Fast-track colonic surgery: status and perspectives

Similar clinical outcome after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a conventional or accelerated care program: a randomized, controlled study of 40 patients

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Over the last 5 years, there has been increasing interest in reducing length of hospitalization (LOS) through accelerated programs. We examined the clinical outcome of patients undergoing a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in an accelerated care program (A group) compared to a conventional care program (C group).

METHODS

40 patients randomized into 2 groups were included (A group: 17 patients; C group: 23 patients). Nausea, micturition problems, lower limb dysfunction, pain (VAS), opiate consumption, Knee Society score (KSS), day of discharge, rehospitalization within 3 months, contact with a general physician or nurse, and level of satisfaction were registered. Patients in the A group attended an information meeting. An intraarticular infiltration with Marcaine and adrenaline was used peroperatively. Patients in the C group had an epidural pump for 2 or 3 days. Patients in the A program were treated with NSAID and paracetamol postoperatively. Opiates were used in both groups in the case of breakthrough pain. The patients were considered ready for discharge when they were able to climb stairs to the second floor within 5 min.

RESULTS

The median length of stay was 1 (1-3) day in the A group and 6 (4-7) days in the C group. The median pain score (VAS) at day 0 was 1 (0-3) in the A group and 5 (0-8) in the C group (p < 0.001). 11/23 of the patients in the C group had weakness of the lower limbs on day 1 due to the epidural; all patients in the A group were exercising on the day of the operation. Micturition problems necessitating intermediate catherization were more frequent in patients in the C program (19/23) than in patients in the A programme (3/17) (p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups concerning nausea, average pain on days 1 and 2, use of opioids (during the first week postoperatively), KSS, contact with primary sector, level of satisfaction, or level of confidence.

INTERPRETATION

We achieved a reduction in LOS of 5 days without affecting the clinical outcome.

Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery

BACKGROUND

Major abdominal and pelvic surgery carries a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The efficacy of thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) administered during the in-hospital period is well documented, but the optimal duration of thromboprophylaxis after surgery remains controversial. Some studies suggest that patients undergoing major abdominal surgery benefit from prolongation of the thromboprophylaxis to 1 month after surgery. No systematic review on prolonged thromboprophylaxis after major abdominal or pelvic surgery has been published.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH for at least 1 month after abdominal or pelvic surgery with thromboprophylaxis administered during the in-hospital period only in preventing late VTE.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches were performed January 2008 in the Medline, Embase, Lilacs, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Abstract books from major congresses addressing thromboembolism were hand searched, as were reference lists from studies of relevance.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed both randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing prolonged thromboprophylaxis with any anti-thrombotic agent with placebo and/or thromboprophylaxis during the admission period only. The patient population in the trials were patients undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery. The outcome measures included VTE (deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)) as assessed by objective means (ascending bilateral venography, ultrasonography, pulmonary ventilation/perfusion scintigraphy, spiral CT scan or autopsy). Studies exclusively reporting on clinical diagnosis of VTE, without objective confirmation were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The identification of studies and data extraction were performed by the authors. Outcomes were VTE (DVT or PE) assessed by objective means. Safety outcome were defined as bleeding complications and mortality within 3 months after surgery.

MAIN RESULTS

The search exclusively detected trials evaluating prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH as compared to control or placebo. 133 studies were found in the searches, of which only 4 were found eligible for inclusion, and 129 were excluded. The incidence of overall VTE after major abdominal or pelvic surgery was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 11.2% - 17.8%) in the control group as compared to 6.1% (95% CI 4.0% - 8.7%) in the patients receiving out-of-hospital LMWH. This difference was statistically significant, Peto Odds Ratio 0.41 (95% CI 0.26 -0.63), P < 0.0005. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH was also associated with a statistically significant reduction of even the incidence of symptomatic VTE from 1.7% (95% CI 0.8% - 3.4%) in the control group to 0.2 % (95% CI 0.0% - 1.2%) in patients receiving prolonged thromboprophylaxis, Peto Odds ratio 0.22 (95% CI 0.06 -0.80), P = 0.02. The respective incidence of bleeding in the control and LMWH group were 3.7% (95% CI 2.4% -5.5%) and 4.1% (95% CI 2.7% - 6.0%), Peto Odds ratio 1.11 (95% CI 0.62 - 1.97), P = 0.73. There was no significant heterogeneity detected as regards to outcome parameters reported in the included trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduces the risk of VTE compared to thromboprophylaxis during hospital admittance only, without increasing bleeding complications after major abdominal or pelvic surgery.

Implementation of the scientific evidence into daily practice--example from fast-track colonic cancer surgery

OBJECTIVE

To report the implementation and results of fast-track surgery for colonic cancer in the daily routine.

METHOD

A total of 131 consecutive patients scheduled for elective colonic cancer resections entered a fast-track perioperative course after thorough information. The regimen contained: no preoperative bowel cleansing, transverse and small abdominal incisions, no drains nor tubes, mobilization and normal meal the evening on the day of surgery, epidural analgesia, oral laxatives, and a planned discharge on postoperative day 3.

RESULTS

Median number of days postoperative in hospital were 4 days (range 1-46). Eighty-nine per cent experienced an uncomplicated course, 3% were readmitted within 30 days, and the 30-day mortality was 3.8%.

CONCLUSION

Fast-track surgery is feasible in an unselected patient population scheduled for elective colon cancer resections without compromising quality.

The Use of Epidural Analgesia in a New Zealand Tertiary Hospital before and after Publication of the Master Study

We audited the total number of perioperative epidural techniques performed at Christchurch Hospital, New Zealand, for three years, before and after The Lancet published the MASTER Anaesthesia Trial in 2002. We also looked specifically at the number of epidural anaesthetic and analgesic techniques performed in combination with general anaesthesia for colonic surgery over the same period.

In both cases we found a statistically significant fall in epidural rate in the years after the publication (P<0.001). A subsequent survey of local specialist anaesthetists, who have worked throughout this period, revealed the majority (75%) were knowingly performing fewer epidural techniques and that the findings of the MASTER Anaesthesia Trial had influenced their decisions.

Readmission rates after a planned hospital stay of 2 versus 3 days in fast-track colonic surgery

Background

Initial programmes of fast-track open colonic surgery with a planned 2-day postoperative hospital stay have had a high readmission rate (about 20 per cent). The aim of this large, consecutive series was to compare readmission rates after a fast-track open colonic surgery programme with a planned hospital stay of 2 versus 3 days.

Methods

The study included 541 consecutive colonic resections from one surgical department with a structured care programme, including well defined discharge criteria, between April 1997 and December 2005. The planned hospital stay was increased from 2 to 3 days from August 2004. All patients were examined 8 and 30 days after surgery.

Results

Readmission rates fell from 20·1 per cent in 408 patients with a planned 2-day hospital stay (period 1) to 11·3 per cent in 133 patients with a planned 3-day hospital stay (period 2) (P &lt; 0·020). Median length of primary hospital stay was 2 and 3 days, median stay after readmission was 5 and 5·5 days, and median (mean) total stay was 3 (5·6) and 3 (5·7) days in periods 1 and 2 respectively. The readmission rate in period 2 was lower because there were fewer readmissions for short-term observation or social reasons. There was no difference in type and incidence of morbidity between the two periods.

Conclusion

Readmission after fast-track open colonic resection was reduced by planning discharge 3 instead of 2 days after surgery, with the same discharge criteria.

Regional anaesthesia and perioperative outcome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The ongoing debate on the outcome benefits of regional anaesthesia and analgesia over general anaesthesia and systemic analgesia has led to a large number of recently published papers, in particular systematic reviews and meta-analyses that justify a review of the current status of the debate.

RECENT FINDINGS

Meta-analyses have shown consistently improved analgesia with epidural techniques, but the results are by far less consistent with regard to other outcomes, in particular morbidity and mortality. Specific outcomes in specific types of surgery, however, such as bowel recovery after abdominal surgery, can be improved by neuraxial blockade, which also remains the technique of choice for obstetric analgesia and anaesthesia. In certain indications, peripheral nerve blocks may have the potential to replace neuraxial blocks while maintaining the benefits of the regional technique, such as paravertebral blocks for thoracotomies.

SUMMARY

Although there are a considerable number of recent publications on the topic, the complex issues around the effect of regional anaesthesia on outcome is not completely resolved, possibly because the data are often not procedure specific. In addition, however, it may be that our current literature cannot provide a definitive answer.

Future perspectives and research initiatives in fast-track surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Major surgery is still followed by a risk of morbidity, a need for hospitalisation and convalescence. Fast-track surgery has been introduced as a coordinated effort to combine unimodal evidence-based principles of care into a multi-modal effort to enhance recovery. The aim of this article was to update recent data on fast-track abdominal surgery and outline future strategies for research.

RESULTS

The data from fast-track colonic resection support the validity of the concept because pain, ileus, cardiopulmonary function and muscle function were all improved, compared with traditional treatment and with reduced post-operative fatigue and convalescence. Although less data is available, similar positive results may be achieved in other types of major surgery. Current research initiatives include improved multi-modal non-opioid analgesia, rational principles for perioperative fluid management, pharmacological reduction of surgical stress responses and the role of laparoscopic procedures within the fast-track concept.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-track surgery has evolved as a valid concept to improve post-operative outcome. Further progress may be expected based upon intensified research within perioperative pathophysiology and a multi-disciplinary collaboration between surgeons, anaesthesiologists and surgical nurses.

Laparoscopic vs. open surgery for diverticular disease: a meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies

PURPOSE

This study was designed to compare outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with diverticular disease by using meta-analytic techniques.

METHODS

Comparative studies published between 1996 and 2004 of open vs. laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease were included. The end points that were evaluated are operative and functional outcomes and adverse events. A random effects model was used during analysis of these outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed and sensitivity analysis was performed to account for bias in patient selection.

RESULTS

Twelve nonrandomized studies, incorporating 19,608 patients, were included in the analysis. One study with 18,444 patients accounted for 94.5 percent of the total sample. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in reduced infective (odds ratio, 0.61; P = 0.01), pulmonary (odds ratio, 0.4; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal tract (odds ratio, 0.75; P = 0.03), and cardiovascular complications (odds ratio, 0.28; P = 0.0008) with no significant heterogeneity. Operative time was longer with laparoscopic surgery (weighted mean difference, 67.59; P = 0.04), and length of stay was significantly shorter (weighted mean difference, -3.81; P < 0.0001); however, these outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity. These results remained significant throughout all the sensitivity analyses except when evaluating high-quality studies (when the study with 18,444 patients was excluded), in which only blood loss and length of stay were significantly in favor of the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results for patients selected for laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery for diverticular disease are equivalent with a potential reduction in complications and hospital stay. Laparoscopic surgery for diverticular disease performed by appropriately experienced surgeons in the elective setting may be safe and feasible; because of the potential of significant bias arising from the included studies, a randomized, controlled trial is recommended.