Next Article in Journal
Differential Association of Selected Adipocytokines, Adiponectin, Leptin, Resistin, Visfatin and Chemerin, with the Pathogenesis and Progression of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in the Asir Region of Saudi Arabia: A Case Control Study
Previous Article in Journal
Signal-to-Noise Analysis Can Inform the Likelihood That Incidentally Identified Variants in Sarcomeric Genes Are Associated with Pediatric Cardiomyopathy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/jpm12050734
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Enhances Gastrointestinal Recovery after Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Marcell Virág
1,2,3,
Máté Rottler
1,2,3,
Noémi Gede
1,
Klementina Ocskay
1,4,
Tamás Leiner
1,5,
Máté Tuba
1,
Szabolcs Ábrahám
1,
Nelli Farkas
1,
Péter Hegyi
1,4,6 and
Zsolt Molnár
1,3,4,7,8,*
1
Szentágothai Research Centre, Institute for Translational Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, 7624 Pécs, Hungary
2
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Szent György University Teaching Hospital of Fejér County, 8000 Székesfehérvár, Hungary
3
Doctoral School of Clinical Medicine, University of Szeged, 6720 Szeged, Hungary
4
Centre for Translational Medicine, Semmelweis University, 1085 Budapest, Hungary
5
Anaesthetic Department, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Huntingdon PE29 6NT, UK
6
Division for Pancreatic Disorders, Heart and Vascular Center, Semmelweis University, 1122 Budapest, Hungary
7
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-701 Poznan, Poland
8
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Semmelweis University, 1082 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12(5), 734; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050734
Submission received: 8 April 2022 / Revised: 26 April 2022 / Accepted: 27 April 2022 / Published: 30 April 2022
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Whether goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) provides any outcome benefit as compared to non-goal-directed fluid therapy (N-GDFT) in elective abdominal laparoscopic surgery has not been determined yet. (2) Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The main outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOHS), time to first flatus and stool, intraoperative fluid and vasopressor requirements, serum lactate levels, and urinary output. Pooled risks ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. (3) Results: Eleven studies were included in the quantitative, and fifteen in the qualitative synthesis. LOHS (WMD: −1.18 days, 95% CI: −1.84 to −0.53) and time to first stool (WMD: −9.8 h; CI −12.7 to −7.0) were significantly shorter in the GDFT group. GDFT resulted in significantly less intraoperative fluid administration (WMD: −441 mL, 95% CI: −790 to −92) and lower lactate levels at the end of the operation: WMD: −0.25 mmol L−1; 95% CI: −0.36 to −0.14. (4) Conclusions: GDFT resulted in enhanced recovery of the gastrointestinal function and shorter LOHS as compared to N-GDFT.

1. Introduction

Laparoscopic surgical techniques have become the first choice over the last decade due to the lower incidence of postoperative surgical complications, faster recovery, and less postoperative pain compared to the traditional open techniques [1]. Although the surgical trauma is substantially less with laparoscopic than with open surgery [2,3], the increased intraabdominal pressure caused by the insufflation of the peritoneum can lead to hemodynamic instability, resulting in unfavourable neuroendocrine responses and outcomes [4,5]. Furthermore, laparoscopic surgery may lengthen procedural time compared to laparotomy, which can also pose a special challenge during the anaesthetic management [6].
It is well known that inappropriate intraoperative fluid administration as part of hemodynamic management increases the rates of postoperative complications, could delay the recovery of gastrointestinal function, and therefore may lead to prolonged length of hospital stay [7]. The Early Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society highlights the importance of fluid management in its guidelines. Inadequate and/or uncontrolled fluid administration can lead to unnecessary fluid restriction or fluid overload [8,9,10]. The elevated intraabdominal pressure and Trendelenburg and reverse Trendelenburg positions during laparoscopic surgery may reduce renal and splanchnic blood flow [11,12]. This phenomenon is potentially escalated by inadequate intraoperative fluid administration, especially in vulnerable patients suffering from chronic cardiovascular diseases and obesity [13,14].
Defining the appropriate amount of fluid for an individual patient is not easy. One of the potential alternatives is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) [15]. The beneficial effects of GDFT on postoperative complications in high-risk surgical patients have been shown in previous meta-analyses [16,17]. However, a recent randomised clinical trial was unable to demonstrate the clinical benefit of GDFT in elective colectomy patients managed according to the ERAS guideline [18]. Therefore, which patients would benefit from GDFT within the context of the ERAS concept remains unclear [19].
The recent meta-analyses assessing GDFT and N-GDFT [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28] and the guidelines for intraoperative fluid therapy of ERAS and the American Society for Enhanced Recovery do not contain clear recommendations for fluid therapy in laparoscopic surgery [29,30,31]. Therefore, we decided to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of GDFT on several postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Registration and Protocol

Our systematic review and meta-analysis were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [32]. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) in January 2021 (CRD42021230286). After gathering the statistical results for urinary output and operation time, we considered it feasible to standardise the intraoperative urinary output to the length of the operation, which gave more adequate information about the diuresis per hour of the patients, and thus we decided to deviate from the previously registered protocol in this particular case. There were no other deviations.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) versus non-goal-directed fluid therapy (N-GDFT) was compared in adults undergoing abdominal laparoscopic surgery. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. GDFT was defined as the protocolised administration of fluids and vasoactive and inotropic agents on the basis of haemodynamic assessment, targeted to reach the therapeutic goals [33]. A list of accepted haemodynamic measurement devices is shown in Table S1. Central venous pressure (CVP)-guided fluid therapy was not considered as GDFT [34]. All laparoscopic abdominal, urological, and gynaecological surgical interventions were included in the analysis, except for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, where we did not consider the application of advanced haemodynamic monitoring feasible due to the short operation times. RCTs reporting data for laparoscopic subgroups separately were also accepted.

2.3. Data Items

The following outcomes were evaluated: length of hospital stay (days) defined as the time elapsed between the admission and discharge of the patients, 30-day readmission rate (percentage), reoperation rate (percentage), overall complications (number of patients with at least one undesired event defined by the individual study) within 30 days, appearance of the time to first flatus and first stool after the intervention (hours), intraoperatively administered fluids (mL), number of patients receiving any vasoactive agents during the intraoperative period, urinary output standardised to the length of surgery (mL h−1), and serum lactate level at the end of the operation (mmol L−1).

2.4. Search Strategy and Information Sources

A systematic search was conducted in MedLine via PUBMED®, Embase®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and SCOPUS® without any language restrictions and date filters. The last search took place on the 16th of December 2021. Our search key is included in Table S2.

2.5. Selection Process

Duplicates were removed by using a reference management software (EndNote X9, Clarivate Analytics). Title and abstract, and finally the full-text selection were conducted independently by two of the authors (M.V. and M.R.) according to the predefined eligibility criteria. To measure inter-rater reliability, Cohen’s kappa was calculated at the end of each selection step, and the calculated values were considered between 0.41 and 0.60 as moderate, 0.61 and 0.80 as substantial, and 0.81 and 1 as an almost perfect agreement [35]. In the case of a discrepancy, conflicts were resolved by a third review author (K.O.). Reference lists of eligible studies to the qualitative synthesis were also assessed manually to identify any additional records.

2.6. Data Collection Process

The following data were collected by M.V. and T.L. independently into standardised electronic spreadsheets in Microsoft Excel 2019® (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA), including characteristics of studies (year of publication, number of centres and country), demographic data of patients (i.e., age, Physical Status Classification System of the American Society of Anesthesiology), type and duration of surgery, characteristics of the induction and the maintenance of anaesthesia, aspects of perioperative treatment including protocol of goal-directed fluid regimen and the applied haemodynamic devices in the intervention group, protocol of fluid administration in the control group, protocol of pre- and postoperative fluid therapy, postoperative overall complications with predefined criteria of the studies, length of hospital stay, quantity and type of fluids administered intraoperatively, intraoperative urinary output, lactate levels at the end of the operation, and time to first flatus and stool in the postoperative period.

2.7. Synthesis of Results and Effect Measures

Forest plots were used to display the results of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. In the case of urinary output, standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated for the average operation length. Data were converted from median and first and third quartile to mean and standard deviation, if data were reported in the former, according to the method of Wan (2014) [36]. Sensitivity analyses were also carried out, omitting one study and calculating the summary of RR, WMD, or SMD with 95% CI to investigate the influence of a single study on the final estimation.
A random-effect model was applied in all analyses with the estimation of DerSimonian and Laird [37]. Statistical heterogeneity was analysed using the I2 and χ2 tests to gain probability values; p < 0.10 was defined to indicate significant heterogeneity. The I2 test represents the percentage of total variation across studies because of heterogeneity. I2 values of 25–50%, 50–75%, and 75–100% corresponded to low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively, on the basis of the Cochrane’s handbook [38]. All data management and statistical analyses were performed with Stata 16 SE (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA).

2.8. Study Risk of Bias Assessment and Reporting Bias Assessment

To identify the risk of bias of the included studies, two review authors (M.V. and M.R.) used RoB 2, a revised Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool for randomised trials [39]. The included studies were evaluated according to all five domains for each outcome (randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, selections of the reported result) and finally, the overall risk of bias was classified as low, some concerns, or high. Discrepancies were resolved by a third review author (K.O.). The presence of publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of Funnel plots for lack of asymmetry [40]. The Egger’s test was not performed due to the low number of studies.

2.9. Certainty Assessment

Quality of evidence (QoE) was evaluated by M.V. and supervised by Z.M. with the help of the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) according to the GRADE approach recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration [41,42,43]. The following domains were appraised: risk of bias; indirectness of evidence; serious inconsistency; imprecision of effect estimates; and other considerations such as publication bias, large effect, and plausible confounding.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

The selection process is detailed in Figure 1. Our search resulted in 5485 records from five databases (PUBMED®, Embase®, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS®). Finally, 15 RCTs were included in the qualitative synthesis [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58], and in one RCT (Cho and colleagues), two types of GDFT protocols were implemented [46]. According to our selection criteria, it was not possible to decide which group should be included in the quantitative synthesis, and therefore we decided to include this study only in the qualitative synthesis. Eleven studies were included in the quantitative synthesis [47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58].

3.2. Study Characteristics

Baseline characteristics and demographic data for the included studies are presented in Table 1 and Table S3. A total of 835 patients from 11 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. During the intraoperative period, 419 patients received GDFT, and 416 received N-GDFT. Nine out of eleven studies reported data on age; the mean age was 55.6 years in the GDFT group and 54.8 years in the N-GDFT group. The rest of the patients’ baseline characteristics and length of operation are detailed in Table S3 and Figure S1.

3.3. Results of Syntheses and Individual Studies

3.3.1. Length of Hospital Stay

Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the GDFT group (WMD: −1.18 days, 95% CI: −1.84 to −0.53) according to data from eight RCTs [48,49,50,51,52,54,56,58], but data were considered highly heterogeneous (I2 = 80.1%, p < 0.01) (Figure 2). As an implementation of the ERAS protocol could have a substantial effect on hospital stay, we performed subgroup analysis on studies that used ERAS protocols and those that did not. Only three studies implemented ERAS [48,54,56], and no significant difference was found between GDFT and N-GDFT (WMD: −1.18 days, 95% CI: −2.79 to 0.43). In those studies that did not use the ERAS protocol, a significant difference was detected between the two groups (WMD: −1.28 days, 95% CI: −2.12 to −0.44); however, high heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 85.5%, p < 0.01). No influential study was identified by the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (Figure S17). Data for length of hospital stay were presented in one further study (Cho and colleges) that was not included in our meta-analysis [46], for reasons detailed previously. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed between the two goal-directed groups and the controls (4.40 and 4.40 days in the two GDFT groups versus 4.52 days in the non-goal-directed group, p = 0.78).

3.3.2. Readmission and Reoperation Rate

A 30-day readmission to the surgical ward and the emergency department were detailed only by Gomez-Izquierdo et al. [48]. No significant differences were found (8 out of 64, 12.0% versus 6 out of 64, 9.4%, p = 0.35; 3 out of 64, 20.0% versus 9 out of 64, 14.0%, p = 0.58, respectively). The reoperation rate was reported by both Gomez-Izquierdo et al. and Joosten et al. [48,49]. No significant differences were found between the GDFT and N-GDFT groups (1 out of 19, 5.0% versus 2 out of 20, 10.0%, p = 0.58; 1 out of 64, 3.1% and 3 out of 64, 4.7%, p = 0.62, respectively).

3.3.3. Overall Complications within 30 Days

Nine studies reported data for overall complications [44,45,48,49,51,54,56,57,58]; however only two fulfilled our criteria [44,48], and hence we were unable to perform a quantitative synthesis. In these two studies, there were no significant differences regarding this outcome (43.8% versus 39.1%, p = 0.59; 28.1% versus 26.3%, p = 0.86, respectively).

3.3.4. Recovery of Gastrointestinal Function as Indicated by Time to Firs Flatus and Time to First Stool

Five trials evaluated time to first stool [49,51,52,57,58], which was significantly reduced in patients receiving GDFT (WMD: −9.8 h, 95% CI: −12.7 to −7.0; Figure 3A). The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis did not identify any influential study (Figure S18). Five further studies reported time to first flatus with significant difference between the two groups (WMD: −5.63 h, 95% CI: −10.9 to 0.4 h) [48,49,50,56,57], but heterogeneity was high (I2 = 92.0%, p < 0.01; Figure 3B). According to the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis, omission of studies published by Tang, Wen, and Li would change the statistical significance (Figure S19).

3.3.5. Intraoperative Clinical Outcomes: Intraoperative Fluid and Vasopressor Requirement, Standardised Intraoperative Urinary Output and Lactate Levels at the End of the Operation

Data for clinical outcomes are shown in Figure 4. According to seven studies reporting data for intraoperative fluid requirement [48,49,51,53,56,57,58], patients undergoing GDFT received significantly less fluid than controls (WMD: −441 mL, 95% CI: −790 to −92 mL), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 96.9%, p < 0.01). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis did not report any influential study (Figure S20). Cho and colleges reported similar data indicating that significantly less fluid (colloid) boluses were administered in the GDFT group versus controls (858 mL versus 1639 mL; p < 0.01) [46]. On the basis of the results of eight studies, fewer patients required vasopressors in the GDFT group [47,48,49,52,53,56,58], but statistical significance was not reached (RR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.14). No influential study was detected by the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis (Figure S21). Cho et al. also provided data on intraoperative vasopressor requirement with no significant difference between the two GDFT groups as compared to the controls (44% and 24% versus 28%; p = 0.38) [46]. No significant difference was found in the intraoperative urinary output standardised for length of surgery (SMD: 5.69 mL h−1, 95% CI: −2.16 to 13.54 mL h−1). The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis did not identify any influential study (Figure S22). Serum lactate levels at the end of operation in the GDFT group were significantly lower compared to the N-GDFT group (WMD: −0.25 mmol L−1, 95% CI: −0.36 to −0.14). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 42.7%, p = 0.175). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis could not be performed due to the low number of studies.

3.4. Risk of Bias in Studies and Certainty of Evidence

Figures S8–S16 summarise the risk of bias assessment for all outcomes. All studies were judged as low risk or with some concerns.
A certainty of evidence table, including reasons for downgrading of the evidence level, is detailed in Table S4 and Figures S2–S7. Certainty of evidence was considered very low for intraoperative fluid requirement, intraoperative vasopressor requirement, urinary output, time to first flatus, and length of hospital stay, whereas it was low for serum lactate levels at the end of the operation and time to first stool after the operation (Table S4).

4. Discussion

The main findings of our meta-analysis are that patients treated with GDFT received less fluid during surgery, had lower serum lactate levels, both the first flatus and stool appeared earlier, and their hospital stay was also reduced compared to the N-GDFT-treated patients.

4.1. Summary of Evidence

Laparoscopic surgery may inflict profound effects on macro haemodynamic variables, resulting in elevated central venous and right atrial pressure, decreased cardiac output and stroke volume, and higher mean arterial pressure and systemic vascular resistance, due to elevated intraabdominal pressure and hypercarbia [4,5,59]. These can lead to decreased renal and splanchnic circulation, which are often responsible for unfavourable postoperative outcomes [5,60].
Adequate fluid management during surgery is of utmost importance to maintain adequate perfusion and oxygen delivery to the tissues. As both hypo- and hypervolaemia can be harmful, targeting fluid therapy to the patients’ individual needs is mandatory [61,62]. Fluid restriction per se, recommended in several guidelines as superior to liberal strategy [29,30], may reduce blood flow to the gastrointestinal tract, which may prolong the gastrointestinal recovery [5,63,64,65], impairing renal perfusion and leading to higher incidence of acute kidney injury after surgery [66]. Both effects can be precipitated during the pneumoperitoneum. Hypervolaemia and excessive fluid administration can also be harmful by causing interstitial oedema, which also impairs perfusion and oxygen uptake [67], which may lead to higher chance to surgical postoperative morbidity [68].
Conventional variables, such as heart rate and blood pressure, cannot predict fluid responsiveness and tell us little about tissue perfusion. Advanced haemodynamic monitoring (invasive, less invasive, non-invasive) has been tried and tested intensively for decades [69], but discussing these are beyond the scope of the current article. One advantage of using haemodynamic monitoring is being able to implement GDFT [62,70]. In the current meta-analysis, we included studies that compared GDFT to N-GDFT in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.
Our results suggest that GDFT may lead to a shorter length of hospital stay. This finding was significant and can also be considered compelling in the clinical practice. This observation is in accordance with previously reported results [71,72,73]. However, no significant difference was detected in those studies that implemented the ERAS. Further investigations are necessary whether GDFT combined with ERAS or other fast-track surgery protocols provides additional benefit of shorter hospitalisation or not.
One of the most important results of the current meta-analysis is that GDFT was associated with faster gastrointestinal recovery as indicated by shorter time to first stool. Although this outcome may be seen as of particular importance only after bowel surgery, there is substantial evidence to support that any abdominal surgery that applies pneumoperitoneum can lead to impaired bowel function [5,74]. Former studies suggested that the best way to evaluate the functional recovery of the gastrointestinal tract after surgery is the time to tolerate solid food and to pass the first stool. This is in alignment with our findings. These findings suggest that using GDFT may help to individualise fluid management and had not been shown in the two previous meta-analyses [23,24].
Conventional monitoring of heart rate and blood pressure have been shown to be inadequate measures of perfusion in general, and hence normal values do not exclude splanchnic hypoperfusion causing decreased oxygen delivery, resulting in anaerobic glycolysis and accumulation of lactate. The latter is an important marker to detect insufficient oxygen supplementation [75]. Although the lactate levels at the end of the operation were in the acceptable therapeutic range in both groups, levels were lower in the GDFT patients as compared to the N-GDFT group, indicating that the lesser amount of intraoperative fluid administration did not cause underfilling and/or consequential hypoperfusion. Unfortunately, previous meta-analyses did not report on serum lactate levels directly following the operation. However, our findings are in accordance with that of Forget et al. [76]. In their study, significantly lower lactate levels were reported in the GDFT group (GDFT: 1.2 mmol L−1; CI: 1–1.4 CI versus N-GDFT 1.6 mmol L−1; CI: 1.2–2.0). It is important to note that they confined their investigation to the intraoperative period.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

This is the first meta-analysis that has investigated the effects of GDFT versus N-GDFT specifically in laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Our study reflects on both physiological issues at the end of the operation and measures of gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and overall complications and readmission rate. Furthermore, the trials originate from several countries and continents, which increases the representative value of the results. Finally, the studies included in our analysis were published mainly in the last five years, and hence our results provide data that have not been considered yet in recent guidelines.
Our meta-analysis also has some limitations. First, most of the trials were single-centre RCTs with a low number of patients, which probably decreases the external validity of the studies. This may explain the high heterogeneity of several analyses. Second, the applied haemodynamic monitoring technologies in the GDFT group and the fluid administration regimens in the controls showed great variability, which may also point out the high heterogeneity for length of hospital stay, time to first flatus, and intraoperative fluid requirement. Third, we were unable to perform subgroup analysis on the type fluids used (i.e., crystalloids vs. colloids) due to the quality and quantity of the data reported on the outcomes we investigated. Furthermore, we were unable to perform a quantitative analysis for the overall complication rates due heterogeneous reporting on complications.

5. Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first and most comprehensive meta-analysis to date that reports on the effects of intraoperative GDFT resulting in less intravenous fluid administration, lower postoperative lactate levels, and enhanced recovery of the gastrointestinal function, which may lead to reduced hospital stay in patients undergoing elective abdominal laparoscopic surgery. Whether GDFT would result in overall advantageous outcomes including healthcare costs as compared to the generalised “fluid restriction” strategy recommended by the ERAS protocols in laparoscopic surgery has to be determined by further research.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jpm12050734/s1, Figure S1: Operation time; Figure S2: Funnel plot—Length of hospital stay; Figure S3 Funnel plot—Time to first stool; Figure S4: Funnel plot—Time to first flatus; Figure S5: Funnel plot—Intraoperative fluid requirement; Figure S6: Funnel plot—Intraoperative vasopressor requirement; Figure S7: Funnel plot—Intraoperative urinary output standardized for the length of the surgery; Figure S8: RoB—Length of hospital stay; Figure S9: RoB—Reoperation and readmission rate; Figure S10: RoB—Overall complication; Figure S11: RoB—Time to first flatus; Figure S12: RoB—Time to first stool; Figure S13: RoB—Intraoperative fluid requirement; Figure S14: RoB—Intraoperative vasopressor requirement; Figure S15: RoB—Intraoperative urinary output; Figure S16: RoB—Serum lactate levels at the end of the operation; Figure S17: Leave-one-out analysis—Length of hospital stay; Figure S18: Leave-one-out analysis—Time to first stool; Figure S19: Leave-one-out analysis—Time to first flatus; Figure S20: Leave-one-out analysis—Intraoperative fluid requirement; Figure S21: Leave-one-out analysis—Intraoperative vasopressor requirement; Figure S22: Leave-one-out analysis—Intraoperative urinary output; Table S1: List of accepted haemodynamic measurement as Goal-directed-fluid therapy; Table S2: Detailed search; Table S3: Baseline characteristics of the patients and length of operation of the included studies; Table S4: Certainty assessment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.V. and Z.M.; methodology, K.O.; software, N.G.; validation, K.O. and M.R.; formal analysis, N.G. and N.F.; resources, P.H.; data curation, M.R. and T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, M.V.; writing—review and editing, Z.M.; visualisation, M.T.; supervision, P.H. and S.Á.; project administration, P.H.; funding acquisition, P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic Development and Innovation Operational Programme Grant (GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00048—STAY ALIVE), Competence Centre for Health Data Analysis, Data Utilisation and Smart Device and Technology Development at the University of Pécs (GINOP-2.3.4-15-2020-00010) and the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant No. K 138816).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The authors declare that the work described was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association revised in 2013 for experiments involving humans, as well as in accordance with the EU Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments.

Informed Consent Statement

The authors declare that this report does not contain any personal information that could lead to the identification of the patient(s).

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Szabolcs Kiss and Fanni Dembrovszky for the methodological workshops and advice.

Conflicts of Interest

Z.M. has regularly honoraria for lectures for PULSION Medical, Germany (member of the Getinge Group), and ThermoFisher Scientific, and he has been a senior medical director at CytoSorbents Europe, Berlin, Germany. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Buia, A.; Stockhausen, F.; Hanisch, E. Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review. World J. Methodol. 2015, 5, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pascual, M.; Salvans, S.; Pera, M. Laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Current status and implementation of the latest technological innovations. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 704–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Concha, M.R.; Mertz, V.F.; Cortinez, L.I.; Gonzalez, K.A.; Butte, J.M.; Lopez, F.; Pinedo, G.; Zuniga, A. The Volume of Lactated Ringer’s Solution Required to Maintain Preload and Cardiac Index during Open and Laparoscopic Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2009, 108, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Safran, D.B.; Orlando, R., III. Physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum. Am. J. Surg. 1994, 167, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Atkinson, T.M.; Giraud, G.D.; Togioka, B.M.; Jones, D.B.; Cigarroa, J.E. Cardiovascular and Ventilatory Consequences of Laparoscopic Surgery. Circulation 2017, 135, 700–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Oti, C.; Mahendran, M.; Sabir, N. Anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2016, 77, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cecconi, M.; Corredor, C.; Arulkumaran, N.; Abuella, G.; Ball, J.; Grounds, R.M.; Hamilton, M.; Rhodes, A. Clinical review: Goal-directed therapy-what is the evidence in surgical patients? The effect on different risk groups. Crit. Care 2013, 17, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Hubner, M.; Nygren, J.; Demartines, N.; Francis, N.; Rockall, T.A.; Young-Fadok, T.M.; Hill, A.G.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS(®)) Society Recommendations: 2018. World J. Surg. 2018, 43, 659–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Melloul, E.; Hübner, M.; Scott, M.; Snowden, C.; Prentis, J.; Dejong, C.H.; Garden, O.J.; Farges, O.; Kokudo, N.; Vauthey, J.N.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations. World J. Surg. 2016, 40, 2425–2440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Nygren, J.; Thacker, J.; Carli, F.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Norderval, S.; Lobo, D.N.; Ljungqvist, O.; Soop, M.; Ramirez, J. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin. Nutr. 2012, 31, 801–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Larsen, J.F.; Svendsen, F.M.; Pedersen, V. Randomized clinical trial of the effect of pneumoperitoneum on cardiac function and haemodynamics during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2004, 91, 848–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Odeberg, S.; Ljungqvist, O.; Svenberg, T.; Gannedahl, P.; Bäckdahl, M.; von Rosen, A.; Sollevi, A. Haemodynamic effects of pneumoperitoneum and the influence of posture during anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 1994, 38, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Portera, C.A.; Compton Rp Fau-Walters, D.N.; Walters Dn Fau-Browder, I.W.; Browder, I.W. Benefits of pulmonary artery catheter and transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring in laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients with cardiac disease. Am. J. Surg. 1995, 169, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hein, H.A.T.; Joshi, G.P.; Ramsay, M.A.E.; Fox, L.G.; Gawey, B.J.; Hellman, C.L.; Arnold, J.C. Hemodynamic changes during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients with severe cardiac disease. J. Clin. Anesth. 1997, 9, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Miller Te Fau-Roche, A.M.; Roche Am Fau-Gan, T.J.; Gan, T.J. Poor adoption of hemodynamic optimization during major surgery: Are we practicing substandard care? Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 1274–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gurgel, S.T.; do Nascimento, P. Maintaining Tissue Perfusion in High-Risk Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 1384–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hamilton, M.A.; Cecconi, M.; Rhodes, A. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of preemptive hemodynamic intervention to improve postoperative outcomes in moderate and high-risk surgical patients. Anesth. Analg. 2011, 112, 1392–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Srinivasa, S.; Taylor, M.H.; Singh, P.P.; Yu, T.C.; Soop, M.; Hill, A.G. Randomized clinical trial of goal-directed fluid therapy within an enhanced recovery protocol for elective colectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2013, 100, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Miller, T.E.; Roche, A.M.; Mythen, M. Fluid management and goal-directed therapy as an adjunct to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Can. J. Anesth-J. Can. D Anesth. 2015, 62, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Wrzosek, A.; Jakowicka-Wordliczek, J.; Zajaczkowska, R.; Serednicki, W.T.; Jankowski, M.; Bala, M.M.; Swierz, M.J.; Polak, M.; Wordliczek, J. Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 12, Cd012767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xu, C.; Peng, J.; Liu, S.; Huang, Y.; Guo, X.; Xiao, H.; Qi, D. Goal-directed fluid therapy versus conventional fluid therapy in colorectal surgery: A meta analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 56, 264–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chong, M.A.; Wang, Y.; Berbenetz, N.M.; McConachie, I. Does goal-directed haemodynamic and fluid therapy improve peri-operative outcomes?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2018, 35, 469–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Messina, A.A.-O.; Robba, C.; Calabrò, L.; Zambelli, D.; Iannuzzi, F.; Molinari, E.; Scarano, S.; Battaglini, D.; Baggiani, M.; de Mattei, G.; et al. Association between perioperative fluid administration and postoperative outcomes: A 20-year systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized goal-directed trials in major visceral/noncardiac surgery. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Gómez-Izquierdo, J.C.; Feldman, L.S.; Carli, F.; Baldini, G. Meta-analysis of the effect of goal-directed therapy on bowel function after abdominal surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Rollins, K.E.; Mathias, N.C.; Lobo, D.N. Meta-analysis of goal-directed fluid therapy using transoesophageal Doppler monitoring in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. BJS Open 2019, 3, 606–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Arulkumaran, N.; Corredor, C.; Hamilton, M.A.; Ball, J.; Grounds, R.M.; Rhodes, A.; Cecconi, M. Cardiac complications associated with goal-directed therapy in high-risk surgical patients: A meta-analysis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2014, 112, 648–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Kaufmann, T.A.-O.; Clement, R.P.; Scheeren, T.W.L.; Saugel, B.; Keus, F.; van der Horst, I.C.C. Perioperative goal-directed therapy: A systematic review without meta-analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2018, 62, 1340–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Zhao, X.; Tian, L.; Brackett, A.; Dai, F.; Xu, J.; Meng, L. Classification and differential effectiveness of goal-directed hemodynamic therapies in surgical patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Crit. Care 2021, 61, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Feldheiser, A.; Aziz, O.; Baldini, G.; Cox, B.P.; Fearon, K.C.; Feldman, L.S.; Gan, T.J.; Kennedy, R.H.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N.; et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: Consensus statement for anaesthesia practice. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2016, 60, 289–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. McEvoy, M.D.; Scott, M.J.; Gordon, D.B.; Grant, S.A.; Thacker, J.K.M.; Wu, C.L.; Gan, T.J.; Mythen, M.G.; Shaw, A.D.; Miller, T.E. American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on optimal analgesia within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery: Part 1-from the preoperative period to PACU. Perioper. Med. 2017, 6, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thiele, R.H.; Raghunathan, K.; Brudney, C.S.; Lobo, D.N.; Martin, D.; Senagore, A.; Cannesson, M.; Gan, T.J.; Mythen, M.M.; Shaw, A.D.; et al. American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER) and Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) joint consensus statement on perioperative fluid management within an enhanced recovery pathway for colorectal surgery. Perioper. Med. 2016, 17, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Page, M.A.-O.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Meng, L.; Heerdt, P.M. Perioperative goal-directed haemodynamic therapy based on flow parameters: A concept in evolution. Br. J. Anaesth. 2016, 117, iii3–iii17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Bundgaard-Nielsen, M.; Holte, K.; Secher, N.H.; Kehlet, H. Monitoring of peri-operative fluid administration by individualized goal-directed therapy. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2007, 51, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. DerSimonian, R.; Fau-Laird, N.; Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin. Trials. 1986, 7, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Higgins, T.J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane. 2021. Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 26 April 2022).
  39. Sterne, J.A.-O.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Sterne, J.A.; Sutton Aj Fau-Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Ioannidis Jp Fau-Terrin, N.; Terrin, N.; Fau-Jones, D.R.; Jones Dr Fau-Lau, J.; Lau, J.; Fau-Carpenter, J.; Carpenter, J.; Fau-Rücker, G.; et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman Ad Fau-Vist, G.E.; Vist Ge Fau-Kunz, R.; Kunz, R.; Fau-Falck-Ytter, Y.; Falck-Ytter Y Fau-Alonso-Coello, P.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Fau-Schünemann, H.J.; Schünemann, H.J. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336, 924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Brozek, J.L.; Akl Ea Fau-Jaeschke, R.; Jaeschke, R.; Fau-Lang, D.M.; Lang Dm Fau-Bossuyt, P.; Bossuyt, P.; Fau-Glasziou, P.; Glasziou, P.; Fau-Helfand, M.; Helfand, M.; et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies. Allergy 2009, 64, 1109–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Schünemann, H.J.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Vist, G.E.; Glasziou, P.; Akl, E.A.; Skoetz, N.; Guyatt, G.H.; on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group. GRADE Handbook for Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations Updated October 2013: The GRADE Working Group. Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-14 (accessed on 9 June 2021).
  44. Brandstrup, B.; Svendsen, P.E.; Rasmussen, M.; Belhage, B.; Rodt, S.; Hansen, B.; Møller, D.R.; Lundbech, L.B.; Andersen, N.; Berg, V.; 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, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Calvo-Vecino, J.M.; Ripollés-Melchor, J.; Mythen, M.G.; Casans-Francés, R.; Balik, A.; Artacho, J.P.; Martínez-Hurtado, E.; Serrano Romero, A.; Fernández Pérez, C.; Asuero de Lis, S. Effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on postoperative complications in low-moderate risk surgical patients: A multicentre randomised controlled trial (FEDORA trial). Br. J. Anaesth. 2018, 120, 734–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Cho, H.J.; Huang, Y.H.; Poon, K.S.; Chen, K.B.; Liao, K.H. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy using stroke volume variation to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting. Surg. Obes. Relat. Dis. Off. J. Am. Soc. Bariatr. Surg. 2021, 17, 1549–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Demirel, I.; Bolat, E.; Altun, A.Y.; Ozdemir, M.; Bestas, A. Efficacy of Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy via Pleth Variability Index During Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery in Morbidly Obese Patients. Obes. Surg. 2017, 28, 358–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gómez-Izquierdo, J.C.; Trainito, A.; Mirzakandov, D.; Stein, B.L.; Liberman, S.; Charlebois, P.; Pecorelli, N.; Feldman, L.S.; Carli, F.; Baldini, G. Goal-directed Fluid Therapy Does Not Reduce Primary Postoperative Ileus after Elective Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesthesiology 2017, 127, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Joosten, A.; Raj Lawrence, S.; Colesnicenco, A.; Coeckelenbergh, S.; Vincent, J.L.; van der Linden, P.; Cannesson, M.; Rinehart, J. Personalized Versus Protocolized Fluid Management Using Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring (Clearsight System) in Patients Undergoing Moderate-Risk Abdominal Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2019, 129, e8–e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, Z.; Yu, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, W.; Guo, F. Effect of goal-directed fluid therapy on gastrointestinal function of patients after laparoscopic radical resection of cervical cancer. Cancer Res. Clin. 2021, 33, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. 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, 4390–4399. [Google Scholar]
  52. Mei, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, Y.; Wei, L.; Tan, S. Application of stroke volume variation-guided liquid therapy in laparoscopic precision hepatectomy. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban J. Cent. South Univ. Med. Sci. 2019, 44, 1163–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Muhlbacher, J.; Luf, F.; Zotti, O.; Herkner, H.; Fleischmann, E.; Kabon, B. Effect of Intraoperative Goal-Directed Fluid Management on Tissue Oxygen Tension in Obese Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obes. Surg. 2021, 31, 1129–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ratti, F.; Cipriani, F.; Reineke, R.; Catena, M.; Paganelli, M.; Comotti, L.; Beretta, L.; Aldrighetti, L. Intraoperative monitoring of stroke volume variation versus central venous pressure in laparoscopic liver surgery: A randomized prospective comparative trial. HPB 2016, 18, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Senagore, A.J.; 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, 1935–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Tang, A.; Zhou, S. Analysis on the application value of goal-directed fluid therapy in patients undergoing laparoscopy-assisted radical gastrectomy with fast-track anesthesia. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021, 13, 5174–5182. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Wen, X.L.; Jing, G.X.; He, P.; Hou, J.R. Clinical study on the capacity management guided by stroke volume variation in elderly patients with laparoscopic radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. J. Xi’an Jiaotong Univ. (Med. Sci.) 2016, 37, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yin, K.; Ding, J.; Wu, Y.; Peng, M. Goal-directed fluid therapy based on noninvasive cardiac output monitor reduces postoperative complications in elderly patients after gastrointestinal surgery: A randomized controlled trial. Pak. J. Med. Sci. 2018, 34, 1320–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Nguyen, N.T.; Wolfe, B.M. The physiologic effects of pneumoperitoneum in the morbidly obese. Ann. Surg. 2005, 241, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Maddison, L.; Starkopf, J.; Reintam Blaser, A. Mild to moderate intra-abdominal hypertension: Does it matter? World J. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 5, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saugel, B.; Vincent, J.L. Protocolised personalised peri-operative haemodynamic management. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2019, 36, 551–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Molnar, Z.; Benes, J.; Saugel, B. Intraoperative hypotension is just the tip of the iceberg: A call for multimodal, individualised, contextualised management of intraoperative cardiovascular dynamics. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, 419–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Moore-Olufemi, S.D.; Xue, H.; Fau-Attuwaybi, B.O.; Attuwaybi Bo Fau-Fischer, U.; Fischer, U.; Fau-Harari, Y.; Harari, Y.; Fau-Oliver, D.H.; Oliver Dh Fau-Weisbrodt, N.; Weisbrodt, N.; et al. Resuscitation-induced gut edema and intestinal dysfunction. J. Trauma 2005, 58, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Chowdhury, A.H.; Lobo, D.N. Fluids and gastrointestinal function. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2011, 14, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mythen, M.G.; Webb, A.R. Perioperative plasma volume expansion reduces the incidence of gut mucosal hypoperfusion during cardiac surgery. Arch Surg. 1995, 130, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Myles, P.S.; Bellomo, R.; Corcoran, T.; Forbes, A.; Peyton, P.; Story, D.; Christophi, C.; Leslie, K.; McGuinness, S.; Parke, R.; et al. Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 2263–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Holte, K.; Kehlet, H. Fluid therapy and surgical outcomes in elective surgery: A need for reassessment in fast-track surgery. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2006, 202, 971–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Rahbari, N.N.; Zimmermann, J.B.; Schmidt, T.; Koch, M.; Weigand, M.A.; Weitz, J. Meta-analysis of standard, restrictive and supplemental fluid administration in colorectal surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2009, 96, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Saugel, B.; Fau-Thiele, R.H.; Thiele Rh Fau-Hapfelmeier, A.; Hapfelmeier, A.; Fau-Cannesson, M.; Cannesson, M. Technological Assessment and Objective Evaluation of Minimally Invasive and Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitoring Systems. Anesthesiology 2020, 133, 921–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Heming, N.; Moine, P.; Coscas, R.; Annane, D. Perioperative fluid management for major elective surgery. Br. J. Surg. 2020, 107, e56–e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Gan, T.J.; Soppitt, A.; Maroof, M.; el-Moalem, H.; Robertson, K.M.; Moretti, E.; Dwane, P.; Glass, P.S. Goal-directed intraoperative fluid administration reduces length of hospital stay after major surgery. Anesthesiology 2002, 97, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Grocott, M.P.W.; Dushianthan, A.; Hamilton, M.A.; Mythen, M.G.; Harrison, D.; Rowan, K.; Optimisation Systematic Review Steering Group. Perioperative increase in global blood flow to explicit defined goals and outcomes after surgery: A Cochrane Systematic Review. Br. J. Anaesth. 2013, 111, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Wakeling, H.G.; McFall, M.R.; Jenkins, C.S.; Woods, W.G.; Miles, W.F.; Barclay, G.R.; Fleming, S.C. Intraoperative oesophageal Doppler guided fluid management shortens postoperative hospital stay after major bowel surgery. Br. J. Anaesth. 2005, 95, 634–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. O’Malley, C.; Cunningham, A.J. Physiologic Changes during Laparoscopy. Anesthesiol. Clin. N. Am. 2001, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Meregalli, A.; Oliveira Rp Fau-Friedman, G.; Friedman, G. Occult hypoperfusion is associated with increased mortality in hemodynamically stable, high-risk, surgical patients. Crit. Care 2004, 8, R60–R65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Forget, P.; Lois, F.; de Kock, M. Goal-directed fluid management based on the pulse oximeter-derived pleth variability index reduces lactate levels and improves fluid management. Anesth. Analg. 2010, 111, 910–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jpm 12 00734 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of selection.
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart of selection.
Jpm 12 00734 g001
Jpm 12 00734 g002 550
Figure 2. Length of hospital stay (days). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who received GDFT (WMD = −1.18 days; 95% CI = −1.84 days to −0.53 days) and also in the non-ERAS subgroup (WMD = −1.28 days; 95% CI = −2.12 days to −0.44 days). However, in the ERAS subgroup, our result was not significant (WMD = −1.18 days; 95% CI = −2.79 days to 0.43 days). Heterogeneity was high both in overall and in the non-ERAS group (I-squared = 80.1%; p < 0.01 and I-squared = 85.5%; p < 0.01), and moderate in the ERAS subgroup (I-squared = 64.4%; p = 0.06).
Figure 2. Length of hospital stay (days). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients who received GDFT (WMD = −1.18 days; 95% CI = −1.84 days to −0.53 days) and also in the non-ERAS subgroup (WMD = −1.28 days; 95% CI = −2.12 days to −0.44 days). However, in the ERAS subgroup, our result was not significant (WMD = −1.18 days; 95% CI = −2.79 days to 0.43 days). Heterogeneity was high both in overall and in the non-ERAS group (I-squared = 80.1%; p < 0.01 and I-squared = 85.5%; p < 0.01), and moderate in the ERAS subgroup (I-squared = 64.4%; p = 0.06).
Jpm 12 00734 g002
Jpm 12 00734 g003 550
Figure 3. Time to first stool and time to first flatus. Time to first stool (A) was significantly reduced in patients receiving GDFT compared to the controls (WMD = −9.81 h; 95%; CI = −12.66 h to −6.97 h). No evidence was found for heterogeneity (I-squared = 0.0%; p = 0.85). Time to first flatus (B) was significantly shortened in the GDFT group compared to the controls (WMD = −5.63 h; 95% CI = −10.87 h to 0.38 h). High heterogeneity was detected (I-squared = 92.0%; p < 0.01). WMD: weighted mean difference, SD: standard deviation, GDFT: goal-directed fluid therapy, N-GDFT: non-goal-directed fluid therapy, CI: confidence interval. p < 0.1 was considered significant.
Figure 3. Time to first stool and time to first flatus. Time to first stool (A) was significantly reduced in patients receiving GDFT compared to the controls (WMD = −9.81 h; 95%; CI = −12.66 h to −6.97 h). No evidence was found for heterogeneity (I-squared = 0.0%; p = 0.85). Time to first flatus (B) was significantly shortened in the GDFT group compared to the controls (WMD = −5.63 h; 95% CI = −10.87 h to 0.38 h). High heterogeneity was detected (I-squared = 92.0%; p < 0.01). WMD: weighted mean difference, SD: standard deviation, GDFT: goal-directed fluid therapy, N-GDFT: non-goal-directed fluid therapy, CI: confidence interval. p < 0.1 was considered significant.
Jpm 12 00734 g003
Jpm 12 00734 g004 550
Figure 4. Clinical outcomes at the end of operation. Intraoperative fluid requirement (A) was significantly lower (WMD = −440.84 mL; 95% CI: −789.73 mL to −91.96 mL) in the GDFT group. High heterogeneity was detected (I-squared = 96.9%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of patients requiring vasopressors intraoperatively (B) between the goal- and the non-goal-directed groups. (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.14). Low heterogeneity was found (I-squared = 44.0%; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in intraoperative urinary output standardised for length of surgery (C) between the two groups (SMD = 5.69 mL h−1; 95% CI = −2.16 mL h−1 to 13.54 mL h−1). Data were not considered heterogeneous (I-squared = 0.0%; p = 0.96). Serum lactate levels (D) were significantly lower in the GDFT group compared to N-GDFT (WMD = −0.25 mmol L−1; 95% CI −0.36 mmol/ to −0.14 mmol L−1). There is no evidence for heterogeneity (I-squared = 42.7%; p = 0.18). WMD: weighted mean difference, SMD: standardised mean difference, RR: risk ratio, SD: standard deviation. GDFT: goal-directed fluid therapy, N-GDFT: non-goal-directed fluid therapy, CI: confidence interval. p < 0.1 was considered significant.
Figure 4. Clinical outcomes at the end of operation. Intraoperative fluid requirement (A) was significantly lower (WMD = −440.84 mL; 95% CI: −789.73 mL to −91.96 mL) in the GDFT group. High heterogeneity was detected (I-squared = 96.9%, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the number of patients requiring vasopressors intraoperatively (B) between the goal- and the non-goal-directed groups. (RR = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.71 to 1.14). Low heterogeneity was found (I-squared = 44.0%; p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in intraoperative urinary output standardised for length of surgery (C) between the two groups (SMD = 5.69 mL h−1; 95% CI = −2.16 mL h−1 to 13.54 mL h−1). Data were not considered heterogeneous (I-squared = 0.0%; p = 0.96). Serum lactate levels (D) were significantly lower in the GDFT group compared to N-GDFT (WMD = −0.25 mmol L−1; 95% CI −0.36 mmol/ to −0.14 mmol L−1). There is no evidence for heterogeneity (I-squared = 42.7%; p = 0.18). WMD: weighted mean difference, SMD: standardised mean difference, RR: risk ratio, SD: standard deviation. GDFT: goal-directed fluid therapy, N-GDFT: non-goal-directed fluid therapy, CI: confidence interval. p < 0.1 was considered significant.
Jpm 12 00734 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Author (Year)Type of SurgeryPreoperative Fluid ProtocolIntraoperative Fluid ProtocolPostoperative Fluid ProtocolPrimary Outcome
Haemodyamic TechnologyPrimary GoalBolusType of FluidBasisType of Fluid
Brandstrup (2012) [44]Elective laparoscopic colorectal resection0.9% saline UD *Oesophageal DopplerSV < 10%200 mLVOLUVEN®Replacement of lost blood volume onlyVOLUVEN®daily 2000 mLOverall postoperative complications
N-GDFT200 mLVOLUVEN®Replacement of lost blood volume onlyVOLUVEN®
Calvo-Vecino (2018) [45]Laparoscopic gastrointestinal, urological, gynaecologicalN/AOesophageal DopplerSV < 10%250 mLVOLUVEN®, Lactated Ringer0 mL kg−1 bw−1NoneN/AModerate or severe postoperative complications
N-GDFTAAEVOLUVEN®, Lactated Ringer3–5 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer
Cho (2021) [46]Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy4/2/1Arterial waveform-derivedSVV < 10%100 mL6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.44 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer or Saline 0.9%N/APostoperative nausea and vomiting
Arterial waveform-derivedSVV < 10%100 mLLactated Ringer4 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer or Saline 0.9%
N-GDFTAAE6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.44 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer or Saline 0.9%
Demirel (2017) [47]Laparoscopic RYGB surgeryN/APulse oximetryPVI < 14%250 mLGelofusine®2 mL kg−1 bw−10.9% NaCl or Lactated RingerN/APerioperative lactate, creatinine levels, hemodynamic variables
N-GDFT250 mLGelofusine®4–8 mL kg−1 bw−10.9% NaCl or Lactated Ringer
Gomez-Izquierdo (2017) [48]Laparoscopic colorectal4/2/1Oesophageal DopplerSV < 10%200 mLVOLUVEN®1.5 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer1.5 mL kg−1/bw−1/h−1 In PACU 15 mL h−1 in Surgical DepartmentPrimary postoperative ileus
N-GDFT5 mL kg−1 bw−1VOLUVEN®4/2/1 RuleLactated Ringer
Joosten (2018) [49]Laparoscopic colorectal, gynaecological, urologicalN/AArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%100 mLPlasmaLyte®0 mL kg−1 bw−1NoneN/APercentage of intraoperative time spent within defined haemodynamic targets (CI ≥2.5 L/min/m2 and/or an SVV <13%)
N-GDFTAAE6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.44 mL kg−1 bw−1PlasmaLyte®
Li (2021) [50]Laparoscopic radical resection of lower cervical cancerN/AArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%250 mL6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4500 mLLactated RingerN/AAppearance of first bowel sounds, time to first flatus, lengths of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting
N-GDFTAAE6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4N/ALactated Ringer
Liu (2019) [51]Laparoscopic colorectal5 mL kg−1 bw−1 before anaesthesiaArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%200 mLColloid solution UD2 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated RingerN/AHaemodynamic variables and tissue oxygen saturations intraoperatively and at the end of operation
N-GDFTAAEColloid solution UD5 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer
Mei (2018) [52]Laparoscopic precision hepatectomyN/AArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%3 mL kg−1 bw−1Colloid solution UD6–10 mL kg−1 bw−1Crystalloid UDN/AMAP, SVV, CVP, and lactate levels through the intraoperative period and at the end of surgery
N-GDFT10 mL kg−1 bw−1Crystalloid UD6–10 mL kg−1 bw−1Crystalloid UD
Mühlbacher (2021) [53]Laparoscopic gastric bypass500 mL Lactated-RingerOesophageal DopplerSV < 10%250 mLLactated Ringer2 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated RingerAAE in PACUPerioperative subcutaneous tissue oxygen tension (upper arm)
N-GDFTAAELactated RingerN/ALactated Ringer
Ratti (2016) [54]Laparoscopic liver resectionERAS **Arterial waveform-derivedSVV < 12%N/ACrystalloid UDN/ACrystalloid UDERAS **Rate and reasons of conversion
N-GDFTN/ACrystalloid UDN/ACrystalloid UD
Senagore (2009) [55]Laparoscopic colorectalN/AOesophageal DopplerSV < 10%300 mLLactated Ringer5 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated RingerN/ALength of hospital stay
N-GDFTAAE6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4/, Lactated Ringer5 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer
Tang (2021) [56]Laparoscopic radical gastectomy250 mL warm sugar water per osArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%250 mL6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4N/ACrystalloid UDN/AIncidence of postoperative complications
N-GDFTAAE6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4N/ACrystalloid UD
Wen (2016) [57]Laparoscopic gastrectomyN/AArterial waveform-derivedSVV < 13%3 mL kg−1 bw−16% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.45 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated RingerN/AChanges of haemodynamic variables and application of vasoactive drugs
N-GDFT5 mL kg−1 bw−16% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.47 mL kg−1 bw−1Lactated Ringer
Yin (2018) [58]Laparoscopic colorectalN/ABioreactanceSVV < 13%250 mL6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.48 mL kg−1 bw−1Saline UDN/AModerate or severe postoperative complications within 30 days
N-GDFT250 mL6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.48 mL kg−1 bw−1Saline UD
Included in systematic review only. Included both in the quantitative and qualitative synthesis. *: if fluid intake was under 500 mL; **: according to ERAS protocol for liver surgery; 4/2/1: 4 mL per kilograms of bodyweight for the first 10 kg, 2 mL kg−1 bw−1 to the second 10 kg, 1 mL−1 kg−1 bw−1 to the other kg bw−1. Abbreviations: N-GDFT: non-goal-directed fluid therapy, SV: stroke volume, SVV: stroke volume variation, PVI: Pleth Variability Index, UD: undetermined, AAE: according to the anaesthetist evaluation, N/A: data not available, PACU: post-anaesthesia care unit, CI: Cardiac Index, CVP: central venous pressure, NaCl: natrium chloride, RYBG: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery, MAP: mean arterial pressure, ERAS: enhanced recovery after surgery, bw: bodyweight.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Virág, M.; Rottler, M.; Gede, N.; Ocskay, K.; Leiner, T.; Tuba, M.; Ábrahám, S.; Farkas, N.; Hegyi, P.; Molnár, Z. Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Enhances Gastrointestinal Recovery after Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050734

AMA Style

Virág M, Rottler M, Gede N, Ocskay K, Leiner T, Tuba M, Ábrahám S, Farkas N, Hegyi P, Molnár Z. Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Enhances Gastrointestinal Recovery after Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2022; 12(5):734. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050734

Chicago/Turabian Style

Virág, Marcell, Máté Rottler, Noémi Gede, Klementina Ocskay, Tamás Leiner, Máté Tuba, Szabolcs Ábrahám, Nelli Farkas, Péter Hegyi, and Zsolt Molnár. 2022. "Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Enhances Gastrointestinal Recovery after Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Personalized Medicine 12, no. 5: 734. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12050734

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop