The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication

Kil-yong Lee; Soo Young Lee; Miyoung Choi; Moonjin Kim; Ji Hong Kim; Ju Myung Song; Seung Yoon Yang; In Jun Yang; Moon Suk Choi; Seung Rim Han; Eon Chul Han; Sang Hyun Hong; Do Joong Park; Sang-Jae Park

doi:10.3393/ac.2024.00836.0119

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Ann Coloproctol > Volume 41(1); 2025 > Article

Guideline ERAS The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication: Kil-yong Lee¹, Soo Young Lee², Miyoung Choi³, Moonjin Kim⁴, Ji Hong Kim⁵, Ju Myung Song⁴, Seung Yoon Yang⁵, In Jun Yang⁶, Moon Suk Choi⁷, Seung Rim Han⁸, Eon Chul Han⁹, Sang Hyun Hong¹⁰, Do Joong Park^11,12, Sang-Jae Park¹³, Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition; Annals of Coloproctology 2025;41(1):3-26.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00836.0119
Published online: February 20, 2025

¹Department of Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Uijeongbu, Korea

²Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, Hwasun, Korea

³National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Incheon, Korea

⁵Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Surgery, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, Korea

⁷Department of Surgery, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea

⁸Ain Hospital, Incheon, Korea

⁹Department of Surgery, Dongnam Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences, Busan, Korea

¹⁰Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

¹¹Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹²Seoul National University Cancer Research Institute, Seoul, Korea

¹³Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center Hospital, Goyang, Korea

Correspondence to: Soo Young Lee, MD, PhD Department of Surgery, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Chonnam National University Medical School, 322 Seoyang-ro, Hwasun 58128, Korea Email: syleecrs@gmail.com
Co-correspondence to: Sang-Jae Park, MD, PhD Center for Liver and Pancreatobiliary Cancer, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea Email: spark@ncc.re.kr

This article is a secondary publication of a paper originally published in Annals of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (Lee Ky, Lee SY, Choi M, Kim M, Kim JH, Song JM, et al. The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery guidelines for colorectal cancer. Ann Clin Nutr Metab 2024;16(2):22–42. https://doi.org/10.15747/ACNM.2024.16.2.22), reprinted with permission from the original publisher, editor, and authors. The content is identical to the original publication, with minor modifications to adhere to this journal’s style.

• Received: November 14, 2024 • Accepted: November 22, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

prev next

698 Views
84 Download

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
CONCLUSION
ARTICLE INFORMATION
Supplementary materials
REFERENCES

Abstract

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.
Keywords: Colorectal neoplasms; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Practice guideline

INTRODUCTION

With advancements in minimal invasive surgery for colorectal cancer, rapid postoperative recovery and reintegration into daily life have become essential aspects. Although existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines are available [1, 2], there is a growing need to develop ERAS guidelines that are appropriate for Korean healthcare context. Consequently, the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition has established an ERAS committee to formulate evidence-based practice guidelines. The primary objective is to assist frontline physicians treating colorectal cancer by providing evidence-based recommendations with clear levels of evidence and benefits for the application of ERAS protocols in postoperative recovery. This aims to facilitate safer and more effective clinical decision-making. Furthermore, it seeks to enhance the understanding of policymakers and patients desiring treatment.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed using a de novo approach. The systematic review conducted for the development followed the methodology proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration [3]. The assessment of the quality of evidence and the determination of the strength of recommendations were based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology [4]. To enhance applicability within the Korean context, supplementary local studies were identified and incorporated.

Formulating key questions

The committee examined existing ERAS guidelines [1, 2] to identify pivotal yet debatable issues needing evidence. After thorough discussions, they prioritized and finalized 13 key questions (KQs).

Literature search

The literature search was conducted by deriving primary search terms through discussions between the methodology expert and the development committee members responsible for each KQ, and search strategies were established using MEDLINE (PubMed). The databases utilized were MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed. Studies were collected without restrictions on publication year or language to ensure comprehensiveness, reproducibility, and homogeneity through a consistent approach for all KQs. The search was performed on August 15, 2023. At least 3 individuals, including the methodology expert, the committee member responsible for each KQ, and the committee chair, participated in all stages of the search process to eliminate subjective judgment. The finalized search strategies are included in Supplementary Material 1.

Selection of literature

The process of selecting evidence was carried out by assigning at least 2 reviewers to each KQ, ensuring no overlap, and reported following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram (Supplementary Fig. 1) [5]. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each KQ were formulated and applied using the PICOS (population, intervention, comparison, outcomes, study design) framework. All KQs targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included.

Assessment of risk of bias

The quality assessment of the literature was conducted separately according to individual study designs (RCTs, Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials [RoB 2] [6]; nonrandomized studies, ROBINS-I [risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of intervention] [7]). The quality assessment of literature was independently performed by the designated committee member for each KQ, and any discrepancies in assessment results were resolved through consensus among the committee members (Supplementary Fig. 2).

Summation of estimates (meta-analysis)

Meta-analysis was conducted if there was no unexplained heterogeneity and multiple outcomes were available. Duplicate study results were managed by selecting the most recent or largest sample size. A fixed-effect model was used, and both statistical (I² statistic) and clinical heterogeneity were evaluated. The analysis covered all relevant outcomes of the intervention.

Level of evidence

The assessment of the level of evidence followed the grading criteria provided by the GRADE Working Group (Table 1). Each level of evidence was assigned based on outcome measures, and when randomized and nonrandomized studies provided evidence for the same outcome measure, the level of evidence from randomized studies was used as the reference value. The assigned level of evidence for recommendations was based on the level of evidence for the most critical primary outcome associated with each recommendation

Strength of recommendation

The members for each KQ developed a preliminary recommendation and recommendation grade based on the level of evidence, considering various strengths and limitations of the evidence, the balance between benefits and harms, the size of benefits and harms, patient values and preferences, barriers for implementation by healthcare providers, financial considerations, and applicability within the specific healthcare institution. The strength of recommendation was defined based on evidence, evaluating the balance of benefits and harms for each intervention through the committee's blind voting process (Table 2).

Recommendation consensus

The draft recommendations underwent evaluation through a blind vote if participation from at least 70% of all internal committee members was achieved. Eleven members of the internal committee within the development committee participated in the recommendation grading process. If individual items received over 70% approval in the vote, with over 70% in favor, the committee considered it a consensus decision. If fewer than 70% of the votes were in favor, the development committee members considered amendments, and a second vote was conducted.

External expert review

The selection of relevant experts was conducted to evaluate the content of the guidelines for the purpose of enhancing their quality. A total of 18 individuals were selected, recommended through the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP), from among colorectal surgeons specializing in primary to tertiary hospital, who had experience conducting systematic reviews or had experience in developing other clinical guidelines. These individuals were surveyed for their opinions on the pros and cons of the recommendations and the validity of outcome indicators related to benefits and harms.

Guideline update plan

The guidelines are planned to be revised on a 3-year cycle, with the addition of new recommendations or modifications and enhancements to existing recommendations when high-quality evidence regarding new diagnostic methods, medications, or treatments is reported. The revision process for the guidelines follows the principles of new development, applying the same methods as those used in the original guideline development. However, for subsequently developed recommendations, evidence searching will be conducted only for newly added evidence after August 15, 2023.

RESULTS

Recommendation	Strength	Level of evidence
KQ 1. Is prehabilitation effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Prehabilitation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 2. Is preoperative oral nutritional supplement effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Preoperative nutritional support using oral nutritional supplements is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 3. What are the appropriate methods to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Strong for	High
The use of dexamethasone in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist rather than monotherapy is recommended for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Strong for	High
KQ 4. Is the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?	Conditional for	High
The use of oral antibiotics in conjunction with mechanical bowel preparation is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	High
KQ 5. Is preoperative oral carbohydrate loading effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?	Conditional for	Moderate
Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before colorectal cancer surgery is recommended.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 6. Is goal-directed fluid therapy beneficial during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery may be considered for high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 7. Is the insertion of an intra-abdominal drain necessary during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional against	Moderate
It is suggested not to insert an intra-abdominal drain during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional against	Moderate
KQ 8. During elective surgery for colorectal cancer, does the insertion of a nasogastric tube aid in the patient's recovery?	Conditional against	Low
It is suggested not to insert a nasogastric tube during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional against	Low
KQ 9. Is transverse abdominis plane block effective for postoperative pain control following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Transverse abdominis plane block may be considered for pain control during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 10. Is thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 11. How long should urinary catheters be maintained after elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
It is recommended to remove urinary catheters the day after colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 12. Is early feeding effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Early feeding is recommended to start from the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 13. Is early ambulation effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Early ambulation is recommended to commence on the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate

KQ 1. Is prehabilitation effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Implementation of preoperative prehabilitation

Comparison (C): Non-implementation of preoperative prehabilitation

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, readmission rate, length of hospital stay, mortality rate

Recommendation 1.

Prehabilitation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

Prehabilitation primarily consists of increasing physical activity, improving nutritional status, and stabilizing mental well-being. Prehabilitation through exercise consists of aerobic/anaerobic exercise sessions, lasting approximately 1 hour, 3 to 4 times per week over a period of 3 to 6 weeks. Prehabilitation has been shown to improve postoperative outcomes by enhancing baseline physical condition and mental functional capacity prior to surgery. The incidence rate of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grades I, II) was assessed after analyzing a total of 9 studies [8–16]. Among the analyzed studies, several demonstrated significant differences between the 2 groups, indicating that patients who underwent preoperative prehabilitation had a statistically significant reduction in postoperative complication rates (Clavien-Dindo classification grades I, II) compared to those who did not undergo prehabilitation (odds ratio [OR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.97) (Supplementary Fig. 3A). However, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification grades ≥III), length of hospital stay, readmission rate, and mortality (Supplement Fig. 3B–F).

However, reflecting the situation in Korea, although there may be variations between institutions, it is generally assumed that if surgery for colorectal cancer is typically performed within 3 weeks of diagnosis, preoperative rehabilitation may not be feasible. Additionally, as previously mentioned, if patients prefer to undergo surgery shortly after diagnosis, the implementation of prehabilitation may be challenging. Furthermore, as described above, the introduction of comprehensive prehabilitation requires resources from various fields, including exercise, but it should be considered that it may not be feasible for all medical institutions to provide these resources within limited means.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety percent of the attending members (9 of 10) endorsed the proposal. However, there were discussions on whether it is appropriate to allocate limited resources to prehabilitation, the practical feasibility of implementing several weeks of prehabilitation within the context of Korea, and which patient groups should be conditionally recommended for prehabilitation.

External expert review results

The external experts' opinions on the recommendation strength of the guideline revealed a relatively lower agreement rate (7–9 points) of 72% (13 of 18). However, there was a high level of concordance (17 of 18, 94%) for the response of "conditional for" regarding the appropriate recommendation level. Consequently, the committee confirmed the recommendation level as “conditional for” without dissent.

KQ 2. Is preoperative oral nutritional supplement effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Preoperative oral nutritional supplementation therapy

Comparison (C): Standard preoperative diet

Outcomes (O): Postoperative complication rate, total length of hospital stay, mortality rate

Recommendation 2.

Preoperative nutritional support using oral nutritional supplements is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

It is well established that patients at nutritional risk have a higher incidence of postoperative complications and prolonged hospital stays [17, 18]. Specifically, in colorectal cancer, symptoms such as loss of appetite, diarrhea, and bowel obstruction can increase the vulnerability of patients to malnutrition [18]. Consequently, perioperative nutritional supplementation is essential for appropriate recovery in these patients. In cases where adequate nutritional intake through oral consumption is challenging, the use of oral nutritional supplements prior to surgery is recommended. Immunonutrition, which includes arginine, ω-3 fatty acids, nucleotides, and high concentrations of protein, is preferred [19].

The meta-analysis of postoperative complications encompassed a total of 8 studies [20–27]. While 6 studies did not demonstrate significant differences between the intervention and control groups [21, 22, 24–27], some reported that preoperative oral nutritional supplementation reduced postoperative complications [20, 23]. Furthermore, the results revealed a significant association between preoperative oral nutritional supplementation and decreased postoperative complications (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.98) (Supplementary Fig. 4A). Analysis regarding the length of hospital stay included 5 studies with results on this outcome [21, 24–27]. While Xu et al. [27] demonstrated a significant association between the intervention and control groups in terms of hospital stay, a meta-analysis of the 5 studies did not confirm this significance (mean difference [MD], –0.30; 95% CI, –0.95 to 0.36) (Supplementary Fig. 4B). Regarding mortality, no patients were reported to have died within 30 days postoperatively in any of the 8 included studies.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety percent of the attending members (9 of 10) supported the proposal. The final recommendation was subsequently decided without dissent through consensus.

External expert review results

Seventy-two percent of the external experts (17 of 18) endorsed the recommendation strength and direction of the guideline, with scores ranging from 7 to 9. Additionally, 94% (17 of 18) responded with "conditional for" to the question regarding the appropriate recommendation strength. Consequently, the committee confirmed the recommendation strength as “conditional for” without dissent.

KQ 3. What are the appropriate methods to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Serotonin receptor antagonist (5-HT3 antagonist) and dexamethasone combination therapy

Comparison (C): Serotonin receptor antagonist monotherapy

Outcomes (O): Nausea and vomiting incidence within 24 hours postoperatively, adverse effects

Recommendation 3.

The use of dexamethasone in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist rather than monotherapy is recommended for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Strong for

Level of evidence: High

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are among the most common postoperative complications, causing patient dissatisfaction and discomfort. These symptoms can also lead to increased healthcare costs, prolonged hospital stays, or unexpected readmissions [28–31]. Given the complexity and diversity of antiemetic therapies for PONV, a comprehensive review of all available methods poses practical limitations. Thus, our committee has decided to establish a key question and systematically review the efficacy of steroid combination therapy with serotonin receptor antagonists (5-HT3 antagonists), which are among the most widely used and evidence-supported options, to enhance PONV prevention.

Meta-analysis of 7 studies investigating early PONV within 6 hours revealed that the combination of a serotonin receptor antagonist and dexamethasone significantly lowered the incidence compared to other treatments (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.76) (Supplementary Fig. 5A) [32–38]. Additionally, a meta-analysis of 14 studies examining PONV within 24 hours showed that the combination therapy had a significantly lower incidence rate compared to serotonin receptor antagonist monotherapy (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.56) (Supplementary Fig. 5B) [33, 35, 36, 38–48].

Common side effects of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone include headache, dizziness, fatigue, diarrhea, and pruritus. However, the most frequently reported side effects in the majority of studies were headache and dizziness. A meta-analysis of 4 studies reporting overall side effects found no significant difference between combination therapy and monotherapy (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.44) (Supplementary Fig. 5C) [33, 35, 41, 46]. Additionally, meta-analyses of 6 studies specifically analyzing headache (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.82) and dizziness (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.38 to 1.57) also showed no significant differences between combination therapy and monotherapy (Supplementary Fig. 5D, E) [33, 35, 41, 43, 46, 47].

The committee conducted a review of commonly used pharmacological agents and their clinical outcomes, in addition to those specified in the KQs. A summary of the types and doses of various agents used for the prevention of PONV is presented in Supplementary Table 1. Among neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonists, aprepitant, which is available domestically, shows comparable efficacy in preventing postoperative vomiting with an oral dose of 40 mg to intravenous palonosetron of 0.075 mg [49]. Dexamethasone monotherapy has also been used for several years and is well-known for its effectiveness in PONV prevention. It is generally recommended in doses ranging from 4 to 10 mg, although recent reports have highlighted the efficacy of 8 mg or higher [50–52]. Among antidopaminergic agents, droperidol and haloperidol have shown efficacy in preventing PONV; however, there is a concern regarding QT interval prolongation [28]. Metoclopramide, at doses of 25 and 50 mg, is also effective in PONV prevention but carries a risk of extrapyramidal symptoms as a side effect. Additionally, there are reports on the antiemetic efficacy of anticholinergic agents [53], and various combination therapies, as addressed in this study.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety-one percent of the attending members (10 of 11) supported the recommendation strength and direction for the use of a combination of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting after elective colorectal surgery. Although there were concerns about a strong recommendation level, the committee reached consensus that the high level of evidence and the clear benefits of nausea and vomiting prevention provided by the combination therapy outweighed any minor side effects, thus justifying a strong recommendation.

External expert review results

The proportion of external experts who supported the recommendation strength for this key question was 61% (11 of 18), which is relatively low. When asked about the appropriate recommendation strength, 50% (9 of 18) favored a strong recommendation, while a significant number of experts chose "conditional for" (5 of 18, 28%) or "conditional against" (4 of 18, 22%). As mentioned, there are various methods for preventing nausea and vomiting. This guideline does not mandate the use of a combination of serotonin receptor antagonists and dexamethasone but rather strongly recommends the combination therapy over serotonin receptor antagonists alone. The choice of method for preventing nausea and vomiting should be at the discretion of the clinician, and various alternatives are detailed. After the discussion, the committee reached a consensus that a “strong recommendation” was appropriate and confirmed it as the final recommendation.

KQ 4. Is the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation with oral antibiotic administration

Comparison (C): Preoperative mechanical bowel preparation

Outcomes (O): Surgical site infection, readmission rate

Recommendation 4.

The use of oral antibiotics in conjunction with mechanical bowel preparation is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: High

Regarding bowel preparation methods to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs), previous guideline suggested that mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) provided no clinical benefit and thus was not recommended for colorectal cancer surgeries [54]. However, recent network meta-analyses investigating the optimal combination of MBP and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) have reported that combining MBP with OAP is more effective in reducing SSIs than using either method alone [55, 56]. Based on these findings, we determined that there is sufficient evidence to support the combined use of both MBP and OAP. To further elucidate its benefits, a systematic review was conducted to compare the effectiveness of this combined approach with MBP alone.

The incidence of SSIs was analyzed across 8 studies [57–64]. Several studies demonstrated significant differences between the groups, showing that the combination of preoperative MBP and oral antibiotic administration significantly reduced the incidence of SSIs compared to MBP alone (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.66) (Supplementary Fig. 6A). However, there were no significant differences between the groups concerning organ-space SSIs [57–63], including anastomotic leaks (Supplementary Fig. 6B), or the readmission rate within 30 days (Supplementary Fig. 6C) [57–60].

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety percent of the attending members (9 of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for this key question. There were concerns about whether recommending MBP and oral antibiotics for both colon and rectal cancer might be excessive, considering the resources required and patient discomfort. However, after reviewing the current evidence, it was determined that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Therefore, it was agreed to recommend the approach with a “conditional for” recommendation strength.

External expert review results

Sixty-one percent of the external experts (11 of 18) supported the recommendation strength (scoring 7–9 points), with 6 experts providing a score of 6. Most experts (17 of 18, 94%) provided scores of 6 or higher. When asked about the appropriate recommendation strength, 72% (13 of 18) selected “conditional for.” Consequently, the committee integrated the results from the consensus meeting with the external experts' opinions and confirmed “conditional for” as the final recommendation strength.

KQ 5. Is preoperative oral carbohydrate loading effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Oral carbohydrate preparation (administered up to 2 hours before surgery)

Comparison (C): Fasting (or placebo)

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, time to bowel motility recovery, length of hospital stay

Recommendation 5.

Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before colorectal cancer surgery is recommended.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

The stress associated with surgery can induce peripheral insulin resistance, leading to hyperglycemia, which may increase the risk of postoperative complications and delay recovery [65]. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that preoperative oral carbohydrate loading may reduce insulin resistance and thereby decrease postoperative complications. The incidence of postoperative complications was assessed in 7 studies [66–72]. Most studies reported no significant differences between the groups, and meta-analysis also failed to demonstrate a significant correlation between preoperative oral carbohydrate supplementation and the incidence of postoperative complications (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.19) (Supplementary Fig. 7A). Similarly, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of individual complications such as surgical site infection [66–69, 71, 72] and prolonged postoperative ileus [66–72]. However, the time to first flatus was significantly shorter in the oral carbohydrate group (MD, –0.52; 95% CI, –0.76 to –0.28) [66, 69–71, 73], and the length of hospital stay was also shorter in the oral carbohydrate group (MD, –1.03; 95% CI, –1.39 to –0.68) (Supplementary Fig. 7B–E) [67–71, 74, 75].

Preoperative fasting induces psychological stress in patients, and reducing the duration of fasting as much as possible has been shown to be effective for patients' psychological well-being in several studies [76]. Rizvanović et al. [74] reported that the intake of oral carbohydrate solutions before colorectal surgery positively affects patients' subjective feelings.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety-one percent of the attending members (10 of 11) supported the recommendation strength and direction for prescribing oral carbohydrate supplements in elective colorectal surgery. While there were concerns that intake might be restricted in patients with bowel obstruction, it was agreed by the majority that since the guideline is limited to elective surgery, there would likely be few patients unable to take oral carbohydrate supplements due to bowel obstruction.

External expert review results

Eighty-nine percent (16 of 18) of the external experts provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for” recommendation. Additionally, 67% (12 of 18) of the external experts endorsed the recommendation strength as “conditional for.” Although 4 external experts (22%) suggested that a “strong recommendation” might be more appropriate, the consensus was that a strong recommendation would be unsuitable due to potential difficulties in taking oral carbohydrate supplements for patients with diabetes or bowel obstruction. Consequently, the development committee confirmed “conditional for” as the final recommendation strength.

KQ 6. Is goal-directed fluid therapy beneficial during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Goal-directed fluid therapy

Comparison (C): Conventional fluid management

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, length of hospital stay, mortality rate

Recommendation 6.

Goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery may be considered for high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

In relation to the ERAS protocol, restrictive fluid therapy or zero-balance fluid management has been introduced and widely studied to prevent weight gain due to postoperative fluid retention [1]. This approach can accelerate the recovery of gastrointestinal motility post-surgery and potentially reduce the length of hospital stay. However, excessive restriction of fluids requires caution as it may lead to acute kidney dysfunction [1, 77].

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) refers to the adjustment of fluid administration based on the monitoring of various hemodynamic parameters [78]. There is no standardized criterion for what to target in GDFT, but it commonly involves the monitoring of cardiac output and stroke volume using transesophageal echocardiography, central venous pressure via a central venous catheter, and stroke volume variation through arterial waveform analysis. Additionally, various bioimpedance analyses are employed. The group receiving GDFT demonstrated a trend toward a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications compared to the control group, though this did not reach statistical significance (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.01) (Supplementary Fig. 8A) [79–88]. However, the incidence of SSIs was significantly reduced in the GDFT group (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.97) (Supplementary Fig. 8B) [79, 85, 86, 88–90]. There were no significant differences between the groups concerning the frequency of anastomotic leaks (Supplementary Fig. 8C) [79, 82, 85–91], prolonged postoperative ileus (Supplementary Fig. 8D) [79, 82, 84–86, 88, 90], or mortality within postoperative 30 days (Supplementary Fig. 8E) [79–82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90–92]. Importantly, the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the GDFT group (MD, –0.30; 95% CI, –0.45 to –0.14) (Supplementary Fig. 8F) [79–91, 93].

According to previous studies, GDFT has been reported to be effective in high-risk patients [1, 78]. A previous meta-analysis of patients undergoing abdominal surgery reported no benefit from implementing GDFT for all patients [94]. Specifically, with the application of the ERAS protocol, preoperative fasting and MBP are minimized, thereby reducing preoperative fluid deficit to a minimum, suggesting that zero-balance fluid management may be sufficient. Therefore, it is essential to select and apply GDFT to high-risk patients. While the definition of high-risk varies, it generally includes patients with severe cardiopulmonary disease, patients over 70 years old with poor general health, and surgeries expected to last longer than 8 hours [1]. By applying GDFT to high-risk patients in medical institutions equipped with monitoring devices, a faster recovery for patients can be achieved.

As stated above, this recommendation is limited to high-risk patients. In actual clinical practice, performing medical procedures such as transesophageal echocardiography for GDFT in non–high-risk patients would lead to a waste of medical resources and should be avoided. For non–high-risk patients, zero-balance fluid therapy (administration of 1–4 mL/kg/hr of crystalloid solution excluding blood loss) as described in other guidelines is considered sufficient [1, 2].

Recommendation consensus meeting results

The recommendation strength and direction for the use of GDFT during colorectal surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (11 of 11). However, it was emphasized that GDFT should be selectively applied only to high-risk patients, as its benefits do not extend to all patients. Consequently, the guideline specifies that GDFT should be considered only for high-risk patients.

External expert review results

In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, 89% of the reviewers (16 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for” recommendation. Additionally, 89% of the reviewers (16 of 18) endorsed the same recommendation strength as “conditional for,” indicating overall support for the recommendation. The final review by the development committee also confirmed this decision without dissent.

KQ 7. Is the insertion of intra-abdominal drain necessary during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Insertion of a drainage tube during surgery

Comparison (C): No insertion of a drainage tube during surgery

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, anastomotic leak, postoperative pelvic inflammation and sepsis, bowel obstruction, reoperation rate

Recommendation 7.

It is suggested not to insert an intra-abdominal drain during surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional against

Level of evidence: Moderate

Prophylactic drainage is believed to have several benefits [95]: (1) it can reduce the incidence of anastomotic leakage by removing blood and serous fluids, which, if infected, may cause abscess formation and potentially lead to the abscess rupturing into the anastomosis [96]; (2) it helps in mitigating the severity of such complications by allowing for earlier detection [97]; and (3) it aids in identifying intraperitoneal bleeding [96]. However, surgeons who argue against the use of drainage suggest the following: (1) it might actually promote the production of serous fluid [98]; (2) it could introduce infections from external sources [99, 100]; (3) it might increase the risk of leakage by hindering the movement of the omentum and nearby organs, which otherwise help seal the anastomotic site [99, 101], or by causing leaks through mechanical erosion of the anastomosis [102]; and (4) it is typically enclosed quickly by the body [103].

The meta-analysis revealed that drain placement did not significantly impact the overall complication rates across the studies analyzed (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.19) (Supplementary Fig. 9A) [95, 104–107]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of anastomotic leakage associated with drain placement (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.24) (Supplementary Fig. 9B) [95, 104–108]. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the incidence of pelvic fluid collection and sepsis (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.33) [95, 104, 106–108], intestinal obstruction (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.05) [95, 104, 106, 108], or the reoperation rate (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.5) (Supplementary Fig. 9C–E) [95, 106, 108]. While not statistically significant, the tendency was towards a lower incidence of each complication, except for the reoperation rate, in the group without drain placement (Supplementary Fig. 9E).

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Seventy percent of the attending members (7 of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for not using a drainage catheter during colorectal surgery. There were concerns that there might be insufficient evidence to deviate from traditional practices, as some felt that not using a drainage catheter did not provide clear benefits or avoid risks. However, the consensus was that given the absence of clear benefits and considering patient discomfort and the potential for earlier discharge, recommending not using a drainage catheter was justified.

External expert review results

In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, only 39% of the reviewers (7 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for “conditional against.” Additionally, only 44% of the reviewers (8 of 18) endorsed the same recommendation strength as “conditional against,” while 33% of the reviewers (6 of 18) suggested “conditional for” as the appropriate recommendation strength. A significant number of clinicians use drainage catheters during colorectal surgeries, especially rectal surgeries, primarily due to concerns about anastomotic leakage. The review results from the external experts reflects this reality. Although there may be some discrepancy with actual clinical practice, the guideline is evidence-based and, considering the essence of the ERAS guidelines, the development committee agreed that a recommendation against using drainage catheters was appropriate. Consequently, the final recommendation strength was confirmed as “conditional against.”

KQ 8. During elective surgery for colorectal cancer, does the insertion of a nasogastric tube aid in the patient's recovery?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Insertion of a nasogastric tube during surgery

Comparison (C): No insertion of a nasogastric tube during surgery

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, time to bowel motility recovery, length of hospital stay

Recommendation 8.

It is suggested not to insert a nasogastric tube during surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional against

Level of evidence: Low

The necessity of nasogastric tube insertion during surgery has been widely researched in abdominal surgeries over the years. A Cochrane review published in 2007 concluded that routine insertion of nasogastric tubes for decompression purposes in all patients undergoing abdominal surgery is unnecessary [109]. Our meta-analysis also revealed results consistent with those of similar studies. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups regarding anastomotic leakage (Supplementary Fig. 10A), time to bowel movement (Supplementary Fig. 10B), gas passage (Supplementary Fig. 10C), SSIs (Supplementary Fig. 10D), or length of hospital stay (Supplementary Fig. 10F) [110, 111]. However, Venara et al. [111] reported a significantly higher incidence of respiratory infections in patients with nasogastric tube insertion compared to those without (3.0% vs. 0.4%, P<0.001), which was corroborated by the meta-analysis (OR, 7.12; 95% CI, 2.48 to 20.47) [110, 111] (Supplementary Fig. 10E).

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety percent of the attending members (9 of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction regarding the use of nasogastric tubes during elective colorectal surgery. Although it has long been known that there are no benefits to nasogastric tube insertion, some suggested that the recommendation strength should be “strongly against.” However, it was agreed that the evidence level is insufficient to justify a strong recommendation. Therefore, the consensus was to recommend against the use of nasogastric tubes, but not at a strong level.

External expert review results

In the external review conducted by the 18 external experts, 67% (12 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for “conditional against.” However, only 39% of the reviewers (7 of 18) deemed “conditional against” as the appropriate recommendation strength, which was a relatively low proportion. A significant number of reviewers (8 of 18, 44%) suggested “strongly against” as the appropriate recommendation strength. This aligns with the opinions expressed during the development committee's consensus meetings. Considering the level of evidence, the final decision was to confirm the recommendation strength as “conditional against” through the final meeting.

KQ 9. Is transverse abdominis plane block effective for postoperative pain control following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Transverse abdominis plane block

Comparison (C): Conventional pain management

Outcomes (O): Postoperative pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting, postoperative ileus, length of hospital stay

Recommendation 9.

Transverse abdominis plane block may be considered for pain control during surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

Effective pain management following colorectal cancer surgery is a key component of ERAS protocols, as it can aid in facilitating rapid patient recovery and early discharge from the hospital. Opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia has been widely used due to its ease of use, simplicity, and effectiveness in pain management [112]. However, opioids can cause side effects such as nausea and vomiting, and reduce gastrointestinal motility, which can slow recovery [1, 112]. Therefore, the most crucial aspect emphasized in other ERAS guidelines for postoperative pain management is to avoid opioids and apply multimodal analgesia, which combines 2 or more pain control methods [1, 2].

There are many options available for multimodal analgesia. Among nonopioids, the most easily prescribed medications are acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). These are the easiest alternatives to opioids as they do not require special equipment or procedures. However, caution is needed with nonselective NSAIDs like diclofenac due to reports of increased anastomotic leaks. Ketorolac or COX-2 selective NSAIDs are relatively recommended instead [1, 113]. Other medications such as gabapentinoids (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) and ketamine can also be used, but their analgesic effects are debated and side effects must be considered [1].

Thoracic epidural analgesia has been proven effective for open surgery but is not recommended for minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery due to a lack of evidence of superiority over other analgesic methods and potential side effects [1]. The use of continuous wound infiltration with local anesthetics via catheter is becoming more widespread, and new local pain control methods, such as the use of thermosensitive hydrogels for local anesthetic delivery, are being developed [1, 114]. Additionally, nerve blocks such as the transverse abdominis plane (TAP) block and rectus sheath block have been reported to reduce opioid use and hospital stay duration, making them viable options for multimodal analgesia. The selection of methods to be combined for multimodal analgesia should be determined based on the available resources and the preferences of the medical staff at each hospital. This guideline establishes KQs and conducts a systematic review on the TAP block, which has been widely studied in colorectal surgery.

This meta-analysis compared the effectiveness and side effects of TAP block with other pain management methods (placebo using saline solution, local anesthetic-based pain control, or traditional opioid analgesia) during colorectal surgery. The analysis of postoperative pain using the visual analog scale indicated significantly lower pain scores in the TAP block group compared to the control group at both postoperative 2 hours (MD, –1.31; 95% CI, –1.41 to –1.21) (Supplementary Fig. 11A) [115–126] and postoperative 24 hours (MD, –1.04; 95% CI, –1.14 to –0.94) (Supplementary Fig. 11B) [115, 117–126]. Additionally, the TAP block group had a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to the control group (MD, –0.38 days; 95% CI, –0.53 to –0.22) (Supplementary Fig. 11C) [115–118, 120, 122, 123, 125–128]. While variability in reporting standards and units posed challenges for aggregating opioid consumption data, several studies consistently demonstrated reduced opioid requirements in the TAP block group relative to the control group [116, 117, 122, 123, 127–129]. A meta-analysis by Liu et al. [130], utilizing standardized MD, further confirmed the reduction in postoperative opioid use in the TAP block group compared to the control group (standardized MD, –0.26; 95% CI, –0.47 to –0.05).

The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the TAP block group compared to the control group (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.72) (Supplementary Fig. 11D) [115–118, 120–122, 125, 126, 128, 129, 131]. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups concerning the incidence of postoperative ileus (Supplementary Fig. 11E) [115–118, 120, 123, 126, 128, 129, 131].

As described above, there are many methods for postoperative pain management. Instead of relying on a single method, combining multiple techniques in a multimodal analgesia approach is more effective for pain control. TAP block should also be used as part of this multimodal analgesia. The ultimate goal is to minimize the use of opioids.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

The recommendation strength and direction for the use of TAP block during colorectal surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (11 of 11), with no dissenting opinions regarding the recommendation.

External expert review results

The external review of this key question by the external experts showed that the proportion of those who supported the recommendation strength (7–9 points) was 50% (9 of 18), which was not high. However, 89% of the reviewers (16 of 18) indicated “conditional for” when asked about the appropriate recommendation strength. It is believed that this survey result reflects the fact that various pain control methods can be included in multimodal analgesia. As mentioned earlier, the TAP block, as an element of multimodal analgesia, was ultimately agreed to be “conditional for,” and the recommendation strength was confirmed.

KQ 10. Is thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis

Comparison (C): No preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis

Outcomes (O): Occurrence of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism postoperatively

Recommendation 10.

Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

For preoperative thromboprophylaxis, clinical methods include mechanical prophylaxis (such as compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression) and pharmacologic prophylaxis. Mechanical prophylaxis has been proven effective and is used in clinical practice [132, 133]. However, the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis remains less established. Therefore, this analysis evaluated RCTs comparing preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis with placebo or intermittent pneumatic compression.

The incidence of postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was analyzed in 2 studies included in the analysis [134, 135]. Both studies reported a significantly lower incidence in the group that received preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Consequently, the meta-analysis results also demonstrated a significant association between preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and reduced rates of postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.99) (Supplementary Fig. 12A).

Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis carries a potential risk of postoperative bleeding. Both studies included in the analysis reported on major bleeding requiring transfusion and minor bleeding not requiring transfusion [134, 135]. When combined, the studies confirmed that preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis was not associated with major bleeding (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 0.45 to 36.29) or minor bleeding (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.92 to 6.68) (Supplementary Fig. 12B, C).

However, the limited number of RCTs supporting preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in colorectal surgery specifically targeting Korean populations, presents a significant barrier. A prospective study conducted on a Korean cohort found no significant difference in the incidence of thrombotic complications between patients who received preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis and those who did not [136], which could hinder the implementation of such measures.

As an alternative, it may be practical to selectively administer preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to patients at high risk for thromboembolic events. For example, patients with obesity or multiple underlying conditions, who are at a higher risk for thrombotic complications [137–140], might benefit more from targeted prophylactic interventions. If nomograms for identifying patients at high risk for thrombosis are developed, they could serve as valuable tools for deciding whether to implement preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Ninety percent of the attending members (9 of 10) supported the recommendation strength and direction for implementing preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery. While there was an opinion in the consensus meeting that the recommendation strength should be “strongly recommended,” the view that the level of evidence should be considered and that the decision should be made selectively based on the individual patient's condition gained traction. Consequently, the consensus was to classify it as “conditional for.”

External expert review results

Among the external experts, the proportion of those who provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for” recommendation was 44% (8 of 18), which is relatively low. However, 78% of the external experts endorsed “conditional for” as the appropriate recommendation strength. Conversely, 3 experts (17%) suggested that “conditional against” was more suitable. After reviewing the consensus meeting results, external expert reviews, and meta-analysis outcomes, the final recommendation strength was confirmed as “conditional for.”

KQ 11. How long should urinary catheters be maintained after elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Early urinary catheter removal (postoperative day 1)

Comparison (C): Catheter removal after postoperative day 3

Outcomes (O): Acute urinary retention, urinary tract infection

Recommendation 11.

It is recommended to remove urinary catheters the day after colorectal cancer surgery.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

Early removal of urinary catheters postoperatively has been reported to reduce the time to first ambulation [141–145] and decrease the length of hospital stay in numerous studies [141, 142, 144, 146, 147]. However, the benefits of reducing urinary tract infections (UTIs) through early catheter removal must be weighed against the risks of acute urinary retention that can occur following early removal. The 2 studies included in the meta-analysis showed a trend toward a reduction in UTIs, but this trend was not statistically significant [148, 149]. However, 2 other studies with relatively larger sample sizes demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in UTIs [150, 151]. Therefore, the meta-analysis confirmed that early catheter removal could reduce the incidence of UTIs (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67) (Supplementary Fig. 13A).

There is potential for catheter reinsertion due to acute urinary retention following early catheter removal. This is particularly relevant in rectal cancer surgeries, where the risk of damaging the lateral pelvic nerves during pelvic surgery must be considered. In the present analysis, 4 studies on colorectal surgeries involving the pelvic region were included [148–151]. The meta-analysis revealed that early catheter removal is associated with an increased risk of acute urinary retention following pelvic surgery (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.20 to 3.89) (Supplementary Fig. 13B).

Clean intermittent catheterization has been reported not to increase the frequency of UTIs compared to indwelling catheters [152]. Therefore, after removing the catheter on postoperative day 1, in cases where acute urinary retention occurs, the decision whether to reinsert the catheter for prolonged use based on bladder volume expansion (>600 cm³), or to implement clean intermittent catheterization, can be determined [153].

Considering different protocols for colon cancer and rectal cancer surgeries is also warranted. A meta-analysis of colorectal surgeries, including pelvic surgeries conducted in 2019 [154], analyzed 3 prospective RCTs [148, 150, 151] and 2 retrospective cohort studies [155, 156], confirming no significant difference in the frequency of UTIs or acute urinary retention between postoperative day 1 and 3. Therefore, considering catheter removal on postoperative day 2 for rectal cancer surgeries is also worth considering.

Additionally, in patients with urinary retention issues due to benign prostatic hyperplasia, there have been reports indicating an increased incidence of acute urinary retention following early catheter removal [157–159]. Therefore, early catheter removal should be approached with caution, and the use of medications such as alpha blockers should be considered prior to removal [160].

Recommendation consensus meeting results

Regarding the recommendation strength and direction for early removal of urinary catheters following elective surgery for colorectal cancer, 90% of the attending members (9 out of 10) supported the recommendation strength. There was a suggestion to create separate guidelines for colon cancer and rectal cancer. However, the meta-analysis included studies that covered both colon and rectal cancers, and there were no prospective randomized studies solely on early catheter removal for colon cancer. This limitation makes it impractical to create separate guidelines based solely on the current evidence.

External expert review results

The external review by 18 experts showed that 78% (14 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for.” Additionally, all 18 experts unanimously agreed that “conditional for” was the appropriate recommendation strength. Consequently, the final review by the development committee confirmed “conditional for” as the recommendation strength without dissent.

KQ 12. Is early feeding effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Early feeding (within postoperative 24 hours)

Comparison (C): Feeding after postoperative day 2

Outcomes (O): Complication rate, time to bowel motility recovery, length of hospital stay, mortality rate

Recommendation 12.

Early feeding is recommended to start from the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

Early feeding was defined as the introduction of a liquid diet or more substantial nutrition within postoperative 24 hours, and a systematic review of the literature was conducted accordingly. The majority of studies included in the meta-analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in complications between patients who initiated a liquid diet within 24 hours and those who commenced the diet after 24 hours [161–169]. However, Zhou et al.'s study [170], which enrolled the largest number of patients, reported statistically significant reduction in complications with early dietary advancement, leading to a significant association between early dietary advancement and reduced total postoperative complications in the meta-analysis (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.65) (Supplementary Fig. 14A). Although individual studies did not individually demonstrate statistical significance in anastomotic leakage [161–163, 165–171], when pooled together, a significant association between early dietary advancement and reduced anastomotic leakage was observed (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.83) (Supplementary Fig. 14B). Time to first flatus was significantly shorter in the early dietary advancement group (MD, –0.87; 95% CI, –1.00 to –0.74) (Supplementary Fig. 14C) [161–164, 168, 170, 171], and hospital stay was also shorter in the early dietary advancement group (MD, –0.76; 95% CI, –0.89 to –0.64) (Supplementary Fig. 14D) [161–170, 172, 173]. However, there was no significant difference in mortality rates between the 2 groups (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.15 to 2.01) (Supplementary Fig. 14E) [161–163, 165–168, 171].

Early dietary advancement is associated with concerns about inducing ileus or vomiting before complete bowel recovery. A comprehensive analysis of 9 papers reporting postoperative vomiting revealed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative vomiting in the early dietary advancement group (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.11–2.26) (Supplementary Fig. 14F) [163–165, 167–169, 171–173]. Postoperative nasogastric tube insertion was more frequently performed in the early dietary advancement group, although statistical significance was not reached (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.96–2.31) (Supplementary Fig. 14G) [162–165, 167, 168, 170–172].

Recommendation consensus meeting results

The recommendation strength and direction for early postoperative feeding after elective surgery for colorectal cancer were unanimously supported by all attending members (10 of 10). There were no dissenting opinions regarding the recommendation.

External expert review results

In the external review conducted by 18 experts, 78% (14 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for” recommendation (on a scale of 1 to 9). Additionally, 94% of the experts (17 of 18) endorsed the recommendation strength as “conditional for.” This overall agreement indicates strong support for the recommendation strength. The development committee also confirmed the “conditional for” recommendation strength without dissent during the final review.

KQ 13. Is early ambulation effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?

Population (P): Adult colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery

Intervention (I): Early ambulation

Comparison (C): No early ambulation

Outcomes (O): Complication rate

Recommendation 13.

Early ambulation is recommended to commence on the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.

Strength of the recommendation: Conditional for

Level of evidence: Moderate

Postoperative early ambulation is believed to prevent intestinal paralysis and pulmonary complications. Both of the 2 studies included in the analysis showed no overall difference in complications, and the meta-analysis result also indicated no significant difference in the occurrence rates of complications between the 2 groups (Supplementary Fig. 15) [174, 175]. Specific complications could not be analyzed due to a lack of comparable data provided by both studies. However, 1 study reported a decrease in hospitalization period with early ambulation [175].

Although early ambulation is considered to be clinically beneficial, meta-analysis results showed insufficient evidence regarding its benefits and harms. Other systematic reviews did not report the advantages of early ambulation, consistent with our findings [176]. The heterogeneity and design of the studies likely influenced these results. Additionally, there are very few RCTs focusing solely on early ambulation, and most studies included early ambulation as part of the ERAS protocol, making it difficult to synthesize the evidence.

Although this meta-analysis did not clearly establish the benefits of early ambulation, its potential advantages as a component of the ERAS protocol cannot be ruled out, and it can be implemented to some extent without a formal program. Based on this, the committee suggests initiating early ambulation from the day after surgery, considering that its potential benefits likely outweigh the risks.

Recommendation consensus meeting results

The recommendation strength and direction for early ambulation after colorectal cancer surgery were unanimously supported by all attending members (10 of 10), with no dissenting opinions on the recommendation.

External expert review results

The external review by 18 experts showed that 89% of reviewers (16 of 18) provided a support score of 7 or higher for a “conditional for” on a scale from 1 to 9. Sixty-one percent of the reviewers (11 of 18) endorsed “conditional for” as the appropriate recommendation strength. The remaining 39% of reviewers (7 of 18) suggested that a “strong recommendation” might be more appropriate. Despite this, considering the low level of evidence and the fact that some patients may have difficulties with mobility, the consensus was that a strong recommendation would not be suitable. Consequently, the development committee confirmed “conditional for” as the final recommendation strength.

CONCLUSION

This guideline outlines a comprehensive protocol aimed at facilitating early recovery in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, covering recommendations from preoperative to postoperative care. Prehabilitation is advised for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery. Preoperative nutritional support with oral nutritional supplements is recommended. For the prevention of PONV, a combination of dexamethasone and a serotonin receptor antagonist is preferred over monotherapy. Oral antibiotics alongside MBP are recommended. Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before surgery is advised. GDFT may be considered for high-risk patients. Avoidance of intra-abdominal drain placement is suggested. Nasogastric tube insertion is also suggested to be avoided. A TAP block may be considered for intraoperative pain control. Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended. Urinary catheters should ideally be removed on the first postoperative day. Early postoperative feeding is recommended to commence the day after surgery. Early ambulation should begin on the first postoperative day.

