Objective: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) clinical pathways in¦colorectal surgery are known to reduce postoperative complications leading¦to shortened hospital stay. However, the implementation of such an ERAS¦pathway requires time and financial investment. This study evaluates whether¦the savings related to the reduction in the length of stay (LOS) outweigh the¦costs of implementing an ERAS pathway.¦Methods: An ERAS pathway was implemented in our institution for colorectal¦surgery. The first 50 consecutive patients subjected to this ERAS pathway¦(ERAS group) were compared to 50 consecutive patients that were operated one¦year before its introduction (control group). Primary LOS, readmission within¦30 days, and total costs based on costs per day were compared. The mean costs¦per day were: 3,263 CHF for intensive care, 1,152 CHF for intermediate care,¦and 728 CHF for basic care.¦Results: Primary LOS was shorter in the ERAS group than in the control¦group: median 7 (interquartile range 5-12·25) versus 10 (7-18) days (P =¦0·0025). The readmission within 30 postoperative days was similar in both¦groups (2 patients each). In the ERAS group, the added primary LOS was¦485 days (379 in basic care, 99 in intermediate care, 7 in intensive care) compared¦to 706 days in the control group (533 in basic care, 146 in intermediate care,¦27 in intensive care). The total costs were significantly lower for the 50 ERAS¦patients compared to the control group: 412,801 CHF versus 644,317 CHF (P <¦0·01). Investments required for the 50 first ERAS patients were approximately¦83,544 CHF, including 348 working hours as well a full-time ERAS dedicated¦nurse. The overall cost saving was approximately 2,959 CHF per patient.¦Conclusion: Implementation of an ERAS pathway significantly reduced LOS¦after colorectal surgery. The financial investment to introduce and maintain¦such a pathway is clearly inferior to the cost-saving of reduced hospital stay.