2.Comparison of post-operative outcomes between enhanced recovery after surgery versus standard operative protocol among cesarean delivery mothers at a tertiary hospital.
Lourdes Therese S. Reyes ; Charisse P. Guerrero
Journal of the Philippine Medical Association 2021;100(1):29-50
This Randomized Controlled Trial sought to
determine whether mothers who underwent
Cesarean delivery had better postoperative
outcomes when subjected to the Enhanced
Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol compared
to mothers who also underwent Cesarean section
as a mode of delivery but were under the Standard
operative protocol.
The research concentrated on evaluating
the postoperative outcomes of the patients in the
study through the following factors: length of
hospitalization, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
hospital expenses, early resumption of diet and
early ambulation, breastfeeding initiation and
continuation.
A total of 72 subjects were included in the
study. Two were not included due to conversion to
general anesthesia. Thirty two (44.4%) were
randomized to the ERAS protocol while 40 (55.6%)
patients were randomized to Standard
postoperative procedure. Demographic
characteristics were recorded and comparable
between the two groups. Mothers randomized to
the ERAS protocol had significantly shorter length
of stay compared to mothers in the standard
operative procedure with a mean of 53.01 hours
(2.21 days) and 78.86 hours (3.29 days)
respectively. Mothers randomized to the ERAS
protocol spent significantly lower hospitalization
cost compared to mothers in the standard operative
procedure. There was no significant difference
noted in the proportion of mothers with fever
between the two groups (p=0.25). Mothers
randomized to the ERAS protocol had significantly
lower post-operative pain compared to mothers in
the standard operative procedure. The time from
end of OR until general liquids was also significantly
shorter among mothers randomized to the ERAS
protocol compared to mothers in the standard
operative procedure. Similarly, the time from end of
OR to flatus and bowel movement was also
significantly shorter among mothers randomized to
the ERAS protocol compared to mothers in the
standard operative procedure. The time from end of
OR to removal of foley catheter and time to void
after foley catheter removal was also significantly
shorter among mothers randomized to the ERAS
protocol compared to mothers in the standard
operative procedure. Finally, there was a significant
difference noted in the length of time from end of
OR to breastfeeding as proven by all p value of 0.02.
Mothers randomized to the ERAS protocol had
significantly shorter length of time from end of OR
to breastfeeding compared to mothers in the
standard operative procedure with a mean of 30.67
hours and 43.09 hours respectively.
Ultimately, the study concentrated on Emergency or
Elective Cesarean deliveries of Low risk patients as
well as patients with controlled gestational or overt
diabetes mellitus, thyroid disorders in euthyroid
state, and hypertensive disorders not complicated
with eclampsia. This study did not seek to
generalize the benefit of ERAS protocol on all
Cesarean deliveries.
ERAS protocol showed better postoperative
outcomes compared to the Standard
operative protocol in terms of shorter length of
hospital confinement, lower cost of hospitalization,
no occurrence of post-operative infections and
complications, shorter length of time from operation
to diet progression tolerance, passage of flatus,
bowel movement, shorter length of time from end of
OR to removal of foley catheter and time to void and
finally shorter time from operation to initiation of
breastfeeding and continuation.
Cesarean Section
3.Clinical Study of Cesarean Section.
Jong Kuk BAECK ; Jung Yun PARK ; Tae Bon KOO ; Il Soo PARK
Korean Journal of Perinatology 2000;11(1):54-60
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
4.Clinical analysis on cesarean section.
Seong Nyun WEE ; Hak Lim LEE ; Eun Joo MOON ; Soo Hyun LIM ; Se Yong LEE ; Chul KIM
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991;34(2):198-208
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
5.Clinical analysis on cesarean section.
Seong Nyun WEE ; Hak Lim LEE ; Eun Joo MOON ; Soo Hyun LIM ; Se Yong LEE ; Chul KIM
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991;34(2):198-208
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
6.Clinical and statistic analysis of cesarean section.
Ha Bong KIM ; Jong Seok KO ; Myeong Suk LEE
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;36(7):1196-1205
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
7.Diastasis of the Symphysis Pubis After Cesarean Section.
Woo Nam MOON ; Keun Jai YOO ; Hwan Wook CHUNG ; Han Jin OH
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000;43(10):1791-1795
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
8.Clinical analysis on cesarean section.
Jae Chern SONG ; Hyun Kyung KIM ; Man Chul PARK ; Joo Hyun NAM ; Won Sop OH ; Jwa Koo CHUNG
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;36(7):1300-1307
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
9.Clinical and statistic analysis of cesarean section: change in recent 10 years.
Keun Young BAE ; Hae Suck JUNG ; Young Chul CHOI ; Hae Jong KIM ; Kwang Soo KEE ; Hun Jung IM
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;36(7):1099-1110
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
10.The change of indications for cesarean section for recent 20 years.
Young Chul CHOI ; Dong Ho KIM ; Dong Jin KIM ; Dae Hwa KIM ; Hun Jung IM
Korean Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993;36(7):2561-2570
No abstract available.
Cesarean Section*
;
Female
;
Pregnancy
Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail