الفهرس 
ABSTRACTOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 125 |  |  |
| | | from | 125 | | |
Abstract
A potential method of improving surgical outcomes after such an operation is by optimizing perioperative care. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is designed to reduce perioperative and intraoperative stress responses, and to support the recovery of organ function aiming to help patients getting better sooner after surgery.
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programmes are evidencedbased protocols designed to standardize and optimize perioperative care in order to reduce surgical trauma, perioperative physiological stress and organ dysfunction.
The concept of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) or multimodal surgery involves using various strategies to facilitate better conditions for surgery and recovery in an effort to achieve faster discharge from hospital and more rapid resumption of normal activities after both major and minor surgical procedures, without an increase in complications or readmissions
Core aspects included no perioperative fasting, optimal nutrition and fluid management, decreased use of tubes, optimizing pain control, and early mobilization. The benefits of implementing an ERAS programme are globally acknowledged, with value particularly evident in major abdominal surgery.
In this study, we aimed to assess the feasibility of ERAS programs in emergency surgical patients.
The main results of the study revealed that:
No statistically significant difference was observed between groups regarding baseline demographics.
A statistically significant difference was found in favour for the ERAS group in all secondary outcomes except for the time to catheter removal.
The overall complication rate was 36.7% and 13.3% in the conventional and ERAS groups, respectively. A statistically significant difference was found between both groups regarding overall complication rate (Chi-square test, P = .034). Regarding individual postoperative complications, no significant difference was found between groups in terms of incidence of leakage, ileus, and burst abdomen (Chi-square test, P > .05).
On the other hand, infection rates were significantly higher in the conventional group (26.7%) compared to the ERAS group (6.7%) (Chi-square test, P = .038).
None reported obstruction, abdominal sepsis, NGT reinsertion, abdominal collection, readmission, reoperation, and death in either group.