Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme

Implementing early feeding after liver transplant using implementation frameworks: A multimethod study

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines (EBGs) in the nutrition management of advanced liver disease and enhanced recovery after surgery recommendations state that normal diet should recommence 12-24 h following liver transplantation. This study aimed to compare postoperative nutrition practices to guideline recommendations, explore clinician perceptions regarding feeding after transplant surgery, and implement and evaluate strategies to improve postoperative nutrition practices.

METHODS

A pre-post multimethod implementation study was undertaken, guided by the knowledge-to-action framework. A retrospective chart audit of postoperative dietary practice and semistructured interviews with clinicians were undertaken. Implementation strategies were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change matching tool and then evaluated.

RESULTS

An evidence-practice gap was identified, with the median day to initiation of nutrition (free-fluid or full diet) on postoperative day (POD) 2 and only 25% of patients aligning with the EBGs. Clinician interviews identified belief in the importance of nutrition, with variation in surgical practice in relation to early nutrition, competing clinical priorities, and vulnerabilities in communication contributing to delays in returning to feeding. An endorsed postoperative nutrition protocol was implemented along with a suite of theory- and stakeholder-informed intervention strategies. Following implementation, the median time to initiate nutrition reduced to POD1 and alignment with EBGs improved to 60%.

CONCLUSION

This study used implementation frameworks and strategies to understand, implement, and improve early feeding practices in line with EBGs after liver transplant. Ongoing sustainability of practice change as well as the impact on clinical outcomes have yet to be determined.

The impact of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on opioid consumption and postoperative pain levels in elective spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols were developed to counteract the adverse effects of the surgical stress response, aiming for quicker postoperative recovery. Initially applied in abdominal surgeries, ERAS principles have extended to orthopedic spine surgery, but research in this area is still in its infancy. The current study investigated the impact of ERAS on postoperative pain and opioid consumption in elective spine surgeries.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing elective spine surgery from May 2019 to July 2020. Patients were categorized into two groups: those enrolled in the ERAS pathway and those adhering to traditional surgical protocols. Data on demographics, comorbidities, length of stay (LOS), surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes were collected. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), while opioid utilization was quantified in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). NRS and MME were averaged for each patient across all days under observation. Differences in outcomes between groups (ERAS vs. treatment as usual) were tested using the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson's or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables.

RESULTS

The median of patient's mean daily NRS scores for postoperative pain were not statistically significantly different between groups (median = 5.55 (ERAS) and 5.28 (non-ERAS), p=.2). Additionally, the median of patients' mean daily levels of MME were similar between groups (median = 17.24 (ERAS) and 16.44 (non-ERAS), p=.3) ERAS patients experienced notably shorter LOS (median=2 days) than their non-ERAS counterparts (median=3 days, p=.001). The effect of ERAS was moderated by whether the patient had ACDF surgery. ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had ACDF surgery had 1.64 lower average NRS (p=.006). ERAS (vs. non-ERAS) patients who had a different surgery had 0.72 higher average NRS (p=.02) but had almost half the length of stay, on average (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study underscores the dynamic nature of ERAS protocols within the realm of spine surgery. While ERAS demonstrates advantages such as reduced LOS and improved patient-reported outcomes, it requires careful implementation and customization to address the specific demands of each surgical discipline. The potential to expedite recovery, optimize resource utilization, and enhance patient satisfaction cannot be overstated. However, the fine balance between achieving these benefits and ensuring comprehensive patient care, especially in the context of postoperative pain management, must be maintained. As ERAS continues to evolve and find its place in diverse surgical domains, it is crucial for healthcare providers to remain attentive to patient needs, adapting ERAS protocols to suit individual patient populations and surgical contexts.

