Objective: To investigate the experience of patients in the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategy after radical gastrectomy and the factors affecting the treatment experience. Methods: A prospective cohort study was carried out. Patients who were diagnosed with gastric cancer by pathology and underwent radical gastrectomy at the Xijing Digestive Disease Hospital from December 2019 to December 2020 were consecutively enrolled. Those who received emergency surgery, residual gastric cancer surgery, preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-curative tumor resection, intraperitoneal metastasis, or other malignant tumors were excluded. Patients' expectation and experience during implementation were investigated by questionnaires. The questionnaire included three main parts: patients' expectation for ERAS, patients' experience during the ERAS implementation, and patients' outcomes within 30 days after discharge. The items on the expectation and experience were ranked from 0 to 10 by patients, which indicated to be unsatisfied/unimportant and satisfied/important respectively. According to their attitudes towards the ERAS strategy, patients were divided into the support group and the reject group. Patients' expectation and experience of hospital stay, and the clinical outcomes within 30 days after discharge were compared between the two groups. Categorical data were reported as number with percentage and the quantitative data were reported as mean with standard deviation, or where appropriate, as the median with interquartile range (Q1, Q3). Categorical data were compared using the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. For continuous data, Student's t test or Mann-Whitney U test were used. Complication was classified according to Clavien-Dindo classification. Results: Of the included 112 patients (88 males and 24 females), aged (57.8±10.0) years, 35 patients (31.3%) were in the support group and 77 (68.7%) in the reject group. Anxiety was detected in 56.2% (63/112) of the patients with score >8. The admission education during the ERAS implementation improved the patients' cognitions of the ERAS strategy [M(Q1, Q3) score: 8 (4, 10) vs. 2 (0, 5), Z=-7.130, P<0.001]. The expected hospital stay of patients was longer than the actual stay [7 (7, 10) days vs. 6 (6, 7) days, Z=-4.800, P<0.001]. During the ERAS implementation, patients had low score in early mobilization [3 (1, 6)] and early oral intake [5 (2.25, 8)]. Fifty-eight (51.8%) patients planned the ERAS implementation at home after discharge, while 32.1% (36/112) preferred to stay in hospital until they felt totally recovered. Compared with the reject group, the support group had shorter expected hospital stay [7 (6, 10) days vs. 10 (7, 15) days, Z=-2.607, P=0.009], and higher expected recovery-efficiency score [9 (8, 10) vs. 7(5, 9), Z=-3.078, P=0.002], lower expected less-pain score [8 (6, 10) vs. 6 (5, 9) days, Z=-1.996, P=0.046], expected faster recovery of physical strength score [8 (6, 10) vs. 6 (4, 9), Z=-2.200, P=0.028] and expected less drainage tube score [8 (8, 10) vs. 8 (5, 10), Z=-2.075, P=0.038]. Worrying about complications (49.1%) and self-recognition of not recovery (46.4%) were the major concerns when assessing the experience toward ERAS. During the follow-up, 105 patients received follow-up calls. There were 57.1% (60/105) of patients who experienced a variety of discomforts after discharge, including pain (28.6%), bloating (20.0%), nausea (12.4%), fatigue (7.6%), and fever (2.9%). Within 30 days after discharge, 6.7% (7/105) of patients developed Clavien-Dindo level I and II operation-associated complications, including poor wound healing, intestinal obstruction, intraperitoneal bleeding, and wound infection, all of which were cured by conservative treatment. There were no complications of level III or above in the whole group after surgery. Compared with the support group, more patients in the reject group reported that they had not yet achieved self-expected recovery when discharged [57.1% (44/77) vs. 22.9% (8/35), χ2=11.372, P<0.001], and expected to return to their daily lives [39.0% (30/77) vs. 8.6% (3/35), χ2=10.693, P<0.001], with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Only 52.4% (55/105) of patients returned home to continue rehabilitation, and the remaining patients chose to go to other hospitals to continue their hospitalization after discharge, with a median length of stay of 7 (7, 9) days. Compared with the reject group, the support group had a higher proportion of home rehabilitation [59.7% (12/33) vs. 36.4% (43/72), χ2=4.950, P=0.026], and shorter time of self-perceived postoperative full recovery [14 (10, 20) days vs. 15 (14, 20) days, Z=2.100, P=0.036], with statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Conclusions: Although ERAS has promoted postoperative rehabilitation while ensuring surgical safety, it has not been unanimously recognized by patients. Adequate rehabilitation education, good analgesia, good physical recovery, and early removal of drainage tubes may improve the patient's experience of ERAS.
目的： 探讨胃癌根治术后患者在加速康复外科（ERAS）策略执行中的体验以及影响治疗体验的因素。 方法： 本研究采用前瞻性队列研究的方法，连续纳入2019年12月至2020年12月期间在空军军医大学第一附属医院（西京消化病医院）收治的经病理确诊为胃癌并接受胃癌根治术的患者；排除急诊手术、残胃癌、术前接受新辅助化疗和术中肿瘤不可根治切除或发现腹腔转移以及合并其他恶性肿瘤者。通过发放问卷的方式，调查患者对ERAS策略的期待和治疗期间的体验。患者对期待和体验方面的调查问题进行评分，0分表示完全不期待或不满意，10分表示很期待或十分满意。根据患者对于ERAS的不同体验，将患者根据出院时填写问卷中的“是否认可ERAS策略”项目分为ERAS认可组和抵触组。观察指标：（1）入组患者情况；（2）了解全组并比较两组患者对于ERAS的期望、偏好和住院体验；（3）两组促进和阻碍ERAS认可因素的比较；（4）了解全组并比较两组患者出院后的转归，采用电话方式进行随访，随访内容为术后30 d内并发症和身体是否不适，并发症按照Clavien-Dindo分类标准进行程度分级。正态分布的计量资料组间比较采用Student t检验。偏态分布的计量资料使用M（Q1，Q3）表示，组间比较采用独立样本的Mann-Whitney U检验。自身前后对照的正态分布与偏态分布资料分别采用配对Student t检验或Wilcoxon配对秩和检验。计数资料组间比较使用χ2检验。 结果： 纳入符合条件的患者112例，男88例，女24例；年龄（57.8±10.0）岁；其中ERAS认可组77例、抵触组35例。住院时，胃癌根治术患者普遍存在焦虑情绪，56.2%（63/112）患者的住院焦虑评分超过了8分。住院时患者对ERAS策略的了解程度不高［2（0，5）分］，通过住院宣教，这一状况较前明显改善［8（4，10）分］，差异有统计学意义（Z=-7.130，P<0.001）。患者预期的术后住院时间要长于实际住院时间［7（7，10）d比6（6，7）d］，差异有统计学意义（Z=-4.800，P<0.001）。51.8%（58/112）的患者希望能够出院后直接返回家中继续康复，但32.1%（36/112）的患者更希望能够在医院继续治疗直到自己感觉身体完全康复。与ERAS抵触组相比，认可组患者的预期住院时间更短［7（6，10）d比10（7，15）d，Z=-2.607，P=0.009］，康复效率提高评分更高［9（8，10）分比7（5，9）分，Z=-3.078，P=0.002］，期望缓解疼痛［8（6，10）分比6（5，9）分，Z=-1.996，P=0.046］、体力恢复加速［8（6，10）分比6（4，9）分，Z=-2.200，P=0.028］、期待减少引流管［8（8，10）分比8（5，10）分，Z=-2.075，P=0.038］的评分均更高，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。在随访过程中，有105例患者接听了随访电话。57.1%（60/105）的患者在出院后经历了各种不适，其中包括疼痛（28.6%）、腹胀（20.0%）、恶心（12.4%）、疲乏（7.6%）和发热（2.9%）。出院30 d内，6.7%（7/105）的患者发生了Clavien-DindoⅠ、Ⅱ级手术相关并发症，包括伤口愈合不良、肠梗阻、腹腔出血、伤口感染，均经保守治疗治愈；全组术后未发生Ⅲ级以上并发症。与认可组相比，抵触组中更多的患者在出院时认为自己尚未达到自我预期的康复［22.9%（8/35）比57.1%（44/77），χ2=11.372，P<0.001］，且并不急于回归日常生活［8.6%（3/35）比39.0%（30/77），χ2=10.693，P<0.001］，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。仅52.4%（55/105）的患者返回家中进行后续康复，其余患者在出院后选择前往其他医院继续住院，再次住院时间的中位数为7（7，9）d。与ERAS抵触组比较，ERAS认可组居家康复比例更高［59.7%（12/33）比36.4%（43/72），χ2=4.950，P=0.026］、自我认为术后完全康复时间更短［14（10，20）d比15（14，20）d，Z=2.100，P=0.036］，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。 结论： 尽管ERAS在保证手术安全的前提下促进了术后的康复，但尚未得到患者的一致认可。充分的康复宣教、良好的镇痛、较好的体力恢复以及引流管的早期去除，可能改善患者对于ERAS的体验。.