Impact of standardized clinical pathways on esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Diseases of the esophagus Vol. 35; no. 2
• Main Authors: Puccetti, Francesco, Wijnhoven, Bas P L, Kuppusamy, MadhanKumar, Hubka, Michal, Low, Donald E
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Oxford University Press 11.02.2022
• Subjects: Critical Pathways; Esophagectomy - adverse effects; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications - epidemiology; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; complications; esophageal cancers; esophagectomy
• ISSN: 1120-8694; 1442-2050
• DOI: 10.1093/dote/doab027

Summary Esophageal surgery is historically associated with adverse postoperative outcomes. Selected high-volume centers have previously reported the effect on clinical outcomes following the adoption of a standardized clinical pathway (SCP). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the current literature to document the effect of SCP and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on esophagectomy outcomes. A literature search was conducted through the main search engines (PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane database) in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. All eligible comparative studies (randomized control trial, prospective, retrospective, and combined) were identified and assessed based on Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies and Jadad quality criteria. Data concerning overall morbidity, early mortality, and length of stay (LOS) were primarily collected and compared. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leaks, pulmonary complications, and readmission rate. Twenty-six articles (including five randomized controlled trials and six prospective trials) were included in the analysis. Overall study quality was moderate and the included studies utilized a variable approach to SCP. No statistically significant differences were found between groups in terms of overall morbidity, postoperative mortality, anastomotic leak, and readmission rates. Significant improvements included pulmonary complications (odds ratios [OR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.94) and hospital LOS (OR −3.68, 95% CI −4.49 to −2.87). Previous reports of SCP within esophagectomy programs have demonstrated clinical improvements in postoperative pulmonary complications and LOS. Given the high heterogeneity historically demonstrated within SCPs, further improvement in outcomes should be expected following the adoption of standardized ERAS guidelines.