Cost saving in implementing ERAS protocol in emergency abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) protocol is now proposed as the standard of care in elective major abdominal surgery. Implementation of the ERAS protocol in emergency setting has been proposed but his economic impact has not been investigated. Aim of this study was to evaluate the cost saving of implementing ERAS in abdominal emergency surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

A group of 80 consecutive patients treated by ERAS protocol for gastrointestinal emergency surgery in 2021 was compared with an analogue group of 75 consecutive patients treated by the same surgery the year before implementation of ERAS protocol. Adhesion to postoperative items, length of stay, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Cost saving analysis was performed.

RESULTS

50% Adhesion to postoperative items was reached on day 2 in the ERAS group in mean. Laparoscopic approach was 40 vs 12% in ERAS and control group respectively (p ,002). Length of stay was shorter in ERAS group by 3 days (9 vs 12 days p ,002). Morbidity and mortality rate were similar in both groups. The ERAS group had a mean cost saving of 1022,78 € per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol implementation in the abdominal emergency setting is cost effective resulting in a significant shorter length of stay and cost saving per patient.

Long-term outcomes in elderly patients after elective surgery for colorectal cancer within an ERAS protocol: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

The number of elderly patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. Considering short life expectancy and multiple comorbidities, surgery may not always be the best treatment option.

METHODS

We included all consecutive patients aged 80 years and older who underwent elective resection for CRC following Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol between January 2011 and May 2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival, secondary endpoints were 30-day morbidity, and the rate of return to pre-operative living conditions 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients were included. Mean age was 84.6 ± 3.6 years, 49 patients (52%) were female. Most patients (77.6%) were ASA score ≥ 3. Laparoscopic resections were performed in 85 patients (90.4%), involving 69 (73.4%) colonic and 25 (26.6%) rectal resections. A stoma was constructed in 22 patients (23%), and reversed in 12 (54.5%). Twenty-two patients (23.4%) experienced a Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complication, and 2 patients (2.1%) died. The median length of hospital stay was 8 (interquartiles: 6-15) days. Sixty-six patients (70.2%) were discharged home directly and 26 (27.7%) to rehabilitation or postacute care institutes. At three months after surgery, eighty-two patients (96.5%) returned to their pre-operative living conditions directly or after short-term rehabilitation. Mean follow-up was 53 ± 33 months, estimated 5-year overall survival was 60.3% (95%CI 49.5-71.1%), and disease-free survival was 86.3% (95%CI 78.1-94.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that elderly patients undergoing elective surgery have a high potential to return to preoperative living conditions and good overall- and disease-free survivals, despite significant postoperative morbidity.

Influence of Preoperative Educational Intervention for Patients Undergoing Fecal Ostomy Surgery: A Comparison Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This aim of this study was to compare the impact on hospital stay and short-term overall complications prior to and following the introduction of an outpatient preoperative ostomy education program to an existing inpatient ostomy education program.

DESIGN

A comparison cohort study.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

One hundred thirty-eight consecutive patients undergoing ostomy surgery were included. One group (n = 65, 47%) was given an experimental preoperative ostomy education intervention, along with standard care including a postoperative educational intervention during the initial hospital course. A second group (n = 73, 53%) received the same standardized education in the postoperative period. Data were collected from a single tertiary center located in Seville, Spain, during a 12-month period between July 2014 and June 2015.

METHODS

Data were collected in 2 phases. Data from participants undergoing postoperative (standard) education were collected retrospectively. Data for the group receiving preoperative education were collective prospectively. Outcome variables were postoperative length of stay, surgical complications (severity was assessed by the Clavien-Dindo grading system), subsequent interventions, and readmission rates.

RESULTS

Analysis indicated no differences between the average length of postoperative hospital stay (12.32 days in the preoperative education group vs 12.76 days in the postoperative education group, P = .401). In contrast, overall complications, mortality, and readmission rates were significantly higher in the preoperative education program group (P = .027, P = .047, and P = .046, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Delivering a standardized educational intervention during the preoperative period versus postoperative education delivery during the ostomy surgery hospital course did not reduce length of stay. Analysis indicated that overall complications, mortality, and readmission rates were significantly higher in the preoperative education program group but we hypothesize that intervening factors may have influenced these outcomes.

