Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2019; 35(09): 695-704
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693699
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Carol E. Soteropulos 
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Sherry Y.Q. Tang
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Samuel O. Poore
1   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

31 January 2019

04 June 2019

Publication Date:
01 August 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) principles have received focused attention in breast reconstruction. Many protocols have been described in the literature for both autologous and alloplastic reconstruction. This systematic review serves to better characterize successful ERAS protocols described in the literature for potential ease of adoption at institutions desiring implementation.

Methods A systematic review of ERAS protocols for autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction was conducted using Medline, the Cochrane Database, and Web of Science.

Results Eleven cohort studies evaluating ERAS protocols for autologous (n = 8) and alloplastic (n = 3) breast reconstruction were included for review. The majority compared with a retrospective cohort of traditional perioperative care. All studies described the full spectrum of implemented ERAS protocols including preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care. Most frequently reported significant outcomes were reduced length of stay and opioid use with ERAS implementation. No significant change in major complication or readmission rate was demonstrated.

Conclusion Based on this systematic review, several core elements that make up a successful perioperative enhanced recovery protocol for breast reconstruction have been identified. Elements include patient counseling and education, limited preoperative fasting, appropriate thromboprophylaxis and antibiotic prophylaxis dependent on reconstructive method, preoperative antiemetics, multimodal analgesia and use of local anesthetic, goal-directed intravenous fluid management, prompt removal of drains and catheters, early diet advancement, and encouragement of ambulation postoperatively. Implementation of ERAS protocols in both autologous and alloplastic breast reconstruction can positively enhance patient experience and improve outcomes by reducing length of stay and opioid use, without compromising successful reconstructive outcomes.

Keywords

breast reconstruction - enhanced recovery - Enhanced Recovery after Surgery - early discharge protocols - alloplastic breast reconstruction - autologous breast reconstruction
 

  • References

  • 1 Eltahir Y, Werners LL, Dreise MM. , et al. Quality-of-life outcomes between mastectomy alone and breast reconstruction: comparison of patient-reported BREAST-Q and other health-related quality-of-life measures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (02) 201e-209e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sisco M, Johnson DB, Wang C, Rasinski K, Rundell VL, Yao KA. The quality-of-life benefits of breast reconstruction do not diminish with age. J Surg Oncol 2015; 111 (06) 663-668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wilkins EG, Cederna PS, Lowery JC. , et al. Prospective analysis of psychosocial outcomes in breast reconstruction: one-year postoperative results from the Michigan Breast Reconstruction Outcome Study. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 106 (05) 1014-1025 , discussion 1026–1027
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Adamina M, Kehlet H, Tomlinson GA, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP. Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery. Surgery 2011; 149 (06) 830-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fearon KC, Ljungqvist O, Von Meyenfeldt M. , et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: a consensus review of clinical care for patients undergoing colonic resection. Clin Nutr 2005; 24 (03) 466-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome. Am J Surg 2002; 183 (06) 630-641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J. , et al; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations. Arch Surg 2009; 144 (10) 961-969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Temple-Oberle C, Shea-Budgell MA, Tan M. , et al; ERAS Society. Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in breast reconstruction: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1056e-1071e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Davidge KM, Brown M, Morgan P, Semple JL. Processes of care in autogenous breast reconstruction with pedicled TRAM flaps: expediting postoperative discharge in an ambulatory setting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132 (03) 339e-344e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Davidge K, Armstrong KA, Brown M. , et al. Shifting autologous breast reconstruction into an ambulatory setting: patient-reported quality of recovery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 136 (04) 657-665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Batdorf NJ, Lemaine V, Lovely JK. , et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery in microvascular breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (03) 395-402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bonde C, Khorasani H, Eriksen K, Wolthers M, Kehlet H, Elberg J. Introducing the fast track surgery principles can reduce length of stay after autologous breast reconstruction using free flaps: a case control study. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2015; 49 (06) 367-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bonde CT, Khorasani H, Elberg J, Kehlet H. Perioperative optimization of autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (02) 411-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Afonso A, Oskar S, Tan KS. , et al. Is enhanced recovery the new standard of care in microsurgical breast reconstruction?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (05) 1053-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kaoutzanis C, Ganesh Kumar N, O'Neill D. , et al. Enhanced recovery pathway in microvascular autologous tissue-based breast reconstruction: should it become the standard of care?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (04) 841-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Astanehe A, Temple-Oberle C, Nielsen M. , et al. An enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for microvascular breast reconstruction is safe and effective. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (01) e1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Weber WP, Barry M, Junqueira MJ, Lee SS, Mazzella AM, Sclafani LM. Initial experiences with a multidisciplinary approach to decreasing the length of hospital stay for patients undergoing unilateral mastectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011; 37 (11) 944-949
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dumestre DO, Redwood J, Webb CE, Temple-Oberle C. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol enables safe same-day discharge after alloplastic breast reconstruction. Plast Surg (Oakv) 2017; 25 (04) 249-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chiu C, Aleshi P, Esserman LJ. , et al. Improved analgesia and reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for total mastectomy. BMC Anesthesiol 2018; 18 (01) 41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Phillips BT, Wang ED, Mirrer J. , et al. Current practice among plastic surgeons of antibiotic prophylaxis and closed-suction drains in breast reconstruction: experience, evidence, and implications for postoperative care. Ann Plast Surg 2011; 66 (05) 460-465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Miranda BH, Amin K, Chana JS. The drain game: abdominal drains for deep inferior epigastric perforator breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2014; 67 (07) 946-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ranganathan K, Sears ED, Zhong L. , et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis after immediate breast reconstruction: the reality of its efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (04) 865-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bonde CT, Christensen DE, Elberg JJ. Ten years' experience of free flaps for breast reconstruction in a Danish microsurgical centre: an audit. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg 2006; 40 (01) 8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Walia GS, Aston J, Bello R. , et al. Prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander placement: a clinical and quality of life outcomes study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018; 6 (04) e1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar