Abstract
Background:
To compare enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) for patients undergoing alloplastic breast reconstruction.
Methods:
A retrospective chart review of 2 patient groups (ERAS and TRAS) undergoing alloplastic breast reconstruction was performed. Data were collected from 2012 to 2013 (TRAS) and from 2013 to 2016 (ERAS). The ERAS protocol included day surgery, multimodal analgesia, and preoperative anti-emetic. The TRAS pathway involved overnight admission, narcotic-based analgesia, and no preoperative anti-emetic. Demographics, operative variables, and complications were compared between groups.
Results:
Seventy-eight ERAS patients and 78 TRAS patients were included. Length of stay was shorter for ERAS patients (0.38 nights ERAS and 1.45 nights TRAS; P < .001). The ERAS patients underwent significantly more bilateral surgery (80.8% ERAS and 55.1% TRAS; P < .001), immediate reconstruction (98.6% ERAS and 89.3% TRAS; P = .004), and had more implants versus expanders placed (66% [93/141] ERAS and 24.8% TRAS; P < .001). There were no differences in the number of post-operative emergency department visits (8% ERAS and 14% TRAS; P = .2) and readmissions (8% ERAS and 3.8% TRAS; P = .3) between the groups. There was no difference in the rate of hematoma (0.7% ERAS and 0% TRAS; P = .35), infection requiring explantation (1.4% ERAS and 0.8% TRAS; P = .65), infection requiring outpatient IV antibiotics (1.4% ERAS and 2.5% TRAS; P = .53), and infection requiring IV antibiotics and readmission (2.1% ERAS and 1.7% TRAS; P = .78) between the groups. There were no differences in the number of minor complications (22% ERAS and 23% TRAS; P = .82).
Conclusion:
The ERAS protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction is safe, without increased readmission or complication rates compared to TRAS, and significantly decreased length of stay.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.