Short‐Term Outcomes of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) for Ankle Fracture Patients: A Single‐Center Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been successfully adopted for the improvement of medical quality and efficacy in many diseases, but the effect thereof for ankle fracture patients can vary. The aim of the present study was to explore the short‐term postoperative outcomes of ERAS among ankle fracture patients. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective cohort study conducted between January 2019 and May 2019. One hundred and sixty ankle fracture participations (58 males and 102 females, aged 41.71 ± 14.51 years) were included. The participants treated with open reduction and internal fixation were divided into two groups (non‐ERAS vs. ERAS) depending on whether ERAS was applied. Postoperative outcomes included American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, length of stay (LOS), hospital cost, complications, and consumption of opioids. To assess the association between the groups and outcomes, generalized estimating equation (GEE) modeling and multivariable linear regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: The average follow‐up periods of the participations were 24 months postoperatively. No significant differences were detected between the non‐ERAS group and ERAS group with respect to the demographic of patients in terms of gender, age, Danis‐Weber classification of fracture, dislocation of ankle joint, and comorbidity (P > 0.05). Significant differences in terms of a higher AOFAS score were found in the ERAS group compared with the non‐ERAS group (6.73, 95% CI, 5.10–8.37, p < 0.001) at 3 months postoperatively (PO3M) and (4.73, 95% CI, 3.02–6.45, p < 0.001) at 6 months postoperatively (PO6M). However, similar AOFAS scores were found at 12 months postoperatively (PO12M) (0.28, 95% CI, −0.32 to 0.89, P > 0.05) and at 24 months postoperatively (PO24M) (0.56, 95% CI, −0.07 to 1.19, P > 0.05). Additionally, the GEE analysis and group‐by‐time interaction of AOFAS score revealed that the ERAS protocol could facilitate faster recovery for ankle fracture patients, with higher PO3M and PO6M (both P < 0.05). At the same time, significant differences in terms of a shorter length of stay (−3.19, 95% CI, −4.33 to −2.04, P < 0.01) and less hospital cost (−6501.81, 95% CI, −10955.21 to −2048.42, P < 0.01) were found in the ERAS group compared with the non‐ERAS group. CONCLUSION: By reducing LOS and hospital cost, the ERAS protocol might improve the medical quality and efficacy. The present study can provide a realistic evaluation and comparison of the ERAS protocol among ankle fracture patients, and ultimately guide clinical decision making.