics of studies from the literature on thorax orthopedic surgery; Table S5: Basic characteristics of studies from the literature on elbow orthopedic surgery; Table S6: Basic characteristics of studies from the literature on hip and/or knee orthopedic surgery; Table S7. Fast-track components of included literatures studies on orthopedic surgery; Table S8. Designation of positive, neutral and negative outcome for each examined study. (References [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192] are cited in the Supplementary Materials).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.S. and D.C. and M.F.; methodology, F.S., D.C. and S.B.; validation, C.G., A.V. and K.M.; formal analysis, F.S., D.C., S.B. and C.G.; investigation, F.S. and D.C.; data curation, C.G. and K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.S., D.C. and S.B.; writing—review and editing, F.S., D.C. and S.B.; visualization, F.S., D.C., S.B., A.V., C.G., K.M., C.G., A.R., A.G. and M.F.; supervision, M.F. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli (Ricerca Corrente) and by 5 × 1000, 2018 project entlited “Percorso di rapida ripresa post-operatoria (ERAS) nella scoliosi idiopatica adolescenziale” (PRWEB: 2020/730420).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Global Orthopedic Surgery Market Report, 2017 to 2022—Procedure Volume Trends by Type, Country, and Region (2019). Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/08/13/1901268/0/en/Global-Orthopedic-Surgery-Market-Report-2017-to-2022-Procedure-Volume-Trends-by-Type-Country-and-Region.html (accessed on 1 August 2021).
  2. Capone, A.; Congia, S.; Civinini, R.; Marongiu, G. Periprosthetic fractures: Epidemiology and current treatment. Rev. Clin Cases Min. Bone Metab. 2017, 14, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Jiang, M.; Liu, S.; Deng, H.; Liang, X.; Bo, Z. The efficacy and safety of fast track surgery (FTS) in patients after hip fracture surgery: A meta-analysis. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2021, 16, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Pennestrì, F.; Maffulli, N.; Sirtori, P.; Perazzo, P.; Negrini, F.; Banfi, G.; Peretti, G.M. Blood management in ERAS orthopedic surgery: An evidence-based narrative review. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kehlet, H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br. J. Anaesth. 1997, 78, 606–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kehlet, H.; Wilmore, D.W. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of ERAS surgery. Ann. Surg. 2008, 248, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kehlet, H. Future perspectives and research initiatives in ERAS surgery. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 2006, 391, 495–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Husted, H. ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty: Clinical and organizational aspects. Acta Orthop. Suppl. 2012, 83, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. McDonald, S.; Page, M.J.; Beringer, K.; Wasiak, J.; Sprowson, A. Preoperative education for hip or knee replacement. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014, 5, CD003526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Specht, K.; Kjaersgaard-Andersen, P.; Pedersen, B.D. Patient experience in ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty—A qualitative study. J. Clin. Nurs. 2016, 25, 836–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Kennedy, D.; Wainwright, A.; Pereira, L.; Robarts, S.; Dickson, P.; Christian, J.; Webster, F. A qualitative study of patient education needs for hip and knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Husted, H.; Lunn, T.H.; Troelsen, A.; Gaarn-Larsen, L.; Kristensen, B.B.; Kehlet, H. Why still in hospital after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop. 2011, 82, 679–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Reay, P.A.; Horner, B.; Duggan, R. The patient’s experience of early discharge following total hip replacement. Int. J. Orthop. Trauma Nurs. 2015, 19, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kaye, A.D.; Urman, R.D.; Cornett, E.M.; Hart, B.M.; Chami, A.; Gayle, J.A.; Fox, C.J. Enhanced recovery pathways in orthopedic surgery. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 35, S35–S39. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Berg, U.; Berg, M.; Rolfson, O.; Erichsen-Andersson, A. ERAS program of elective joint replacement in hip and knee-patients’ experiences of the clinical pathway and care process. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wainwright, T.W.; Memtsoudis, S.G.; Kehlet, H. ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty...how fast? Br. J. Anaesth. 2021, 126, 348–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Centre for reviews and dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York: York, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tugwell, P.; Tovey, D. PRISMA 2020. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2021, 134, A5–A6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Study Quality Assessment Tools (2013). Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 1 August 2021).
  20. Soffin, E.M.; Wetmore, D.S.; Barber, L.A.; Vaishnav, A.S.; Beckman, J.D.; Albert, T.J.; Gang, C.H.; Qureshi, S.A. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway: Association with rapid discharge and minimal complications after anterior cervical spine surgery. Neurosurg. Focus 2019, 46, E9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wang, D.; Wang, H.Y.; Luo, Z.Y.; Meng, W.K.; Pei, F.X.; Li, Q.; Zhou, Z.K.; Zeng, W.N. Blood-conserving efficacy of multiple doses of oral tranexamic acid associated with an enhanced-recovery programme in primary total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Bone Jt. J. 2018, 100-B, 1025–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, D.; Zhu, H.; Meng, W.K.; Wang, H.Y.; Luo, Z.Y.; Pei, F.X.; Li, Q.; Zhou, Z.K. Comparison of oral versus intra-articular tranexamic acid in enhanced-recovery primary total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet application: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2018, 19, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wang, H.Y.; Wang, L.; Luo, Z.Y.; Wang, D.; Tang, X.; Zhou, Z.K.; Pei, F.X. Intravenous and subsequent long-term oral tranexamic acid in enhanced-recovery primary total knee arthroplasty without the application of a tourniquet: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019, 20, 478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Fall-related admissions after ERAS total hip and knee arthroplasty—Cause of concern or consequence of success? Clin. Interv. Aging 2013, 8, 1569–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Aasvang, E.K.; Lunn, T.H.; Hansen, T.B.; Kristensen, P.W.; Solgaard, S.; Kehlet, H. Chronic pre-operative opioid use and acute pain after ERAS total knee arthroplasty. Acta. Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2016, 60, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Adams, C.T.; O’Connor, C.M.; Young, J.R.; Anoushiravani, A.A.; Doherty, B.S.; Congiusta, F. Outcomes of a Total Joint Arthroplasty Enhanced Recovery Program in a Community Hospital Setting. J. Arthroplast. 2021, 36, S173–S178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Adeyemo, E.A.; Aoun, S.G.; Barrie, U.; Nguyen, M.L.; Badejo, O.; Pernik, M.N.; Christian, Z.; Dosselman, L.J.; El Ahmadieh, T.Y.; Hall, K.; et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Reduces Postoperative Opioid Use and 90-Day Readmission Rates After Open Thoracolumbar Fusion for Adult Degenerative Deformity. Neurosurgery 2021, 88, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alvis, B.D.; Amsler, R.G.; Leisy, P.J.; Feng, X.; Shotwell, M.S.; Pandharipande, P.P.; Ajmal, M.; McHugh, M.; Walia, A.; Hughes, C.G. Effects of an anesthesia perioperative surgical home for total knee and hip arthroplasty at a Veterans Affairs Hospital: A quality improvement before-and-after cohort study. Can. J. Anaesth. 2021, 68, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Andreasen, S.E.; Holm, H.B.; Jørgensen, M.; Gromov, K.; Kjærsgaard-Andersen, P.; Husted, H. Time-driven Activity-based Cost of ERAS Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2017, 32, 1747–1755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ascione, F.; Braile, A.; Romano, A.M.; di Giunta, A.; Masciangelo, M.; Senorsky, E.H.; Samuelsson, K.; Marzano, N. Experience-optimised fast track improves outcomes and decreases complications in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2020, 27, 500–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Auyong, D.B.; Allen, C.J.; Pahang, J.A.; Clabeaux, J.J.; MacDonald, K.M.; Hanson, N.A. Reduced Length of Hospitalization in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Using an Updated Enhanced Recovery After Orthopedic Surgery (ERAS) Pathway. J. Arthroplast. 2015, 30, 1705–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Awada, H.N.; Luna, I.E.; Kehlet, H.; Wede, H.R.; Hoevsgaard, S.J.; Aasvang, E.K. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction is rare after ERAS hip- and knee arthroplasty—But potentially related to opioid use. J. Clin. Anesth. 2019, 57, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bandholm, T.; Thorborg, K.; Lunn, T.H.; Kehlet, H.; Jakobsen, T.L. Knee pain during strength training shortly following ERAS total knee arthroplasty: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Berg, U.; BüLow, E.; Sundberg, M.; Rolfson, O. No increase in readmissions or adverse events after implementation of ERAS program in total hip and knee replacement at 8 Swedish hospitals: An observational before-and-after study of 14,148 total joint replacements 2011–2015. Acta Orthop. 2018, 89, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Berg, U.; W-Dahl, A.; Rolfson, O.; Nauclér, E.; Sundberg, M.; Nilsdotter, A. Influence of ERAS programs on patient-reported outcomes in total hip and knee replacement (THR/TKR) at Swedish hospitals 2011–2015: An observational study including 51,169 THR and 8393 TKR operations. Acta Orthop. 2020, 91, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Berg, U.; W-Dahl, A.; Nilsdotter, A.; Nauclér, E.; Sundberg, M.; Rolfson, O. ERAS Programs in Total Hip and Knee Replacement at Swedish Hospitals-Influence on 2-Year Risk of Revision and Mortality. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bernaus, M.; Novellas, M.; Bartra, A.; Núñez, J.H.; Anglès, F. Local infiltration analgesia does not have benefits in ERAS hip arthroplasty programmes: A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. Hip Int. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Berthelsen, C.B.; Kristensson, J. The SICAM-trial: Evaluating the effect of spouses’ involvement through case management in older patients’ ERAS programmes during and after total hip replacement. J. Adv. Nurs. 2017, 73, 112–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Birznieks, M.; Golubovska, I.; Repða, L.; Èeròavska, I.; Âbols, J.; Muste, A.; Ļu, I.; Miščuks, A. ERAS surgery and early rehabilitation for total hip replacement in hospital of traumatology and orthopaedics. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. 2019, 73, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Bjerregaard, L.S.; Bogø, S.; Raaschou, S.; Troldborg, C.; Hornum, U.; Poulsen, A.M.; Bagi, P.; Kehlet, H. Incidence of and risk factors for postoperative urinary retention in ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bjerregaard, L.S.; Hornum, U.; Troldborg, C.; Bogoe, S.; Bagi, P.; Kehlet, H. Postoperative Urinary Catheterization Thresholds of 500 versus 800 ml after ERAS Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Open-label, Controlled Trial. Anesthesiology 2016, 124, 1256–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cao, Q.; He, Z.; Fan, Y.; Meng, J.; Yuan, T.; Zhao, J.; Bao, N. Effects of tourniquet application on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and ischemia-reperfusion post-total knee arthroplasty: Full- versus second half-course application. J. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 28, 2309499019896026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Castle, H.; Dragovic, M.; Waterreus, A. Mobilization after joint arthroplasty surgery: Who benefits from standing within 12 hours? ANZ J. Surg. 2021, 91, 1271–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Castorina, S.; Guglielmino, C.; Castrogiovanni, P.; Szychlinska, M.A.; Ioppolo, F.; Massimino, P.; Leonardi, P.; Maci, C.; Iannuzzi, M.; Di Giunta, A.; et al. Clinical evidence of traditional vs fast track recovery methodologies after total arthroplasty for osteoarthritic knee treatment. A retrospective observational study. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2018, 7, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Christelis, N.; Wallace, S.; Sage, C.E.; Babitu, U.; Liew, S.; Dugal, J.; Nyulasi, I.; Mutalima, N.; Tran, T.; Myles, P.S. An enhanced recovery after surgery program for hip and knee arthroplasty. Med. J. Aust. 2015, 202, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Concina, C.; Crucil, M.; Fabbro, S.; Gherlinzoni, F. Do tourniquet and drainage influence fast track in total knee arthroplasty? Our results on 151 cases. Acta Biomed. 2019, 90, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Collett, G.; Insley, A.P.; Michaelis, S.; Shaji, S.; Feierstein, B.; Martell, J.R. Reduction of Opioid Use with Enhanced Recovery Program for Total Knee Arthroplasty. Fed. Pract. 2021, 38, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cui, H.; Sun, Z.; Ruan, J.; Yu, Y.; Fan, C. Effect of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway on the postoperative outcomes of elbow arthrolysis: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 68, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. D’Amato, T.; Martorelli, F.; Fenocchio, G.; Simili, V.; Kon, E.; Di Matteo, B.; Scardino, M. Tapentadol vs oxycodone/naloxone in the management of pain after total hip arthroplasty in the fast track setting: An observational study. J. Exp. Orthop. 2019, 6, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. d’Astorg, H.; Fière, V.; Dupasquier, M.; Vieira, T.D.; Szadkowski, M. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces LOS without additional adverse events in spine surgery. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dagal, A.; Bellabarba, C.; Bransford, R.; Zhang, F.; Chesnut, R.M.; O’Keefe, G.E.; Wright, D.R.; Dellit, T.H.; Painter, I.; Souter, M.J. Enhanced Perioperative Care for Major Spine Surgery. Spine 2019, 44, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Davies, L.; Bainton, K.; Milne, R.; Lewis, P. Primary lower limb joint replacement and tranexamic acid: An observational cohort study. Arthroplast. Today 2018, 4, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Dawson-Bowling, S.J.; Jha, S.; Chettiar, K.K.; East, D.J.; Gould, G.C.; Apthorp, H.D. A multidisciplinary enhanced recovery programme allows discharge within two days of total hip replacement; three- to five-year results of 100 patients. Hip Int. 2014, 24, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Ladoucette, A.; Mertl, P.; Henry, M.P.; Bonin, N.; Tracol, P.; Courtin, C.; Jenny, J.Y.; French Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (SoFCOT). Fast track protocol for primary total hip arthroplasty in non-trauma cases reduces the length of hospital stay: Prospective French multicenter study. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1527–1531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Debono, B.; Corniola, M.V.; Pietton, R.; Sabatier, P.; Hamel, O.; Tessitore, E. Benefits of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery for fusion in degenerative spine surgery: Impact on outcome, length of stay, and patient satisfaction. Neurosurg. Focus 2019, 46, E6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Debono, B.; Sabatier, P.; Boniface, G.; Bousquet, P.; Lescure, J.P.; Garnaud, V.; Hamel, O.; Lonjon, G. Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A propensity score-matched analysis. Eur. Spine J. 2021, 30, 560–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Deiter, J.; Ponzio, D.; Grau, L.; Griffiths, S.; Ong, A.; Post, Z.; Doucette, D.; Orozco, F. Efficacy of adductor canal block protocol implementation in a multimodal pain management protocol for total knee arthroplasty. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. den Hartog, Y.M.; Mathijssen, N.M.C.; Hannink, G.; Vehmeijer, S.B.W. Which patient characteristics influence length of hospital stay after primary total hip arthroplasty in a ‘ERAS’ setting? Bone Jt. J. 2015, 97-B, 19–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. den Hartog, Y.M.; Hannink, G.; van Dasselaar, N.T.; Mathijssen, N.M.; Vehmeijer, S.B. Which patient-specific and surgical characteristics influence postoperative pain after THA in a ERAS setting? BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Didden, A.G.M.; Punt, I.M.; Feczko, P.Z.; Lenssen, A.F. Enhanced recovery in usual health care improves functional recovery after total knee arthroplasty. Int. J. Orthop. Trauma. Nurs. 2019, 34, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ding, Z.C.; Xu, B.; Liang, Z.M.; Wang, H.Y.; Luo, Z.Y.; Zhou, Z.K. Limited Influence of Comorbidities on Length of Stay after Total Hip Arthroplasty: Experience of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 12, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Drosos, G.I.; Ververidis, A.; Valkanis, C.; Tripsianis, G.; Stavroulakis, E.; Vogiatzaki, T.; Kazakos, K. A randomized comparative study of topical versus intravenous tranexamic acid administration in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) total knee replacement. J. Orthop. 2016, 13, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Drosos, G.I.; Kougioumtzis, I.E.; Tottas, S.; Ververidis, A.; Chatzipapas, C.; Tripsianis, G.; Tilkeridis, K. The results of a stepwise implementation of a ERAS program in total hip and knee replacement patients. J. Orthop. 2020, 21, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dwyer, A.J.; Tarassoli, P.; Thomas, W.; Porter, P. Enhanced recovery program in total hip arthroplasty. Indian J. Orthop. 2012, 46, 407–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Dwyer, A.J.; Thomas, W.; Humphry, S.; Porter, P. Enhanced recovery programme for total knee replacement to reduce the length of hospital stay. J. Orthop. Surg. 2014, 22, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fenelon, C.; Galbraith, J.G.; Kearsley, R.; Motherway, C.; Condon, F.; Lenehan, B. Saving Blood and Reducing Costs: Updating Blood Transfusion Practice in Lower Limb Arthroplasty. Ir. Med J. 2018, 111, 730. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Feng, C.; Zhang, Y.; Chong, F.; Yang, M.; Liu, C.; Liu, L.; Huang, C.; Huang, C.; Feng, X.; Wang, X.; et al. Establishment and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Tailored for Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery. World Neurosurg. 2019, 129, e317–e323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Fletcher, N.D.; Bellaire, L.L.; Dilbone, E.S.; Ward, L.A.; Bruce, R.W.J. Variability in length of stay following neuromuscular spinal fusion. Spine Deform. 2020, 8, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Fletcher, N.D.; Murphy, J.S.; Austin, T.M.; Bruce, R.W.J.; Harris, H.; Bush, P.; Yu, A.; Kusumoto, H.; Schmitz, M.L.; Devito, D.P.; et al. Short term outcomes of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway versus a traditional discharge pathway after posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine Deform. 2021, 9, 1013–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fransen, B.L.; Hoozemans, M.J.M.; Argelo, K.D.S.; Keijser, L.C.M.; Burger, B.J. ERAS total knee arthroplasty improved clinical and functional outcome in the first 7 days after surgery: A randomized controlled pilot study with 5-year follow-up. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2018, 138, 1305–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Frassanito, L.; Vergari, A.; Nestorini, R.; Cerulli, G.; Placella, G.; Pace, V.; Rossi, M. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in hip and knee replacement surgery: Description of a multidisciplinary program to improve management of the patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery. Musculoskelet. Surg. 2020, 104, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Füssenich, W.; Gerhardt, D.M.; Pauly, T.; Lorenz, F.; Olieslagers, M.; Braun, C.; van Susante, J.L. A comparative health care inventory for primary hip arthroplasty between Germany versus the Netherlands. Is there a downside effect to ERAS surgery with regard to patient satisfaction and functional outcome? Hip Int. 2020, 30, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Galbraith, J.G.; Fenelon, C.; Gibbons, J.; Kelly, G.A.; Bennett, D. Enhanced recovery in lower limb arthroplasty in the Irish setting. Ir. J. Med. Sci. 2017, 186, 687–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Glassou, E.N.; Pedersen, A.B.; Hansen, T.B. Risk of re-admission, reoperation, and mortality within 90 days of total hip and knee arthroplasty in ERAS departments in Denmark from 2005 to 2011. Acta Orthop. 2014, 85, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gomez, M.; Marc, C.; Talha, A.; Ruiz, N.; Noublanche, S.; Gillibert, A.; Bergman, S.; Rony, L.; Maynard, V.; Hubert, L.; et al. Fast track care for pertrochanteric hip fractures: How does it impact length of stay and complications? Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, 979–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Gomez, M.; Rony, L.; Marc, C.; Talha, A.; Ruiz, N.; Noublanche, S.; Gillibert, A.; Bergman, S.; Maynard, V.; Hubert, L. ERAS care for pertrochanteric hip fracture: What impact on function and autonomy after discharge? Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 633–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Götz, J.S.; Leiss, F.; Maderbacher, G.; Meyer, M.; Reinhard, J.; Zeman, F.; Grifka, J.; Greimel, F. Implementing ERAS in total hip arthroplasty: Rapid mobilization with low need for pain medication and low pain values: Retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients. Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie 2021. online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gromov, K.; Willendrup, F.; Palm, H.; Troelsen, A.; Husted, H. ERAS pathway for reduction of dislocated hip arthroplasty reduces surgical delay and length of stay. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Gromov, K.; Troelsen, A.; Raaschou, S.; Sandhold, H.; Nielsen, C.S.; Kehlet, H.; Husted, H. Tissue Adhesive for Wound Closure Reduces Immediate Postoperative Wound Dressing Changes After Primary TKA: A Randomized Controlled Study in Simultaneous Bilateral TKA. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2019, 477, 2032–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gromov, K.; Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Troelsen, A.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty undertaken using a ERAS protocol. Bone Jt. J. 2020, 102-B, 1167–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gupta, A. The effectiveness of geriatrician-led comprehensive hip fracture collaborative care in a new acute hip unit based in a general hospital setting in the UK. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 2014, 44, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Halawi, M.J.; Caminiti, N.; Cote, M.P.; Lindsay, A.D.; Williams, V.J. The Most Significant Risk Factors for Urinary Retention in ERAS Total Joint Arthroplasty are Iatrogenic. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 136–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hansson, S.; Rolfson, O.; Åkesson, K.; Nemes, S.; Leonardsson, O.; Rogmark, C. Complications and patient-reported outcome after hip fracture. A consecutive annual cohort study of 664 patients. Injury 2015, 46, 2206–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. den Hartog, Y.M.; Mathijssen, N.M.C.; Vehmeijer, S.B.W. Total hip arthroplasty in an outpatient setting in 27 selected patients. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. He, B.; Li, Y.; Xu, S.; Ou, Y.; Zhao, J. Tranexamic Acid for Blood Loss after Transforaminal Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Study. BioMed Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 8516504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Heo, D.H.; Park, C.K. Clinical results of percutaneous biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with application of enhanced recovery after surgery. Neurosurg. Focus 2019, 46, E18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Herndon, C.L.; Martinez, R.; Sarpong, N.O.; Geller, J.A.; Shah, R.P.; Cooper, H.J. Spinal Anesthesia Using Chloroprocaine is Safe, Effective, and Facilitates Earlier Discharge in Selected ERAS Total Hip Arthroplasty. Arthroplast. Today 2020, 6, 305–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Higgins, M.; Jayakumar, P.; Kortlever, J.T.P.; Rijk, L.; Galvain, T.; Drury, G.; Dekker, A.P.; Westbrook, A. Improving resource utilisation and outcomes after total knee arthroplasty through technology-enabled patient engagement. Knee 2020, 27, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Holm, B.; Bandholm, T.; Lunn, T.H.; Husted, H.; Aalund, P.K.; Hansen, T.B.; Kehlet, H. Role of preoperative pain, muscle function, and activity level in discharge readiness after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2014, 85, 488–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Holmes, D.M.; Polites, S.F.; Roskos, P.L.; Moir, C.R. Opioid use and length of stay following minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair in 436 patients—Benefits of an enhanced recovery pathway. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2019, 54, 1976–1983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hoorntje, A.; Koenraadt, K.L.M.; Boevé, M.G.; van Geenen, R.C.I. Outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Who is afraid of outpatient surgery? Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 759–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Huang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Di, Z.; Zeng, Z. A comprehensive program for enhanced management of femoral neck fractures including an enhanced recovery after surgery program: A retrospective study. Medicine 2021, 100, e24331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Husted, H.; Otte, K.S.; Kristensen, B.B.; Kehlet, H. ERAS revision knee arthroplasty. A feasibility study. Acta Orthop. 2011, 82, 438–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Husted, H.; Jensen, C.M.; Solgaard, S.; Kehlet, H. Reduced length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty in Denmark 2000–2009: From research to implementation. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2012, 132, 101–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Husted, H.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Gromov, K.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Center for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Does BMI influence hospital stay and morbidity after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop. 2016, 87, 466–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  96. Imbelloni, L.E.; Gomes, D.; Braga, R.L.; de Morais Filho, G.B.; da Silva, A. Clinical strategies to accelerate recovery after surgery orthopedic femur in elderly patients. Anesth. Essays Res. 2014, 8, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Jenny, J.Y.; Bulaid, Y.; Boisrenoult, P.; Bonin, N.; Henky, P.; Tracol, P.; Chouteau, J.; Courtin, C.; Henry, M.P.; Schwartz, C.; et al. French Society of Orthopaedic Surgery, Traumatology (SofCOT). Bleeding and thromboembolism risk of standard antithrombotic prophylaxis after hip or knee replacement within an enhanced recovery program. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1533–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Jensen, C.B.; Troelsen, A.; Nielsen, C.S.; Otte, N.K.S.; Husted, H.; Gromov, K. Why are patients still in hospital after ERAS, unilateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2020, 91, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Jensen, C.B.; Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H.; Troelsen, A.; Gromov, K.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Length of Stay and 90-Day Readmission/Complication Rates in Unicompartmental Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Score-Matched Study of 10,494 Procedures Performed in a ERAS Setup. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Am. 2021, 103, 1063–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jiang, H.H.; Jian, X.F.; Shangguan, Y.F.; Qing, J.; Chen, L.B. Effects of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Patients Older Than 65 Years. Orthop. Surg. 2019, 11, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Role of patient characteristics for ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty. Br. J. Anaesth. 2013, 110, 972–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Jørgensen, C.C.; Pitter, F.T.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Center for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Safety aspects of preoperative high-dose glucocorticoid in primary total knee replacement. Br. J. Anaesth. 2017, 119, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Jørgensen, C.C.; Gromov, K.; Petersen, P.B.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Influence of day of surgery and prediction of LOS > 2 days after ERAS hip and knee replacement. Acta Orthop. 2021, 92, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Julien-Marsollier, F.; Michelet, D.; Assaker, R.; Doval, A.; Louisy, S.; Madre, C.; Simon, A.L.; Ilharreborde, B.; Brasher, C.; Dahmani, S. Enhanced recovery after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Paediatr. Anaesth. 2020, 30, 1068–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Kang, Y.; Liu, J.; Chen, H.; Ding, W.; Chen, J.; Zhao, B.; Yin, X. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in elective intertrochanteric fracture patients result in reduced length of hospital stay (LOS) without compromising functional outcome. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Kerr, H.L.; Armstrong, L.A.; Beard, L.; Teichmann, D.; Mutimer, J. Challenges to the orthopaedic arthroplasty enhanced recovery programme. J. Perioper. Pract. 2017, 27, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Kilic, E.T.; Tastan, N.O.; Sarikaya, C.; Naderi, S. The Application of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery to Spine Instrumentation. Turk. Neurosurg. 2020, 30, 707–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Klapwijk, L.C.M.; Mathijssen, N.M.C.; Van Egmond, J.C.; Verbeek, B.M.; Vehmeijer, S.B.W. The first 6 weeks of recovery after primary total hip arthroplasty with fast track. Acta Orthop. 2017, 88, 140–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  109. Klement, M.R.; Bullock, W.M.; Nickel, B.T.; Lampley, A.J.; Seyler, T.M.; Green, C.L.; Wellman, S.S.; Bolognesi, M.P.; Grant, S.A. Continuous adductor canal blockade facilitates increased home discharge and decreased opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2019, 26, 679–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kolodziej, L.; Bohatyrewicz, A.; Jurewicz, A.; Szczypiór-Piasecka, K.; Przybył, K. Simultaneous Bilateral Minimally Invasive Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty with fast track Protocol. Ortop. Traumatol. Rehabil. 2020, 22, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Kort, N.P.; Bemelmans, Y.; Vos, R.; Schotanus, M.G.M. Low incidence of postoperative urinary retention with the use of a nurse-led bladder scan protocol after hip and knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2018, 28, 283–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Krenk, L.; Rasmussen, L.S.; Hansen, T.B.; Bogø, S.; Søballe, K.; Kehlet, H. Delirium after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty. Br. J. Anaesth. 2012, 108, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Krenk, L.; Kehlet, H.; Hansen, T.B.; Solgaard, S.; Soballe, K.; Rasmussen, L.S. Cognitive dysfunction after ERAS hip and knee replacement. Anesth. Analg. 2014, 118, 1034–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Lamplot, J.D.; Wagner, E.R.; Manning, D.W. Multimodal pain management in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized controlled trial. J. Arthroplast. 2014, 29, 329–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Larsen, K.; Hansen, T.B.; Søballe, K.; Kehlet, H. Patient-reported outcome after ERAS knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2012, 20, 1128–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Larsson, G.; Strömberg, R.U.; Rogmark, C.; Nilsdotter, A. Prehospital fast track care for patients with hip fracture: Impact on time to surgery, hospital stay, post-operative complications and mortality a randomised, controlled trial. Injury 2016, 47, 881–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Leiss, F.; Götz, J.S.; Maderbacher, G.; Meyer, M.; Reinhard, J.; Zeman, F.; Grifka, J.; Greimel, F. Excellent Functional Outcome and Quality of Life after Primary Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Using an Enhanced Recovery Setup. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Li, J.; Li, H.; Xv, Z.K.; Wang, J.; Yu, Q.F.; Chen, G.; Li, F.C.; Ren, Y.; Chen, Q.X. Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care following laminoplasty: A retrospective case-cohort study. Medicine 2018, 97, e13195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Li, Z.E.; Lu, S.B.; Kong, C.; Sun, W.Z.; Wang, P.; Zhang, S.T. Impact of Compliance with an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Program on the Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusion Surgery. Clin. Interv. Aging 2020, 15, 2423–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Li, J.; Rai, S.; Ze, R.; Tang, X.; Liu, R.; Hong, P. Enhanced recovery care versus traditional non-ERAS care following osteotomies in developmental dysplasia of the hip in children: A retrospective case-cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Li, Z.E.; Lu, S.B.; Kong, C.; Sun, W.Z.; Wang, P.; Zhang, S.T. Comparative short-term outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program and non-ERAS traditional care in elderly patients undergoing lumbar arthrodesis: A retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2021, 22, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Li, Z.; Li, B.; Wang, G.; Wang, K.; Chen, J.; Liang, Y.; Tang, X.; Yang, Y. Impact of enhanced recovery nursing combined with limb training on knee joint function and neurological function after total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021, 13, 6864–6872. [Google Scholar]
  123. Lindberg-Larsen, V.; Bandholm, T.Q.; Zilmer, C.K.; Bagger, J.; Hornsleth, M.; Kehlet, H. Preoperative methylprednisolone does not reduce loss of knee-extension strength after total knee arthroplasty A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 61 patients. Acta Orthop. 2017, 88, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Lindberg-Larsen, V.; Petersen, P.B.; Jans, Ø.; Beck, T.; Kehlet, H. Effect of pre-operative methylprednisolone on orthostatic hypotension during early mobilization after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2018, 62, 882–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Lindberg-Larsen, V.; Kehlet, H.; Bagger, J.; Madsbad, S. Preoperative High-Dose Methylprednisolone and Glycemic Control Early After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Anesth. Analg. 2018, 127, 906–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Lindberg-Larsen, M.; Pitter, F.T.; Husted, H.; Kehlet, H.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Simultaneous vs staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: A propensity-matched case-control study from nine ERAS centres. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2019, 139, 709–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Lovecchio, F.; Alvi, H.; Sahota, S.; Beal, M.; Manning, D. Is Outpatient Arthroplasty as Safe as ERAS Inpatient Arthroplasty? A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Machin, J.T.; Phillips, S.; Parker, M.; Carrannante, J.; Hearth, M.W. Patient satisfaction with the use of an enhanced recovery programme for primary arthroplasty. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2013, 95, 577–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Maempel, J.F.; Walmsley, P.J. Enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of stay after total knee replacement without sacrificing functional outcome at one year. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2015, 97, 563–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Mangat, S.; Hance, L.; Ricketts, K.J.; Phillips, M.R.; Mclean, S.E. The impact of an enhanced recovery perioperative pathway for pediatric pectus deformity repair. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2020, 36, 1035–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. McDonald, D.A.; Siegmeth, R.; Deakin, A.H.; Kinninmonth, A.W.G.; Scott, N.B. An enhanced recovery programme for primary total knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom—Follow up at one year. Knee 2012, 19, 525–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Memtsoudis, S.G.; Fiasconaro, M.; Soffin, E.M.; Liu, J.; Wilson, L.A.; Poeran, J.; Bekeris, J.; Kehlet, H. Enhanced recovery after surgery components and perioperative outcomes: A nationwide observational study. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 124, 638–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Mikkelsen, L.R.; Mechlenburg, I.; Søballe, K.; Jørgensen, L.B.; Mikkelsen, S.; Bandholm, T.; Petersen, A.K. Effect of early supervised progressive resistance training compared to unsupervised home-based exercise after ERAS total hip replacement applied to patients with preoperative functional limitations. A single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthr. Cartil. 2014, 22, 2051–2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  134. Munk, S.; Dalsgaard, J.; Bjerggaard, K.; Andersen, I.; Hansen, T.B.; Kehlet, H. Early recovery after ERAS Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 35 patients with minimal invasive surgery. Acta Orthop. 2012, 83, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Nazarenko, A.G.; Konovalov, N.A.; Krut’ko, A.V.; Zamiro, T.N.; Geroeva, I.B.; Gubaydullin, R.R.; Khoreva, N.E.; Komarov, A.N.; Stepanyan, M.A.; Konstantinova, M.V.; et al. Postoperative applications of the fast track technology in patients with herniated intervertebral discs of the lumbosacral spine. Zhurnal Voprosy Neirokhirurgii Imeni NN Burdenko 2016, 80, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Nicolaiciuc, S.; Probst, P.; von Eisenhart-Rothe, R.; Burgkart, R.; Hube, R. Modern Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): With or without a Tourniquet? Surg. Technol. Int. 2019, 35, 336–340. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  137. Noel, E.; Miglionico, L.; Leclercq, M.; Jennart, H.; Fils, J.F.; Van Rompaey, N. Sufentanil sublingual tablet system versus oral oxycodone for management of postoperative pain in enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled study. J. Exp. Orthop. 2020, 7, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Okamoto, T.; Ridley, R.J.; Edmondston, S.J.; Visser, M.; Headford, J.; Yates, P.J. Day-of-Surgery Mobilization Reduces the Length of Stay After Elective Hip Arthroplasty. J. Arthroplast. 2016, 31, 2227–2230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Otte, K.S.; Husted, H.; Ørsnes, T.; Kehlet, H. Bilateral simultaneous total hip arthroplasty in a fast track setting. Hip Int. 2011, 21, 336–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Pamilo, K.J.; Torkki, P.; Peltola, M.; Pesola, M.; Remes, V.; Paloneva, J. ERASing for total knee replacement reduces use of institutional care without compromising quality. Acta Orthop. 2018, 89, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H. Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Delirium after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty—A cohort study of 6331 elderly patients. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2017, 61, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H. Lundbeck Foundation Center for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement collaborative group. Temporal trends in length of stay and readmissions after ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty. Dan Med. J. 2019, 66, A5553. [Google Scholar]
  143. Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H. Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. ERAS hip and knee arthroplasty in older adults-a prospective cohort of 1,427 procedures in patients ≥85 years. Age Ageing 2020, 49, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Petersen, P.B.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Gromov, K.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Venous thromboembolism after ERAS unicompartmental knee arthroplasty—A prospective multicentre cohort study of 3927 procedures. Thromb. Res. 2020, 195, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Petersen, P.B.; Lindberg-Larsen, M.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Centre for ERAS Hip and Knee Arthroplasty collaborating group. Venous thromboembolism after ERAS elective revision hip and knee arthroplasty—A multicentre cohort study of 2814 unselected consecutive procedures. Thromb. Res. 2021, 199, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Pirsaharkhiz, N.; Comolli, K.; Fujiwara, W.; Stasiewicz, S.; Boyer, J.M.; Begin, E.V.; Rubinstein, A.J.; Henderson, H.R.; Lazar, J.F.; Watson, T.J.; et al. Utility of erector spinae plane block in thoracic surgery. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2020, 15, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Pitter, F.T.; Jørgensen, C.C.; Lindberg-Larsen, M.; Kehlet, H.; Lundbeck Foundation Center for ERAS Hip and Knee Replacement Collaborative Group. Postoperative Morbidity and Discharge Destinations After ERAS Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 85 Years. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 122, 1807–1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Plenge, U.; Parker, R.; Davids, S.; Davies, G.L.; Fullerton, Z.; Gray, L.; Groenewald, P.; Isaacs, R.; Kauta, N.; Louw, F.M.; et al. Quality of recovery after total hip and knee arthroplasty in South Africa: A national prospective observational cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Plessl, D.; Salomon, B.; Haydel, A.; Leonardi, C.; Bronstone, A.; Dasa, V. Rapid Versus Standard Recovery Protocol Is Associated with Improved Recovery of Range of Motion 12 Weeks After Total Knee Arthroplasty. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 28, e962–e968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Pollmann, C.T.; Røtterud, J.H.; Gjertsen, J.E.; Dahl, F.A.; Lenvik, O.; Årøen, A. Fast track hip fracture care and mortality—An observational study of 2230 patients. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Porsius, J.T.; Mathijssen, N.M.C.; Klapwijk-Van Heijningen, L.C.M.; Van Egmond, J.C.; Melles, M.; Vehmeijer, S.B.W. Early recovery trajectories after ERAS primary total hip arthroplasty: The role of patient characteristics. Acta Orthop. 2018, 89, 597–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. PrkiĆ, A.; Viveen, J.; The, B.; Koenraadt, K.L.M.; Eygendaal, D. Early Mobilization and Functional Discharge Criteria Affecting Length of Stay after Total Elbow Arthroplasty. Acta Chir. Orthop. Traumatol. Cech. 2020, 87, 197–202. [Google Scholar]
  153. Robinson, K.P.; Wagstaff, K.J.; Sanghera, S.; Kerry, R.M. Postoperative pain following primary lower limb arthroplasty and enhanced recovery pathway. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2014, 96, 302–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Romano, L.U.; Rigoni, M.; Torri, E.; Nella, M.; Morandi, M.; Casetti, P.; Nollo, G. A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis to Assess the Outcomes in Pre- and Post-ERAS Hip and Knee Elective Prosthesis Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Ruiz, N.; Buisson, X.; Filippi, G.; Roulet, M.; Robert, H.; Orthopedics and Traumatology Society of Western France (SOO). Ambulatory unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Short outcome of 50 first cases. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2018, 104, 961–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Rytter, S.; Stilling, M.; Munk, S.; Hansen, T.B. Methylprednisolone reduces pain and decreases knee swelling in the first 24 h after ERAS unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Saku, S.A.; Mäkinen, T.J.; Madanat, R. Reasons and Risk Factors for Delayed Discharge After Total Knee Arthroplasty Using an Opioid-Sparing Discharge Protocol. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 2365–2370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Savaridas, T.; Serrano-Pedraza, I.; Khan, S.K.; Martin, K.; Malviya, A.; Reed, M.R. Reduced medium-term mortality following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty with an enhanced recovery program. A study of 4,500 consecutive procedures. Acta Orthop. 2013, 84, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  159. Schotanus, M.G.M.; Bemelmans, Y.F.L.; Grimm, B.; Heyligers, I.C.; Kort, N.P. Physical activity after outpatient surgery and enhanced recovery for total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2017, 25, 3366–3371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Shaw, K.A.; Fletcher, N.D.; Devito, D.P.; Schmitz, M.L.; Fabregas, J.; Gidwani, S.; Chhatbar, P.; Murphy, J.S. In-hospital opioid usage following posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: Does methadone offer an advantage when used with an ERAS pathway? Spine Deform. 2021; online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Skovgaard, C.; Holm, B.; Troelsen, A.; Lunn, T.H.; Gaarn-Larsen, L.; Kehlet, H.; Husted, H. No effect of fibrin sealant on drain output or functional recovery following simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Acta Orthop. 2013, 84, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  162. Soffin, E.M.; Vaishnav, A.S.; Wetmore, D.S.; Barber, L.; Hill, P.; Gang, C.H.; Beckman, J.D.; Albert, T.J.; Qureshi, S.A. Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Spine Surgery: Initial Experience. Spine 2019, 44, E561–E570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Soffin, E.M.; Wetmore, D.S.; Beckman, J.D.; Sheha, E.D.; Vaishnav, A.S.; Albert, T.J.; Gang, C.H.; Qureshi, S.A. Opioid-free anesthesia within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective matched cohort study. Neurosurg. Focus 2019, 46, E8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  164. Soffin, E.M.; Beckman, J.D.; Tseng, A.; Zhong, H.; Huang, R.C.; Urban, M.; Guheen, C.R.; Kim, H.J.; Cammisa, F.P.; Nejim, J.A.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Quality of Patient Recovery. Anesthesiology 2020, 133, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Specht, K.; Leonhardt, J.S.; Revald, P.; Mandøe, H.; Andresen, E.B.; Brodersen, J.; Kreiner, S.; Kjaersgaard-Andersen, P. No evidence of a clinically important effect of adding local infusion analgesia administrated through a catheter in pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2011, 82, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Staartjes, V.E.; de Wispelaere, M.P.; Schröder, M.L. Improving recovery after elective degenerative spine surgery: 5-year experience with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. Neurosurg. Focus 2019, 46, E7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  167. Stambough, J.B.; Bloom, G.B.; Edwards, P.K.; Mehaffey, G.R.; Barnes, C.L.; Mears, S.C. Rapid Recovery After Total Joint Arthroplasty Using General Anesthesia. J. Arthroplast. 2019, 34, 1889–1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Starks, I.; Wainwright, T.W.; Lewis, J.; Lloyd, J.; Middleton, R.G. Older patients have the most to gain from orthopaedic enhanced recovery programmes. Age Ageing 2014, 43, 642–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Stowers, M.D.J.; Manuopangai, L.; Hill, A.G.; Gray, J.R.; Coleman, B.; Munro, J.T. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in elective hip and knee arthroplasty reduces length of hospital stay. ANZ J. Surg. 2016, 86, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Talboys, R.; Mak, M.; Modi, N.; Fanous, N.; Cutts, S. Enhanced recovery programme reduces opiate consumption in hip hemiarthroplasty. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2016, 26, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Tan, N.L.T.; Hunt, J.L.; Gwini, S.M. Does implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery program for hip replacement improve quality of recovery in an Australian private hospital: A quality improvement study. BMC Anesth. 2018, 18, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Temporiti, F.; Draghici, I.; Fusi, S.; Traverso, F.; Ruggeri, R.; Grappiolo, G.; Gatti, R. Does walking the day of total hip arthroplasty speed up functional independence? A non-randomized controlled study. Arch. Physiother. 2020, 10, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Tucker, A.; McCusker, D.; Gupta, N.; Bunn, J.; Murnaghan, M. Orthopaedic Enhanced Recovery Programme for Elective Hip and Knee Arthroplasty—Could a Regional Programme be Beneficial? Ulst. Med. J. 2016, 85, 86–91. [Google Scholar]
  174. van den Belt, L.; van Essen, P.; Heesterbeek, P.J.C.; Defoort, K.C. Predictive factors of length of hospital stay after primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2015, 23, 1856–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Van Egmond, J.C.; Verburg, H.; Mathijssen, N.M.C. The first 6 weeks of recovery after total knee arthroplasty with fast track. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 708–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  176. Van Horne, A.; Van Horne, J. Patient-optimizing enhanced recovery pathways for total knee and hip arthroplasty in Medicare patients: Implication for transition to ambulatory surgery centers. Arthroplast. Today 2019, 5, 497–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Van Horne, A.; Van Horne, J. Presurgical optimization and opioid-minimizing enhanced recovery pathway for ambulatory knee and hip arthroplasty: Postsurgical opioid use and clinical outcomes. Arthroplast. Today 2019, 6, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Venkata, H.K.; van Dellen, J.R. A perspective on the use of an enhanced recovery program in open, non-instrumented day surgery for degenerative lumbar and cervical spinal conditions. J. Neurosurg. Sci. 2018, 62, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Vesterby, M.S.; Pedersen, P.U.; Laursen, M.; Mikkelsen, S.; Larsen, J.; Søballe, K.; Jørgensen, L.B. Telemedicine support shortens length of stay after ERAS hip replacement. Acta Orthop. 2017, 88, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  180. Wang, P.; Wang, Q.; Kong, C.; Teng, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhang, S.; Sun, W.; Feng, M.; Lu, S. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for elderly patients with short-level lumbar fusion. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2020, 15, 299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Wharton, K.; Chun, Y.; Hunsberger, J.; Jelin, E.; Garcia, A.; Stewart, D. Successful use of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway to improve outcomes following the Nuss procedure for pectus excavatum. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2020, 55, 1065–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Wied, C.; Thomsen, M.G.; Kallemose, T.; Myhrmann, L.; Jensen, L.S.; Husted, H.; Troelsen, A. The risk of manipulation under anesthesia due to unsatisfactory knee flexion after ERAS total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015, 22, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Winther, S.B.; Foss, O.A.; Wik, T.S.; Davis, S.P.; Engdal, M.; Jessen, V.; Husby, O.S. 1-year follow-up of 920 hip and knee arthroplasty patients after implementing ERAS. Acta Orthop. 2015, 86, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Wynell-Mayow, W.; Saeed, M.Z. Much ado about nothing: The effect of tourniquet time on an accelerated rehabilitation programme following total knee replacement (TKR). Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 2018, 28, 1177–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Xie, J.; Hu, Q.; Huang, Q.; Chen, G.; Zhou, Z.; Pei, F. Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in geriatric hip fracture with hemiarthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Xu, H.; Xie, J.; Lei, Y.; Huang, Q.; Huang, Z.; Pei, F. Closed suction drainage following routine primary total joint arthroplasty is associated with a higher transfusion rate and longer postoperative length of stay: A retrospective cohort study. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2019, 14, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Yang, J.; Skaggs, D.L.; Chan, P.; Villamor, G.A.; Choi, P.D.; Tolo, V.T.; Kissinger, C.; Lehman, A.; Andras, L.M. High Satisfaction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Patients on Enhanced Discharge Pathway. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2020, 40, e166–e170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Yanik, J.M.; Bedard, N.A.; Hanley, J.M.; Otero, J.E.; Callaghan, J.J.; Marsh, J.L. Rapid Recovery Total Joint Arthroplasty is Safe, Efficient, and Cost-Effective in the Veterans Administration Setting. J. Arthroplast. 2018, 33, 3138–3142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Yu, H.; Wang, H.; Zhou, K.; Rong, X.; Yao, S.; Pei, F.; Zhou, Z. Modified Robert Jones bandage can not reduce postoperative swelling in enhanced-recovery after primary total knee arthroplasty without intraoperative tourniquet: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2018, 19, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Zhang, C.; Xiao, J. Application of ERAS surgery combined with a clinical nursing pathway in the rehabilitation of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J. Int. Med. Res. 2020, 48, 300060519889718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Zietek, P.; Zietek, J.; Szczypior, K.; Safranow, K. Effect of adding one 15-minute-walk on the day of surgery to ERAS rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, single-blind study. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2015, 51, 245–252. [Google Scholar]
  192. Zietek, P.; Dziedziejko, V.; Safranow, K.; Zietek, J.; Stępień-Słodkowska, M.; Bialecka, M.; Zietek, M.; Kotrych, D.; Kamiński, A.; Kowalska, A. TNF-α concentrations in pre-operative synovial fluid for predicting early post-operative function and pain after ERAS total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2016, 23, 1044–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Scott, N.B.; McDonald, D.; Campbell, J.; Smith, R.D.; Carey, A.K.; Johnston, I.G.; James, K.R.; Breusch, S.J. The use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles in Scottish orthopaedic units—An implementation and follow-up at 1 year, 2010–2011: A report from the musculoskeletal Audit, Scotland. Arch. Orthop. Trauma. Surg. 2013, 133, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Zhu, S.; Qian, W.; Jiang, C.; Ye, C.; Chen, X. Enhanced recovery after surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad. Med. J. 2017, 93, 736–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Jansen, J.A.; Kruidenier, J.; Spek, B.; Snoeker, B.A.M. A cost-effectiveness analysis after implementation of a ERAS protocol for total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2020, 27, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Choi, Y.S.; Kim, T.W.; Chang, M.J.; Kang, S.B.; Chang, C.B. Enhanced recovery after surgery for major orthopedic surgery: A narrative review. Knee Surg. Relat. Res. 2022, 34, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Debono, B.; Wainwright, T.W.; Wang, M.Y.; Sigmundsson, F.G.; Yang, M.M.H.; Smid-Nanninga, H.; Bonnal, A.; Le Huec, J.C.; Fawcett, W.J.; Ljungqvist, O.; et al. Consensus statement for perioperative care in lumbar spinal fusion: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Spine J. 2021, 21, 729–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 11 04222 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the selection of studies.
Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the selection of studies.
Jcm 11 04222 g001
Jcm 11 04222 g002 550
Figure 2. ERAS study characteristics, numbers, and types.
Figure 2. ERAS study characteristics, numbers, and types.
Jcm 11 04222 g002
Jcm 11 04222 g003 550
Figure 3. Pre-, peri- and postoperative elements of ERAS procedures.
Figure 3. Pre-, peri- and postoperative elements of ERAS procedures.
Jcm 11 04222 g003
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salamanna, F.; Contartese, D.; Brogini, S.; Visani, A.; Martikos, K.; Griffoni, C.; Ricci, A.; Gasbarrini, A.; Fini, M. Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11144222

AMA Style

Salamanna F, Contartese D, Brogini S, Visani A, Martikos K, Griffoni C, Ricci A, Gasbarrini A, Fini M. Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(14):4222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11144222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salamanna, Francesca, Deyanira Contartese, Silvia Brogini, Andrea Visani, Konstantinos Martikos, Cristiana Griffoni, Alessandro Ricci, Alessandro Gasbarrini, and Milena Fini. 2022. "Key Components, Current Practice and Clinical Outcomes of ERAS Programs in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 14: 4222. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11144222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop