https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15154
Cost efficiency of ERAS protocols versus conventional method in urologic oncology: a systematic review of economic evaluations
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 26 June 2026
Background: Urologic oncology procedures are resource-intensive and contribute substantially to healthcare expenditure. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been proposed to optimize perioperative care, reduce morbidity, and improve economic efficiency. However, the cost impact of ERAS compared with conventional perioperative management in urologic oncology has not been comprehensively synthesized.
Methods: This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. Database searches were performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar for studies published between 2015 and 2025. Search terms included: “ERAS” AND “urologic oncology” AND “cost efficiency” OR “cost savings”. Eligible studies including adult patients who underwent oncologic urologic surgery, comparing the ERAS versus the non-ERAS protocol, and reporting cost outcomes. Data were extracted for study characteristics, ERAS components, and cost results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
Results: A total of 472 articles were identified, and seven studies (n = 1,247 patients) met the inclusion criteria. ERAS shows costsaving effects in six studies (85.7%) and cost neutrality in one (14.3%), with no evidence of financial harm. Reported savings ranged from USD 1,444 to USD 4,488 per patient in U.S. cohorts and up to 7,353 Y in Chinese cohorts. Cost reductions were primarily attributed to shorter length of stay, reduced complication- related expenditure, and improved perioperative resource utilization. NOS scores ranged from 6 to 7, indicating satisfactory to good quality.
Conclusions: ERAS protocols provide consistent economic advantages over conventional care in urologic oncology, demonstrating cost savings or cost neutrality across diverse procedures and healthcare systems. Standardization of ERAS components, harmonized cost-reporting methods, and prospective cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to support policy adoption and establish ERAS as a cost-efficient component of value-based urologic cancer care.
Downloads
1. Jeremy Yuen Chun Teoh. Epidemiology and screening for urologic cancers. World J Urol. 2023; 41:897-8.
2. Zi H, Liu MY, Luo LS, et al. Global burden of benign prostatic hyperplasia, urinary tract infections, urolithiasis, bladder cancer, kidney cancer, and prostate cancer from 1990 to 2021. Mil Med Res. 2024; 11.
3. Chen X, Hao X, Wu J, Liu X. The global burden of bladder, kidney, and prostate cancers attributable to smoking from 1990 to 2021 and projections for the next two decades: A cross-sectional study. Tob Induc Dis. 2025; 23.
4. Leuteritz K, Richter D, Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, et al. Quality of life in urologic cancer patients: importance of and satisfaction with specific quality of life domains. Quality of Life Research. 2022; 31:759-67.
5. Majdalany SE, Butaney M, Tinsley S, et al. Challenges of Urologic Oncology in Low-to-Middle-Income Countries. Société Internationale d’Urologie Journal. 2024; 5:303-11.
6. Barros R, Fosse AM, Schul A, et al. Impact of Diagnosis of Urologic Cancer on Male Sexuality and Patients’ Perceptions of Health Professional’s Approach. International Braz J Urol. 2025; 51.
7. Mertens LS, Bruins HM, Contieri R, et al. Consistencies in Followup After Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer: A Framework Based on Expert Practices Collaboratively Developed by the European Association of Urology Bladder Cancer Guideline Panels. Eur Urol Oncol. 2025; 8:105-10.
8. Veerakulwatana S, Suk-ouichai C, Taweemonkongsap T, et al. Perioperative factors and 30-day major complications following radical cystectomy: A single-center study in Thailand. Heliyon. 2024; 10.
9. Cinar NB, Yilmaz H, Avci IE, et al. Reporting perioperative complications of radical cystectomy: the influence of using standard methodology based on ICARUS and EAU quality criteria. World J Surg Oncol. 2023; 21.
10. Paladini A, Cochetti G, Felici G, et al. Complications of extraperitoneal robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer: A single high-volume center experience. Front Surg. 2023; 10.
11. Rodriguez Peñaranda N, Siech C, Jannello LMI, et al. Perioperative Complications and In-Hospital Mortality After Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients with a History of Heart Valve Replacement. J Clin Med. 2025; 14.
12. Hamid ARAH, Soeroto AA, Hendri AZ, et al. The application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in radical cystectomy and urinary diversion using bowel segment reduces the length of stay: A multicenter comparative study in Indonesia. Bali Medical Journal. 2023; 12:1897-900.
13. Peerbocus M, Wang ZJ. Enhanced recovery after surgery and radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Rep Urol. 2021; 13:535-47.
14. Zhou Y, Li R, Liu Z, et al. The effect of the enhanced recovery after surgery program on radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Front Surg. 2023; 10:1101098.
15. Sung LH, Yuk HD. Enhanced recovery after surgery of patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9:2986-2996.
16. Çetin B, Çilesiz NC, Ozkan A, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Reduces Hospital Costs and Length of Hospital Stay in Radical Cystectomy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study. Cureus. 2024; 16:e55460.
17. Brooks NA, Kokorovic A, McGrath JS, et al. Critical analysis of quality of life and cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for patient’s undergoing urologic oncology surgery: a systematic review. World J Urol. 2022; 40:1325-42.
18. Xu Y, Liu A, Chen L, Huang H, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway optimizes outcomes and costs for minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Int Med Res. 2020;48:300060520920072.
19. Wei C, Wan F, Zhao H, et al. Application of enhanced recovery after surgery in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. J Int Med Res. 2018; 46:5011-5018.
20. Chen S, He Z, Yao S, et al. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Optimizes Results and Cost of Laparoscopic Radical Nephrectomy. Front Oncol. 2022; 12:840363.
21. Morrison B, Kelliher L, Jones C. The economic benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes. Dig Med Res. 2019;2:20-20.
22. Rodrigues Pessoa R, Urkmez A, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery review and urology applications in 2020. BJUI Compass. 2020; 1:5-14.
23. Nabhani J, Ahmadi H, Schuckman AK, et al. Cost Analysis of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer. Eur Urol Focus. 2016; 2:92-6.
24. Chipollini J, Tang DH, Hussein K, et al. Does Implementing an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Increase Hospital Charges? Comparisons From a Radical Cystectomy Program at a Specialty Cancer Center. Urology. 2017; 105:108-12.
25. Semerjian A, Milbar N, Kates M, et al. Hospital Charges and Length of Stay Following Radical Cystectomy in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Era. Urology. 2018; 111:86-91.
26. Shi J, Chen S, Nie J, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol optimizes results and cost of laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy. BMC Surg. 2025; 25.
27. Kitamura K, Miyoshi Y, Ieda T, et al. Impact of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol on the Perioperative Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Radical Cystectomy. J Clin Med. 2025; 14:3082.
28. Pramod S, Safriadi F, Hernowo B, et al. Modified enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus nonenhanced recovery after surgery in radical cystectomy surgery (preliminary study). Urol Sci. 2020; 31:177-82.
29. Nabi AT, Muttu J, Chhaparwal A, et al. Implications of β thalassemia on oral health status in patients: A cross sectional study. J Family Med Prim Care. 2022; 11:1174-8
30. Long X, Du X, Wang Y, et al. Evidence-based practice and future development of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in urology: a multidimensional assessment based on the GRADE system. J Robot Surg. 2025; 19:358.
31. Golder HJ, Papalois V. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: History, Key Advancements and Developments in Transplant Surgery. J Clin Med. 2021; 10:1634.
32. Chinese Society of Surgery, Chinese Society of Anesthesiology. Clinical Practice Guidelines for ERAS in China. Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital 2021;12:624-31.
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
JI conceived and designed the study. AY contributed to manuscript drafting. AY and JI completed the revisions, and approved the final version for publication.
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
The data used in this study are derived from previously published articles that are publicly available. All included studies can be accessed through public scientific databases and journal publications cited in the reference list.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.