Perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for gynaecological cancer patients

Abstract

Background: Gynaecological malignancies contribute to 10% to 15% of cancers in women internationally. In recent years, a trend towards new perioperative care strategies has been documented as 'Fast Track (FT) surgery', or 'Enhanced Recovery Programmes' to replace some traditional approaches in surgical care. The FT multimodal programmes may enhance the postoperative recovery by means of reducing surgical stress. This systematic review aims to assess fully the beneficial and harmful effects of FT programmes in gynaecological cancer care.

Objectives: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of FT programmes in gynaecological cancer care.

Search methods: We searched the following databases, The Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Review Group's Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 4, 2009, MEDLINE and EMBASE to November 2009. In addition, all reference lists of included trials were searched and experts in the gynaecological oncology community were contacted in an attempt to locate trials. This search was updated and re-run in May 2012 and November 2014.

Selection criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of FT programmes for surgery in gynaecological cancer to conventional recovery strategies were included.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion. Since no RCTs were identified, data collection and analysis could not be performed.

Main results: No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria.

Authors' conclusions: We currently have no evidence from high-quality studies to support or refute the use of perioperative enhanced recovery programmes for gynaecological cancer patients. Further well-designed RCTs with standard FT programmes are needed. This review has been updated in 2012 and 2014. The results of the original review published in 2010 remain unchanged.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors declare that all the analyses and interpretation reflect the opinions of the authors; no pharmaceutical company was involved in the analysis or interpretation of data, or in the writing of this systematic review.