ARTICLE INFORMATION

Conflict of interest

Soo Young Lee is an editorial board member of this journal, but was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Funding

This work was supported by a research fund from the National Cancer Center (Goyang, Korea) (No. NCC-2112570-4).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Korean Cancer Management Guideline Network (KCGN) for the technical support.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: KL, SYL, MC, SYY, SRH, ECH, DJP, SJP; Data curation: all authors; Formal analysis: MC; Funding acquisition: DJP, SJP; Investigation: all authors; Methodology: SYL, MC; Project administration: SYL, SJP; Resources: SJP; Software: MC; Supervision: SYL, DJP, SJP; Visualization: all authors; Writing–original draft: all authors; Writing–review & editing: all authors. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary Material 1.

Literature search terms for each key questions (KQs).

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Material-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 1.

Multiple pharmacological options for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart for each key questions (KQs).

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2.

Risk of bias assessment for each key questions (KQs) using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Intervention), and Cochrane RoB 2 (Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials 2).

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 3.

Forest plots of (A) postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo classification grades I, II), (B) postoperative complication (Clavien-Dindo classification grades ≥ III), (C) hospital stay, (D) readmission within 30 days, (E) readmission within 90 days and (F) postoperative mortality based on prehabilitation.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 4.

Forest Plots comparing oral nutritional supplement for (A) total postoperative Complications and (B) length of Hospital Stay

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-4.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 5.

Forest plots of (A) nausea and vomiting (within 6 hours), (B) nausea and vomiting (within 24 hours), (C) overall side effects, (D) headache and (E) dizziness between combination therapy and monotherapy

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-5.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 6.

Forest Plots of (A) surgical site infection, (B) organ-space surgical site infection and (C) readmission rate (within 30 days) in the combination of mechanical bowel preparation and oral antibiotic prophylaxis versus mechanical bowel preparation alone.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-6.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 7.

Forest plots of (A) postoperative complication, (B) surgical site infection, (C) prolonged postoperative ileus, (D) time to flatus and (E) hospital stay based on preoperative oral carbohydrate loading.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-7.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 8.

Forest plots of (A) postoperative complication, (B) surgical site infection, (C) anastomotic leakage, (D) prolonged postoperative ileus, (E) mortality and (F) hospital stay based on goal-directed fluid therapy.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-8.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 9.

Forest plots of (A) total postoperative complication, (B) anastomotic leakage, (C) pelvic fluid collection and sepsis, (D) intestinal obstruction and (E) reoperation based on drain insertion.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-9.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 10.

Forest plots of (A) anastomotic leakage, (B) Time to first bowel movement, (C) time to first flatus, (D) surgical site infection, (E) respiratory infection and (F) hospital stay based on nasogastric tube insertion.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-10.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 11.

Forest plots of (A) postoperative pain using the visual analog scale (within 2 hours), (B) postoperative pain using the visual analog scale (within 24 hours), (C) hospital stay, (D) postoperative nausea and vomit and (E) prolonged postoperative ileus in transversus abdominis plane block versus conventional pain control method.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-11.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 12.

Forest plots of (A) venous thromboembolism, (B) major bleeding and (C) minor bleeding based on preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-12.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 13.

Forest plots of (A) urinary infection and (B) acute urinary retention comparing early versus late urinary catheter removal.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-13.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 14.

Forest plots of (A) total postoperative complication, (B) anastomotic leakage, (C) time to flatus, (D) hospital stay, (E) mortality, (F) postoperative vomit and (G) postoperative nasogastric tube insertion comparing early versus late feeding.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-14.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 15.

Forest plots of total postoperative complication comparing early versus late mobilization.

ac-2024-00836-0119-Supplementary-Fig-15.pdf

Supplementary materials are available from https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00836.0119.

Table 1.

Level of evidence

Level	Definition
High	Evidence from a well-conducted RCT/meta-analysis with low risk of bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study with no bias in study design or conduct and an effect size rated as very large.
Moderate	Evidence derived from RCT or meta-analysis with bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study without bias in study design or conduct and a large effect size.
Low	Evidence resulting from RCT or meta-analysis with biases reported in 2 or more aspects of study design and conduct, or from an observational study without biases in study design and conduct.
Very low	Evidence from observational studies, case reports, or inadequately conducted observational studies with biases in study design and conduct.

RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2.

The definition of the strength of recommendation

Strength of recommendation	Strength	Direction	Definition
Strong recommendation	Strong	For	When the benefits of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the associated risks, burdens, and costs
Conditional recommendation	Conditional	For	When the benefits of treatment or testing potentially exceed the associated risks, burdens, and costs but remain uncertain
Conditional against	Conditional	Against	When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing potentially exceed the benefits but remain uncertain
Strong against	Strong	Against	When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the benefits

REFERENCES

1. Irani JL, Hedrick TL, Miller TE, Lee L, Steinhagen E, Shogan BD, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Surg Endosc 2023;37:5–30. Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Hubner M, Nygren J, Demartines N, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations: 2018. World J Surg 2019;43:659–95. PubMed
3. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions ver. 6.5. Cochrane; 2024.
4. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook [Internet]. GRADE Working Group; 2013 [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html
5. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.Article PubMed PMC
6. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.Article PubMed
7. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.Article PubMed PMC
8. Berkel AE, Bongers BC, Kotte H, Weltevreden P, de Jongh FH, Eijsvogel MM, et al. Effects of community-based exercise prehabilitation for patients scheduled for colorectal surgery with high risk for postoperative complications: results of a randomized clinical trial. Ann Surg 2022;275:e299–306. PubMed
9. Bousquet-Dion G, Awasthi R, Loiselle SÈ, Minnella EM, Agnihotram RV, Bergdahl A, et al. Evaluation of supervised multimodal prehabilitation programme in cancer patients undergoing colorectal resection: a randomized control trial. Acta Oncol 2018;57:849–59. Article PubMed
10. Carli F, Bousquet-Dion G, Awasthi R, Elsherbini N, Liberman S, Boutros M, et al. Effect of multimodal prehabilitation vs postoperative rehabilitation on 30-day postoperative complications for frail patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2020;155:233–42. Article PubMed PMC
11. de Klerk M, van Dalen DH, Nahar-van Venrooij LM, Meijerink WJ, Verdaasdonk EG. A multimodal prehabilitation program in high-risk patients undergoing elective resection for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:2849–56. Article PubMed
12. Gillis C, Li C, Lee L, Awasthi R, Augustin B, Gamsa A, et al. Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: a randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. Anesthesiology 2014;121:937–47. Article PubMed
13. Gloor S, Misirlic M, Frei-Lanter C, Herzog P, Müller P, Schäfli-Thurnherr J, et al. Prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery fails to confer reduction in overall morbidity: results of a single-center, blinded, randomized controlled trial. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2022;407:897–907. Article PubMed PDF
14. Li C, Carli F, Lee L, Charlebois P, Stein B, Liberman AS, et al. Impact of a trimodal prehabilitation program on functional recovery after colorectal cancer surgery: a pilot study. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1072–82. Article PubMed PDF
15. López-Rodríguez-Arias F, Sánchez-Guillén L, Aranaz-Ostáriz V, Triguero-Cánovas D, Lario-Pérez S, Barber-Valles X, et al. Effect of home-based prehabilitation in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Support Care Cancer 2021;29:7785–91. Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. van der Hulst HC, Bastiaannet E, Portielje JE, van der Bol JM, Dekker JW. Can physical prehabilitation prevent complications after colorectal cancer surgery in frail older patients? Eur J Surg Oncol 2021;47:2830–40. Article PubMed
17. García-Malpartida K, Aragón-Valera C, Botella-Romero F, Ocón-Bretón MJ, López-Gómez JJ. Effects of immunonutrition on cancer patients undergoing surgery: a scoping review. Nutrients 2023;15:1776.Article PubMed PMC
18. Lee SY, Park H, Kim CH, Kim HR. Role of preoperative immunonutrition in patients with colorectal cancer: a narrative review. Ann Clin Nutr Metab 2023;15:46–50. Article
19. Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, Higashiguchi T, Hübner M, Klek S, et al. ESPEN practical guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr 2021;40:4745–61. Article PubMed
20. Horie H, Okada M, Kojima M, Nagai H. Favorable effects of preoperative enteral immunonutrition on a surgical site infection in patients with colorectal cancer without malnutrition. Surg Today 2006;36:1063–8. Article PubMed PDF
21. Lee SY, Lee J, Park HM, Kim CH, Kim HR. Impact of preoperative immunonutrition on the outcomes of colon cancer surgery: results from a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2023;277:381–6. Article PubMed
22. Moya P, Miranda E, Soriano-Irigaray L, Arroyo A, Aguilar MD, Bellón M, et al. Perioperative immunonutrition in normo-nourished patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4946–53. Article PubMed PDF
23. Moya P, Soriano-Irigaray L, Ramirez JM, Garcea A, Blasco O, Blanco FJ, et al. Perioperative standard oral nutrition supplements versus immunonutrition in patients undergoing colorectal resection in an Enhanced Recovery (ERAS) protocol: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (SONVI study). Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3704. Article PubMed PMC
24. Tesar M, Kozusnikova V, Martinek L, Durdik S, Ihnat P. Preoperative nutritional support for patients undergoing elective colorectal cancer surgery: does it really work? Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2023;167:145–51. Article PubMed
25. Tesař M, Ostruzska P, Kožušníková V, Martínek L, Zádrapová M, Grasslová L, et al. Preoperative non-selective administration of nutritional supplements to patients undergoing elective colorectal resection: standard of perioperative care? Rozhl Chir 2022;101:232–8. Czech. Article PubMed
26. Wierdak M, Surmiak M, Milian-Ciesielska K, Rubinkiewicz M, Rzepa A, Wysocki M, et al. Immunonutrition changes inflammatory response in colorectal cancer: results from a pilot randomized clinical trial. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:1444.Article PubMed PMC
27. Xu J, Zhong Y, Jing D, Wu Z. Preoperative enteral immunonutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. World J Surg 2006;30:1284–9. Article PubMed PDF
28. Gan TJ, Belani KG, Bergese S, Chung F, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, et al. Fourth consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2020;131:411–48. PubMed
29. Habib AS, Chen YT, Taguchi A, Hu XH, Gan TJ. Postoperative nausea and vomiting following inpatient surgeries in a teaching hospital: a retrospective database analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1093–9. Article PubMed
30. Fortier J, Chung F, Su J. Unanticipated admission after ambulatory surgery: a prospective study. Can J Anaesth 1998;45:612–9. Article PubMed PDF
31. Hill RP, Lubarsky DA, Phillips-Bute B, Fortney JT, Creed MR, Glass PS, et al. Cost-effectiveness of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, droperidol, or placebo. Anesthesiology 2000;92:958–67. Article PubMed PDF
32. Ahsan K, Abbas N, Naqvi SM, Murtaza G, Tariq S. Comparison of efficacy of ondansetron and dexamethasone combination and ondansetron alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Pak Med Assoc 2014;64:242–6. PubMed
33. Biswas BN, Rudra A. Comparison of granisetron and granisetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47:79–83. Article PubMed PDF
34. Blitz JD, Haile M, Kline R, Franco L, Didehvar S, Pachter HL, et al. A randomized double blind study to evaluate efficacy of palonosetron with dexamethasone versus palonosetron alone for prevention of postoperative and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in subjects undergoing laparoscopic surgeries with high emetogenic risk. Am J Ther 2012;19:324–9. Article PubMed
35. Gautam B, Shrestha BR, Lama P, Rai S. Antiemetic prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting with ondansetron-dexamethasone combination compared to ondansetron or dexamethasone alone for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2008;6:319–28. Article PubMed PDF
36. Ghosh S, Pal A, Acharya A, Biswas C, Ghosh TR, Ghosh S. Palonosetron and palonosetron plus dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparative study. Anesth Essays Res 2011;5:134–7. Article PubMed PMC
37. Nagappa SU, Kallappa S, Policepatil M, Katappa V. To study the efficacy of Granisetron and Granisetron plus dexamethasone in preventing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries. Arch Anesth Crit Care 2022;8(Supp. 1): 364–9.
38. Rajeeva V, Bhardwaj N, Batra YK, Dhaliwal LK. Comparison of ondansetron with ondansetron and dexamethasone in prevention of PONV in diagnostic laparoscopy. Can J Anaesth 1999;46:40–4. Article PubMed PDF
39. Alia I, Gillani M, Hanif A, Dar UF, Mirza A. Comparison of ondansetron and combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone for prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Pakistan J Med Health Sci 2015;9:1387–9.
40. Bala I, Bharti N, Murugesan S, Gupta R. Comparison of palonosetron with palonosetron-dexamethasone combination for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Minerva Anestesiol 2014;80:779–84. PubMed
41. Bhattarai B, Shrestha S, Singh J. Comparison of ondansetron and combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone as a prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2011;4:168–72. Article PubMed PMC
42. Chatterjee A, Sahu S, Paul M, Singh T, Singh S, Mishra P. Comparison of efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination with palonosetron or dexamethasone alone for prophylaxis against post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Anaesth 2017;61:978–984. Article PubMed PMC
43. Jo YY, Lee JW, Shim JK, Lee WK, Choi YS. Ramosetron, dexamethasone, and their combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2306–11. Article PubMed PDF
44. Kumar A, Patodia M, Pandove PK, Sharda VK. A randomized, placebo controlled study evaluating preventive role of ondansetron, dexamethasone and ondansetron plus dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Int Med Sci Acad 2013;26:217–8.
45. Mohammadi SS, Tabasi ZG. Comparing ondansetron with ondansetron-dexamethasone combination on postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective abdominal surgeries: a randomized double blinded clinical trial. Arch Anesth Crit Care 2018;4:444–7.
46. Ryoo SH, Yoo JH, Kim MG, Lee KH, Kim SI. The effect of combination treatment using palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting versus dexamethasone alone in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Korean J Anesthesiol 2015;68:267–73. Article PubMed PMC
47. Ryu JH, Chang JE, Kim HR, Hwang JW, Oh AY, Do SH. Ramosetron vs. ramosetron plus dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective, randomized, and double-blind study. Int J Surg 2013;11:183–7. Article PubMed
48. Sadhoo N, Prakash J, Kumar V, Kharwar RK, Ahmad S, Sethi BK. A comparison of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone as single-agents or in combination in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a randomized trial. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2023;13:4–10. PubMed PMC
49. Moon HY, Baek CW, Choi GJ, Shin HY, Kang H, Jung YH, et al. Palonosetron and aprepitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients indicated for laparoscopic gynaecologic surgery: a double-blind randomised trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:68.Article PubMed PMC PDF
50. Yamanaga S, Posselt AM, Freise CE, Kobayashi T, Tavakol M, Kang SM. A single perioperative injection of dexamethasone decreases nausea, vomiting, and pain after laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Transplant 2017;2017:3518103.Article PubMed PMC PDF
51. Yue C, Wei R, Liu Y. Perioperative systemic steroid for rapid recovery in total knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2017;12:100.Article PubMed PMC PDF
52. Mihara T, Ishii T, Ka K, Goto T. Effects of steroids on quality of recovery and adverse events after general anesthesia: meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. PLoS One 2016;11:e0162961. Article PubMed PMC
53. Kranke P, Morin AM, Roewer N, Wulf H, Eberhart LH. The efficacy and safety of transdermal scopolamine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2002;95:133–43. Article PubMed
54. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment: NICE guideline (NG125). NICE; [updated 2020 Aug 19; cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng125
55. Koo CH, Chok AY, Wee IJ, Seow-En I, Zhao Y, Tan EJ. Effect of preoperative oral antibiotics and mechanical bowel preparation on the prevention of surgical site infection in elective colorectal surgery, and does oral antibiotic regime matter? a bayesian network meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;38:151.Article PubMed PDF
56. Tan J, Ryan ÉJ, Davey MG, McHugh FT, Creavin B, Whelan MC, et al. Mechanical bowel preparation and antibiotics in elective colorectal surgery: network meta-analysis. BJS Open 2023;7:zrad040.Article PubMed PMC PDF
57. Anjum N, Ren J, Wang G, Li G, Wu X, Dong H, et al. A randomized control trial of preoperative oral antibiotics as adjunct therapy to systemic antibiotics for preventing surgical site infection in clean contaminated, contaminated, and dirty type of colorectal surgeries. Dis Colon Rectum 2017;60:1291–8. Article PubMed
58. Arezzo A, Mistrangelo M, Bonino MA, Salusso P, Forcignanò E, Vettoretto N, et al. Oral neomycin and bacitracin are effective in preventing surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: a multicentre, randomized, parallel, single-blinded trial (COLORAL-1). Updates Surg 2021;73:1775–86. Article PubMed PMC PDF
59. Ikeda A, Konishi T, Ueno M, Fukunaga Y, Nagayama S, Fujimoto Y, et al. Randomized clinical trial of oral and intravenous versus intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2016;103:1608–15. Article PubMed PDF
60. Koskenvuo L, Lehtonen T, Koskensalo S, Rasilainen S, Klintrup K, Ehrlich A, et al. Mechanical and oral antibiotic bowel preparation versus no bowel preparation for elective colectomy (MOBILE): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, single-blinded trial. Lancet 2019;394:840–8. Article PubMed
61. Oshima T, Takesue Y, Ikeuchi H, Matsuoka H, Nakajima K, Uchino M, et al. Preoperative oral antibiotics and intravenous antimicrobial prophylaxis reduce the incidence of surgical site infections in patients with ulcerative colitis undergoing IPAA. Dis Colon Rectum 2013;56:1149–55. Article PubMed
62. Sadahiro S, Suzuki T, Tanaka A, Okada K, Kamata H, Ozaki T, et al. Comparison between oral antibiotics and probiotics as bowel preparation for elective colon cancer surgery to prevent infection: prospective randomized trial. Surgery 2014;155:493–503. Article PubMed
63. Uchino M, Ikeuchi H, Bando T, Chohno T, Sasaki H, Horio Y, et al. Efficacy of preoperative oral antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of surgical site infections in patients with Crohn disease: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2019;269:420–6. Article PubMed
64. Yabata E, Okabe S, Endo M. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of preoperative bowel preparation for elective colorectal surgery: comparison among oral, systemic, and intraoperative luminal antibacterial preparations. J Med Dent Sci 1997;44:75–80. PubMed
65. Amer MA, Smith MD, Herbison GP, Plank LD, McCall JL. Network meta-analysis of the effect of preoperative carbohydrate loading on recovery after elective surgery. Br J Surg 2017;104:187–97. Article PubMed PDF
66. Hamamoto H, Yamamoto M, Masubuchi S, Ishii M, Osumi W, Tanaka K, et al. The impact of preoperative carbohydrate loading on intraoperative body temperature: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2018;32:4393–401. Article PubMed PDF
67. Kaska M, Grosmanová T, Havel E, Hyspler R, Petrová Z, Brtko M, et al. The impact and safety of preoperative oral or intravenous carbohydrate administration versus fasting in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2010;122:23–30. Article PDF
68. Lidder P, Thomas S, Fleming S, Hosie K, Shaw S, Lewis S. A randomized placebo controlled trial of preoperative carbohydrate drinks and early postoperative nutritional supplement drinks in colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis 2013;15:737–45. Article PubMed
69. Noblett SE, Watson DS, Huong H, Davison B, Hainsworth PJ, Horgan AF. Pre-operative oral carbohydrate loading in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2006;8:563–9. Article PubMed
70. Rizvanović N, Nesek Adam V, Kalajdžija M, Čaušević S, Dervišević S, Smajić J. Effects of preoperative oral carbohydrate loading on neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio and postoperative complications following colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized controlled study. Eur Surg Res 2023;64:278–85. Article PubMed PDF
71. Webster J, Osborne SR, Gill R, Chow CF, Wallin S, Jones L, et al. Does preoperative oral carbohydrate reduce hospital stay? A randomized trial. AORN J 2014;99:233–42. Article PubMed PDF
72. Wongyingsinn M, Luangchan S, Tungsongsawat S, Trakarnsanga A, Lohsiriwat V. A randomized controlled trial of preoperative carbohydrate drinks on postoperative walking capacity in elective colorectal surgery. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 2019;28:727–33.PubMed
73. Henriksen MG, Hessov I, Dela F, Hansen HV, Haraldsted V, Rodt SA. Effects of preoperative oral carbohydrates and peptides on postoperative endocrine response, mobilization, nutrition and muscle function in abdominal surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2003;47:191–9. Article PubMed PDF
74. Rizvanović N, Nesek Adam V, Čaušević S, Dervišević S, Delibegović S. A randomised controlled study of preoperative oral carbohydrate loading versus fasting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34:1551–61. Article PubMed PDF
75. Sada F, Krasniqi A, Hamza A, Gecaj-Gashi A, Bicaj B, Kavaja F. A randomized trial of preoperative oral carbohydrates in abdominal surgery. BMC Anesthesiol 2014;14:93.Article PubMed PMC PDF
76. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Preoperative Fasting and the Use of Pharmacologic Agents to Reduce the Risk of Pulmonary Aspiration. Anesthesiology 2017;126:376–93. Article PubMed
77. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2263–74. Article PubMed
78. Kendrick JB, Kaye AD, Tong Y, Belani K, Urman RD, Hoffman C, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy in the perioperative setting. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019;35(Suppl 1): S29–34. Article PubMed PMC
79. Brandstrup B, Svendsen PE, Rasmussen M, Belhage B, Rodt SÅ, Hansen B, et al. Which goal for fluid therapy during colorectal surgery is followed by the best outcome: near-maximal stroke volume or zero fluid balance? Br J Anaesth 2012;109:191–9. Article PubMed
80. Challand C, Struthers R, Sneyd JR, Erasmus PD, Mellor N, Hosie KB, et al. Randomized controlled trial of intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in aerobically fit and unfit patients having major colorectal surgery. Br J Anaesth 2012;108:53–62. Article PubMed
81. Conway DH, Mayall R, Abdul-Latif MS, Gilligan S, Tackaberry C. Randomised controlled trial investigating the influence of intravenous fluid titration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring during bowel surgery. Anaesthesia 2002;57:845–9. Article PubMed PDF
82. Gómez-Izquierdo JC, Trainito A, Mirzakandov D, Stein BL, Liberman S, Charlebois P, et al. Goal-directed fluid therapy does not reduce primary postoperative ileus after elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2017;127:36–49. Article PubMed
83. Mahrose R, Kasem AA. Pulse pressure variation-based intraoperative fluid management versus traditional fluid management for colon cancer patients undergoing open mass resection and anastomosis: a randomized controlled trial. Anesth Pain Med 2023;13:e135659. Article PubMed PMC PDF
84. Noblett SE, Snowden CP, Shenton BK, Horgan AF. Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2006;93:1069–76. PubMed
85. Phan TD, D’Souza B, Rattray MJ, Johnston MJ, Cowie BS. A randomized controlled trial of fluid restriction compared to oesophageal Doppler-guided goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major colorectal surgery within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program. Anaesth Intensive Care 2014;42:752–60. Article PubMed PDF
86. Srinivasa S, Taylor MH, Singh PP, Yu TC, Soop M, Hill AG. Randomized clinical trial of goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery protocol for elective colectomy. Br J Surg 2013;100:66–74. Article PubMed PDF
87. Wakeling HG, McFall MR, Jenkins CS, Woods WG, Miles WF, Barclay GR, et al. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br J Anaesth 2005;95:634–42. Article PubMed
88. Zakhaleva J, Tam J, Denoya PI, Bishawi M, Bergamaschi R. The impact of intravenous fluid administration on complication rates in bowel surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2013;15:892–9. Article PubMed
89. Liu F, Lv J, Zhang W, Liu Z, Dong L, Wang Y. Randomized controlled trial of regional tissue oxygenation following goal-directed fluid therapy during laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2019;12:4390–9. PubMed PMC
90. Reisinger KW, Willigers HM, Jansen J, Buurman WA, Von Meyenfeldt MF, Beets GL, et al. Doppler-guided goal-directed fluid therapy does not affect intestinal cell damage but increases global gastrointestinal perfusion in colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2017;19:1081–91. Article PubMed PDF
91. Lee KY, Yoo YC, Cho JS, Lee W, Kim JY, Kim MH. The effect of intraoperative fluid management according to stroke volume variation on postoperative bowel function recovery in colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Med 2021;10:1857.Article PubMed PMC
92. Senagore AJ, Emery T, Luchtefeld M, Kim D, Dujovny N, Hoedema R. Fluid management for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective, randomized assessment of goal-directed administration of balanced salt solution or hetastarch coupled with an enhanced recovery program. Dis Colon Rectum 2009;52:1935–40. Article PubMed
93. Cesur S, Çardaközü T, Kuş A, Türkyılmaz N, Yavuz Ö. Comparison of conventional fluid management with PVI-based goal-directed fluid management in elective colorectal surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2019;33:249–57. Article PubMed PMC PDF
94. Rollins KE, Lobo DN. Intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in elective major abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2016;263:465–76. Article PubMed PMC
95. Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O. Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 1998;133:309–14. Article PubMed
96. Averbach AM, Sugarbaker PH. The use of drains in elective surgery for colorectal cancer: always, never or selectively? Tumori 1995;81(3 Suppl): 89–97. PubMed
97. Lennox MS. Prophylactic drainage of colonic anastomoses. Br J Surg 1984;71:10–1. Article PubMed PDF
98. Elboim CM, Goldman L, Hann L, Palestrant AM, Silen W. Significance of post-cholecystectomy subhepatic fluid collections. Ann Surg 1983;198:137–41. Article PubMed PMC
99. Berliner SD, Burson LC, Lear PE. Use and abuse of intraperitoneal drains in colon surgery. Arch Surg 1964;89:686–9. Article PubMed
100. Nora PF, Vanecko RM, Bransfield JJ. Prophylactic abdominal drains. Arch Surg 1972;105:173–6. Article PubMed
101. Ellis H. The aetiology of post-operative abdominal adhesions: an experimental study. Br J Surg 1962;50:10–6. Article PubMed PDF
102. Smith SR, Connolly JC, Crane PW, Gilmore OJ. The effect of surgical drainage materials on colonic healing. Br J Surg 1982;69:153–5. Article PubMed PDF
103. Shear L, Swartz C, Shinaberger JA, Barry KG. Kinetics of peritoneal fluid absorption in adult man. N Engl J Med 1965;272:123–7. Article PubMed
104. Brown SR, Seow-Choen F, Eu KW, Heah SM, Tang CL. A prospective randomized study of drains in infra-peritoneal rectal anastomoses. Tech Coloproctol 2001;5:89–92. Article PubMed
105. Johnson CD, Lamont PM, Orr N, Lennox M. Is a drain necessary after colonic anastomosis? J R Soc Med 1989;82:661–4. Article PubMed PMC PDF
106. Merad F, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Yahchouchi E, Laborde Y, Pélissier E, et al. Is prophylactic pelvic drainage useful after elective rectal or anal anastomosis? A multicenter controlled randomized trial. French Association for Surgical Research. Surgery 1999;125:529–35. Article PubMed
107. Sagar PM, Hartley MN, Macfie J, Mancey-Jones B, Sedman P, May J. Randomized trial of pelvic drainage after rectal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:254–8. Article PubMed
108. Denost Q, Rouanet P, Faucheron JL, Panis Y, Meunier B, Cotte E, et al. To drain or not to drain infraperitoneal anastomosis after rectal excision for cancer: the GRECCAR 5 randomized trial. Ann Surg 2017;265:474–80. Article PubMed
109. Nelson R, Edwards S, Tse B. Prophylactic nasogastric decompression after abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2007:CD004929.Article PubMed PMC
110. Lei WZ, Zhao GP, Cheng Z, Li K, Zhou ZG. Gastrointestinal decompression after excision and anastomosis of lower digestive tract. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:1998–2001. Article PubMed PMC
111. Venara A, Hamel JF, Cotte E, Meillat H, Sage PY, Slim K, et al. Intraoperative nasogastric tube during colorectal surgery may not be mandatory: a propensity score analysis of a prospective database. Surg Endosc 2020;34:5583–92. Article PubMed PDF
112. Yeo J, Park JS, Choi GS, Kim HJ, Kim JK, Oh J, et al. Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia and morphine-based patient-controlled analgesia in minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2022;46:1788–95. Article PubMed PDF
113. Bakker N, Deelder JD, Richir MC, Cakir H, Doodeman HJ, Schreurs WH, et al. Risk of anastomotic leakage with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs within an enhanced recovery program. J Gastrointest Surg 2016;20:776–82. Article PubMed PDF
114. Choi BM, Hwang CS, Yoon YS, Park IJ, Yoo MW, Kim BS. Novel temperature-responsive hydrogel injected to the incision site for postoperative pain relief in laparoscopic abdominal surgery: a single-blind, randomized, pivotal clinical trial. Surg Endosc 2022;36:5794–802. Article PubMed PDF
115. Haruethaivijitchock P, Ng JL, Taksavanitcha G, Theerawatanawong J, Rattananupong T, Lohsoonthorn V, et al. Postoperative analgesic efficacy of modified continuous transversus abdominis plane block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a triple-blind randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 2020;24:1179–87. Article PubMed PDF
116. Keller DS, Ermlich BO, Schiltz N, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL Jr, Stein SL, et al. The effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2014;57:1290–7. Article PubMed
117. Oh TK, Yim J, Kim J, Eom W, Lee SA, Park SC, et al. Effects of preoperative ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block on pain after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2017;31:127–34. Article PubMed PDF
118. Pedrazzani C, Park SY, Conti C, Turri G, Park JS, Kim HJ, et al. Analgesic efficacy of pre-emptive local wound infiltration plus laparoscopic-assisted transversus abdominis plane block versus wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection: results from a randomized, multicenter, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. Surg Endosc 2021;35:3329–38. Article PubMed PDF
119. Lin QS, Lin XZ. Optimal concentration of the transversus abdominis plane block in enhanced recovery after surgery protocols for patients of advanced age undergoing laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. J Int Med Res 2018;46:4437–46. Article PubMed PMC PDF
120. Tikuisis R, Miliauskas P, Lukoseviciene V, Samalavicius N, Dulskas A, Zabuliene L, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block for postoperative pain relief after hand-assisted laparoscopic colon surgery: a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Tech Coloproctol 2016;20:835–44. Article PubMed PDF
121. Walter CJ, Maxwell-Armstrong C, Pinkney TD, Conaghan PJ, Bedforth N, Gornall CB, et al. A randomised controlled trial of the efficacy of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2013;27:2366–72. Article PubMed PDF
122. Xu YJ, Sun X, Jiang H, Yin YH, Weng ML, Sun ZR, et al. Randomized clinical trial of continuous transversus abdominis plane block, epidural or patient-controlled analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg 2020;107:e133–41. Article PubMed PDF
123. Zaghiyan KN, Mendelson BJ, Eng MR, Ovsepyan G, Mirocha JM, Fleshner P. Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic versus ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2019;62:203–10. Article PubMed
124. Zhang Z, Hao D. Effect of transversus abdominis plane block combined with low-dose dexmedetomidine on elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2023;18:524–32. Article PubMed PMC
125. Zhao Y, Zhang HY, Yuan ZY, Han Y, Chen YR, Liu QL, et al. Analgesic efficacy of postoperative bilateral, ultrasound-guided, posterior transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a randomized, prospective, controlled study. BMC Anesthesiol 2021;21:107.Article PubMed PMC PDF
126. Zheng J, Feng Z, Zhu J. Effect of preintravenous injection of parecoxib, combined with transversus abdominis plane block in strategy of enhanced recovery after radical resection of colorectal cancer. J Cancer Res Ther 2018;14:1583–8. Article PubMed
127. Damadi AA, Lax EA, Smithson L, Pearlman RD. Comparison of therapeutic benefit of bupivacaine HCl Transversus Abdominis Plane (TAP) block as part of an enhanced recovery pathway versus traditional oral and intravenous pain control after minimally invasive colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Am Surg 2019;85:1363–8. Article PubMed PDF
128. Liang M, Xv X, Ren C, Yao Y, Gao X. Effect of ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane block with rectus sheath block on patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted radical resection of rectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol 2021;21:89.Article PubMed PMC PDF
129. Smith SR, Draganic B, Pockney P, Holz P, Holmes R, Mcmanus B, et al. Transversus abdominis plane blockade in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015;30:1237–45. Article PubMed PDF
130. Liu KY, Lu YJ, Lin YC, Wei PL, Kang YN. Transversus abdominis plane block for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Surg 2022;104:106825.Article PubMed
131. Ren L, Qin P, Min S, Wang W, Jin J. Transversus abdominis plane block versus local wound infiltration for postoperative pain after laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection: a randomized, double-blinded study. J Gastrointest Surg 2022;26:425–32. Article PubMed PDF
132. Kakkos S, Kirkilesis G, Caprini JA, Geroulakos G, Nicolaides A, Stansby G, et al. Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;1:CD005258.Article PubMed PMC
133. Sachdeva A, Dalton M, Lees T. Graduated compression stockings for prevention of deep vein thrombosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:CD001484.Article PubMed PMC
134. Becattini C, Pace U, Pirozzi F, Donini A, Avruscio G, Rondelli F, et al. Rivaroxaban vs placebo for extended antithrombotic prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Blood 2022;140:900–8. Article PubMed PMC PDF
135. Kamachi H, Homma S, Kawamura H, Yoshida T, Ohno Y, Ichikawa N, et al. Intermittent pneumatic compression versus additional prophylaxis with enoxaparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after laparoscopic surgery for gastric and colorectal malignancies: multicentre randomized clinical trial. BJS Open 2020;4:804–10. Article PubMed PMC PDF
136. Lee E, Kang SB, Choi SI, Chun EJ, Kim MJ, Kim DW, et al. Prospective study on the incidence of postoperative venous thromboembolism in Korean patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Res Treat 2016;48:978–89. Article PubMed PMC PDF
137. Kreutzer L, Minami C, Yang A. JAMA patient page: preventing venous thromboembolism after surgery. JAMA 2016;315:2136.Article PubMed
138. D’Astous J, Liederman Z, Douketis JD. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk orthopedic and cancer surgery. Postgrad Med 2021;133(sup1): 20–6. Article PubMed
139. Spyropoulos AC, Douketis JD. How I treat anticoagulated patients undergoing an elective procedure or surgery. Blood 2012;120:2954–62. Article PubMed PDF
140. Anderson DR, Morgano GP, Bennett C, Dentali F, Francis CW, Garcia DA, et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv 2019;3:3898–944. Article PubMed PMC PDF
141. Ahmed MR, Sayed Ahmed WA, Atwa KA, Metwally L. Timing of urinary catheter removal after uncomplicated total abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;176:60–3. Article PubMed
142. Aref NK. Does timing of urinary catheter removal after elective cesarean section affects postoperative morbidity?: a prospective randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020;33:3141–6. Article PubMed
143. Liang CC, Lee CL, Chang TC, Chang YL, Wang CJ, Soong YK. Postoperative urinary outcomes in catheterized and non-catheterized patients undergoing laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20:295–300. Article PubMed PDF
144. Sekhavat L, Farajkhoda T, Davar R. The effect of early removal of indwelling urinary catheter on postoperative urinary complications in anterior colporrhaphy surgery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48:348–52. Article PubMed
145. Vallabh-Patel V, Popiel P, Salamon C. Indwelling versus immediate removal of transurethral catheter after robotic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized clinical trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2020;26:617–21. Article PubMed
146. Hung LY, Benlice C, Jia X, Steele SR, Valente MA, Holubar SD, et al. Outcomes after early versus delayed urinary bladder catheter removal after proctectomy for benign and malignant disease in 2,429 patients: an observational cohort study. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2021;22:310–7. Article PubMed
147. El-Mazny A, El-Sharkawy M, Hassan A. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing immediate versus delayed removal of urinary catheter following elective cesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;181:111–4. Article PubMed
148. Zmora O, Madbouly K, Tulchinsky H, Hussein A, Khaikin M. Urinary bladder catheter drainage following pelvic surgery: is it necessary for that long? Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:321–6. Article PubMed
149. Coyle D, Joyce KM, Garvin JT, Regan M, McAnena OJ, Neary PM, et al. Early post-operative removal of urethral catheter in patients undergoing colorectal surgery with epidural analgesia: a prospective pilot clinical study. Int J Surg 2015;16(Pt A): 94–8. Article PubMed
150. Benoist S, Panis Y, Denet C, Mauvais F, Mariani P, Valleur P. Optimal duration of urinary drainage after rectal resection: a randomized controlled trial. Surgery 1999;125:135–41. Article PubMed
151. Patel DN, Felder SI, Luu M, Daskivich TJ, N Zaghiyan K, Fleshner P. Early urinary catheter removal following pelvic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial. Dis Colon Rectum 2018;61:1180–6. Article PubMed
152. Han CS, Kim S, Radadia KD, Zhao PT, Elsamra SE, Olweny EO, et al. Comparison of urinary tract infection rates associated with transurethral catheterization, suprapubic tube and clean intermittent catheterization in the postoperative setting: a network meta-analysis. J Urol 2017;198:1353–8. Article PubMed
153. Okrainec A, Aarts MA, Conn LG, McCluskey S, McKenzie M, Pearsall EA, et al. Compliance with urinary catheter removal guidelines leads to improved outcome in enhanced recovery after surgery patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2017;21:1309–17. Article PubMed PDF
154. Lee Y, McKechnie T, Springer JE, Doumouras AG, Hong D, Eskicioglu C. Optimal timing of urinary catheter removal following pelvic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2019;34:2011–21. Article PubMed PDF
155. Yoo BE, Kye BH, Kim HJ, Kim G, Kim JG, Cho HM. Early removal of the urinary catheter after total or tumor-specific mesorectal excision for rectal cancer is safe. Dis Colon Rectum 2015;58:686–91. Article PubMed
156. Lee SY, Kang SB, Kim DW, Oh HK, Ihn MH. Risk factors and preventive measures for acute urinary retention after rectal cancer surgery. World J Surg 2015;39:275–82. Article PubMed PDF
157. Jacobsen SJ, Jacobson DJ, Girman CJ, Roberts RO, Rhodes T, Guess HA, et al. Natural history of prostatism: risk factors for acute urinary retention. J Urol 1997;158:481–7. Article PubMed
158. Kolman C, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Lieber MM. Distribution of post-void residual urine volume in randomly selected men. J Urol 1999;161:122–7. Article PubMed
159. Kim IK, Lee CS, Bae JH, Han SR, Lee DS, Lee IK, et al. Immediate urinary catheter removal after colorectal surgery with the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023;38:162.Article PubMed PDF
160. Sandhu JS, Bixler BR, Dahm P, Goueli R, Kirkby E, Stoffel JT, et al. Management of lower urinary tract symptoms attributed to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH): AUA guideline amendment 2023. J Urol 2024;211:11–9. Article PubMed
161. da Fonseca LM, Profeta da Luz MM, Lacerda-Filho A, Correia MI, Gomes da Silva R. A simplified rehabilitation program for patients undergoing elective colonic surgery: randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Colorectal Dis 2011;26:609–16. Article PubMed PDF
162. Dag A, Colak T, Turkmenoglu O, Gundogdu R, Aydin S. A randomized controlled trial evaluating early versus traditional oral feeding after colorectal surgery. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2011;66:2001–5. Article PubMed PMC
163. El Nakeeb A, Fikry A, El Metwally T, Fouda E, Youssef M, Ghazy H, et al. Early oral feeding in patients undergoing elective colonic anastomosis. Int J Surg 2009;7:206–9. Article PubMed
164. Feo CV, Romanini B, Sortini D, Ragazzi R, Zamboni P, Pansini GC, et al. Early oral feeding after colorectal resection: a randomized controlled study. ANZ J Surg 2004;74:298–301. Article PubMed PDF
165. Hartsell PA, Frazee RC, Harrison JB, Smith RW. Early postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery. Arch Surg 1997;132:518–21. Article PubMed
166. Ortiz H, Armendariz P, Yarnoz C. Is early postoperative feeding feasible in elective colon and rectal surgery? Int J Colorectal Dis 1996;11:119–21. Article PubMed PDF
167. Reissman P, Teoh TA, Cohen SM, Weiss EG, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD. Is early oral feeding safe after elective colorectal surgery? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Surg 1995;222:73–7. Article PubMed PMC
168. Stewart BT, Woods RJ, Collopy BT, Fink RJ, Mackay JR, Keck JO. Early feeding after elective open colorectal resections: a prospective randomized trial. Aust N Z J Surg 1998;68:125–8. Article PubMed
169. Yoo CO, Lee KK, Lee JK. Safety of early postoperative feeding after elective colorectal surgery. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 1998;14:605–10.
170. Zhou T, Wu XT, Zhou YJ, Huang X, Fan W, Li YC. Early removing gastrointestinal decompression and early oral feeding improve patients’ rehabilitation after colorectostomy. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:2459–63. Article PubMed PMC
171. Nematihonar B, Salimi S, Noorian V, Samsami M. Early versus delayed (traditional) postoperative oral feeding in patients undergoing colorectal anastomosis. Adv Biomed Res 2018;7:30.Article PubMed PMC
172. Binderow SR, Cohen SM, Wexner SD, Nogueras JJ. Must early postoperative oral intake be limited to laparoscopy? Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:584–9. Article PubMed
173. Nie J, Su X, Wei L, Li H. Early enteral nutrition support for colon carcinoma patients can improve immune function and promote physical recovery. Am J Transl Res 2021;13:14102–8. PubMed PMC
174. Fiore JF Jr, Castelino T, Pecorelli N, Niculiseanu P, Balvardi S, Hershorn O, et al. Ensuring early mobilization within an enhanced recovery program for colorectal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 2017;266:223–31. Article PubMed
175. Min J, An KY, Park H, Cho W, Jung HJ, Chu SH, et al. Postoperative inpatient exercise facilitates recovery after laparoscopic surgery in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol 2023;23:127.Article PubMed PMC PDF
176. Willner A, Teske C, Hackert T, Welsch T. Effects of early postoperative mobilization following gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJS Open 2023;7:zrad102.Article PubMed PMC PDF

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader

Cite this Article

Cite this Article: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication

Ann Coloproctol. 2025;41(1):3-26. Published online February 20, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2024.00836.0119

XML Download

Related articles

The 2024 Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines for colorectal cancer: a secondary publication

Level	Definition
High	Evidence from a well-conducted RCT/meta-analysis with low risk of bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study with no bias in study design or conduct and an effect size rated as very large.
Moderate	Evidence derived from RCT or meta-analysis with bias in study design and conduct, or from an observational study without bias in study design or conduct and a large effect size.
Low	Evidence resulting from RCT or meta-analysis with biases reported in 2 or more aspects of study design and conduct, or from an observational study without biases in study design and conduct.
Very low	Evidence from observational studies, case reports, or inadequately conducted observational studies with biases in study design and conduct.

Strength of recommendation	Strength	Direction	Definition
Strong recommendation	Strong	For	When the benefits of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the associated risks, burdens, and costs
Conditional recommendation	Conditional	For	When the benefits of treatment or testing potentially exceed the associated risks, burdens, and costs but remain uncertain
Conditional against	Conditional	Against	When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing potentially exceed the benefits but remain uncertain
Strong against	Strong	Against	When the risks, burdens, and costs of treatment or testing clearly outweigh the benefits

Recommendation	Strength	Level of evidence
KQ 1. Is prehabilitation effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Prehabilitation is recommended for patients scheduled to undergo surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 2. Is preoperative oral nutritional supplement effective for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Preoperative nutritional support using oral nutritional supplements is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 3. What are the appropriate methods to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Strong for	High
The use of dexamethasone in combination with a serotonin receptor antagonist rather than monotherapy is recommended for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Strong for	High
KQ 4. Is the use of oral antibiotics in combination with mechanical bowel preparation effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?	Conditional for	High
The use of oral antibiotics in conjunction with mechanical bowel preparation is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	High
KQ 5. Is preoperative oral carbohydrate loading effective for patients scheduled for elective colorectal cancer surgery?	Conditional for	Moderate
Oral carbohydrate loading up to 2 hours before colorectal cancer surgery is recommended.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 6. Is goal-directed fluid therapy beneficial during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Goal-directed fluid therapy during surgery may be considered for high-risk patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 7. Is the insertion of an intra-abdominal drain necessary during elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional against	Moderate
It is suggested not to insert an intra-abdominal drain during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional against	Moderate
KQ 8. During elective surgery for colorectal cancer, does the insertion of a nasogastric tube aid in the patient's recovery?	Conditional against	Low
It is suggested not to insert a nasogastric tube during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional against	Low
KQ 9. Is transverse abdominis plane block effective for postoperative pain control following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Transverse abdominis plane block may be considered for pain control during surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 10. Is thromboprophylaxis necessary for patients scheduled for elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Preoperative pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is recommended for patients scheduled for colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 11. How long should urinary catheters be maintained after elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
It is recommended to remove urinary catheters the day after colorectal cancer surgery.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 12. Is early feeding effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Early feeding is recommended to start from the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate
KQ 13. Is early ambulation effective following elective surgery for colorectal cancer?	Conditional for	Moderate
Early ambulation is recommended to commence on the day after surgery for colorectal cancer.	Conditional for	Moderate

Table 1. Level of evidence

RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Table 2. The definition of the strength of recommendation