Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Feb 5;132(3):253-258.
doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000000060.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized clinical trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in functional endoscopic sinus surgery for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a randomized clinical trial

Xi-Fu Wu et al. Chin Med J (Engl). .

Abstract

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are a series of perioperative care to optimize preoperative preparation, prevent postoperative complications, minimize stress, and speed up recovery. This study aimed to assess the impact of ERAS protocols for functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP).

Methods: One hundred and two patients with CRSwNP undergoing FESS were randomly divided into the ERAS group and the control group. The outcomes of the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale (MOS-SS) and Kolcaba Comfort Scale Questionnaire (GCQ) were determined in both groups. The serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared preoperatively and 24 hours postoperatively.

Results: The ERAS group had a significantly better SAS scores than did the control group (28 [24, 35] vs. 43 [42, 47], Z = 5.968, P < 0.001). The rhinalgia and headache scores at 2, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively were lower in the ERAS group than that in the control group (all P < 0.001). The outcomes of the MOS-SS (43 [42, 39] vs. 28 [22, 35], Z = 7.071, P < 0.001) and GCQ (76 [68, 87] vs. 64 [50, 75], Z = 4.806, P < 0.001) were significantly different between the two groups. No significant difference was found in the preoperative CRP levels between the two groups (1.3 [0.6, 2.8] vs. 0.5 [0.5, 1.2], Z = 3.049, P > 0.05); However, the CRP level in 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the ERAS group than that in the control group (2.5 [1.4, 3.9] vs. 6.6 [3.8, 9.0], Z = 5.027, P < 0.001). The incidence rates of complications, such as nausea/emesis (χ = 0.343, P > 0.05), hemorrhage, aspiration and tumble, were not increased in the ERAS group compared with those in the control group. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (5 [4, 5] days vs. 8 [8,9] days, Z = 8.939, P < 0.001) and hospitalization expenses ($ 2670 [2375, 2740] vs. $3129 [3116, 3456], Z = 8.514, P < 0.001).

Conclusions: ERAS protocols might optimize FESS for patients with CRSwNP by reducing psychological and physical stress, shortening the length of hospital stay and lowering hospitalization expenses without increasing postoperative complications.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No. ChiCTR1800015791; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=26872.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CRP levels preoperatively and postoperatively in the ERAS and control groups showing that the ERAS group had a lower postoperative CRP level than did the control group (∗P < 0.05) (the ERAS group: n = 52; the control group: n = 50). CRP: C-reactive protein; ERAS: Enhanced recovery after surgery.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Society of Anesthesiology. The Chinese expert consensus and clinical pathway guidelines on ERAS 2018 (in Chinese). Chin J Pract Surg 2018; 38:1–20. doi: 10.19538/j.cjps.issn1005-2208.2018.01.01.
    1. Bachert C, Zhang L, Gevaert P. Current and future treatment options for adult chronic rhinosinusitis: focus on nasal polyposis. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015; 136:1431–1440. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.10.010. - PubMed
    1. Shi JB, Fu QL, Zhang H, Cheng L, Wang YJ, Zhu DD, et al. Epidemiology of chronic Rhinosinusitis: results from a cross-sectional survey in seven Chinese cities. Allergy 2015; 70:533–539. doi: 10.1111/all.12577. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fokkens WJ, Lund VJ, Mullol J, Bachert C, Alobid I, Baroody F, et al. EPOS 2012: European position paper on rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps 2012. A summary for otorhinolaryngologists. Rhinology 2012; 50:1–12. doi: 10.4193/Rhino50E2. - PubMed
    1. Kehlet H. Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 1997; 78:606–617. doi: 10.1093/bja/78.5.606. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances