Article Text

Download PDFPDF

428 Prospective evaluation of an ERAS pathway at a gynaecological oncology unit in oslo, norway
  1. K Lindemann1,2,
  2. B Eyjólfsdóttir3,
  3. S Heimisdottir Danbolt4,
  4. YY Wang1,
  5. AG Heli-Haugestøl5,
  6. H Thorsrud5,
  7. TK Nguyen2,
  8. O Mjåland6,
  9. GA Navestad1,
  10. S Hermanrud1,
  11. K E Juul-Hansen7,
  12. A Kleppe8,9,
  13. T Skeie-Jensen1 and
  14. U Kongsgaard2,7
  1. 1Department of gynecologic oncology, Oslo University Hospital
  2. 2Institute of clinical medicine, University of Oslo
  3. 3Department of gynecologic oncology, Oslo University Hospital
  4. 4Institute of health and society, University of Oslo
  5. 5Department of Clinical Service, Oslo University Hospital
  6. 6Department of gastroenterological surgery, Oslo University Hospital
  7. 7Department of anesthesiology, Oslo University Hospital
  8. 8Institute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital
  9. 9Department of Informatics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway


Introduction We prospectively evaluated an ERAS in a large gynaecologic oncology tertiary centre serving the South East Health region in Norway.

Methods Patients undergoing laparotomy for (suspected) ovarian cancer at the Oslo University Hospital were prospectively included in a pre-implementation and post-implementation cohort. Baseline characteristics, adherence to the pathway and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results Of the 439 patients, 235 (54%) underwent surgery for advanced ovarian cancer and 204 (46%) for a suspicious ovarian mass. Median fasting times for solids (13 vs 16 h, p<0.001) and fluids (3.7 vs 11.9 h, p<0.001) were significantly reduced. Perioperative fluid administration varied less (p<0.001) and was reduced (median 11.5 vs 15.8 ml/kg/h, p<0.001). Epidural analgesia was the mainstay of analgesia in both cohorts, but with ERAS more patients received continuous vasopressor intraoperatively (87% vs 70%, p=0.003). More patients received dual PONV prophylaxis (85% vs 64%, p<0.001). Length of stay remained unchanged for patients with advanced disease with a median of 5 days both before and after the implementation (p=0.94), but patients undergoing surgery for an ovarian mass stayed shorter in hospital after the implementation of ERAS (p=0.026). For all patients, more patients were discharged directly home as opposed to transferred to local referring hospital after ERAS implementation (70% vs 51%, p<0.001). There was no difference in re-admission rates or postoperative 30 d morbidity.

Conclusion Introduction of an ERAS pathway resulted in less variance in practice and increased adherence to current standards in perioperative management. Patients were more often able to be discharged directly home without an increase in admission rates.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.