The effect of bed exercises following major abdominal surgery on early ambulation, mobilization, pain and anxiety: A randomized-controlled trial

This randomized-controlled trial aimed to investigate the effect of bed exercises on postoperative anxiety, pain, early ambulation and mobilization. This study was conducted with a randomized-controlled trial design and in the general surgical clinic of a research and training hospital. A total of 120 patients (60 in the experimental group and 60 in the control group) scheduled for major abdominal surgery took part in the study. The data were collected using a patient information form, the Anxiety Specific to Surgery Questionnaire and the Visual Analog Scale through face-to-face interviews. The patients in the experimental group performed 15-min bed exercises on the day of their operation, as well as on the postoperative first and second days, and the control group underwent only the routinely performed procedures in the clinic. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics, analysis of variance and t-tests. The sample of our study included major abdominal surgery patients. Ambulation was achieved at a mean time of 4 h earlier in the experimental group. On the postoperative first and second days, the patients in the experimental group had mean mobilization durations that were approximately 2 h longer compared with the patients in the control group. Moreover, the postoperative pain and anxiety levels of the patients in the experimental group were significantly lower than those of the patients in the control group (p < 0.05). We recommend that bed exercises be performed to lower anxiety and pain severity, achieve early ambulation and increase the duration of mobilization among patients following major abdominal surgery.

Factors Influencing Postoperative Recovery Time of Patients With Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

To explore the factors associated with prolonged enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) time in gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective of patients with gastric cancer who received ERAS at our hospital between 01/2014 and 01/2022. The outcome was prolonged ERAS time. Factors associated with prolonged ERAS time of patients undergoing gastric cancer surgery were analyzed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 663 patients, 182 (27.6%) patients had a prolonged ERAS time. The postoperative time to the first flatus time was 2.8 ± 1.2 days. There were 41 (6.2%) patients with intestinal obstruction, 25 (3.8%) with abdominal infection, and four (0.5%) with anastomotic leakage. The multivariable analysis showed that age >80 years (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.31-4.40, P = 0.048), laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.21-0.95, P = 0.035), intraoperative jejunostomy (OR = 334.60, 95% CI: 2.81-39,831.90, P = 0.017), postoperative time to the first flatus time (OR = 3.79, 95% CI: 1.23-11.68, P = 0.021), total gastrectomy (OR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.01-0.94, P = 0.044), and patient compliance with ERAS (OR = 0.01, 95% CI: 0-0.09, P < 0.001) were independently associated with prolonged ERAS time.

CONCLUSIONS

Age >80 years, laparoscopic surgery, intraoperative jejunostomy, postoperative time to the first flatus time, total gastrectomy, and patient compliance with ERAS might be factors associated with prolonged ERAS time in gastric cancer patients.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Implementing Enhanced Perioperative Care in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

ERAS pathway has been proposed as the standard of care in elective abdominal surgery. Guidelines on ERAS in emergency surgery have been recently published; however, few evidences are still available in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol in a large cohort of patients undergoing emergency surgery and to identify possible factors impacting postoperative protocol compliance.

METHODS

This is a prospective multicenter observational study including patients who underwent major emergency general surgery for either intra-abdominal infection or intestinal obstruction. The primary endpoint of the study is the adherence to ERAS postoperative protocol. Secondary endpoints are 30-day mortality and morbidity rates, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 589 patients were enrolled in the study, 256 (43.5%) of them underwent intestinal resection with anastomosis. Major complications occurred in 92 (15.6%) patients and 30-day mortality was 6.3%. Median adherence occurred on postoperative day (POD) 1 for naso-gastric tube removal, on POD 2 for mobilization and urinary catheter removal, and on POD 3 for oral intake and i.v. fluid suspension. Laparoscopy was significantly associated with adherence to postoperative protocol, whereas operative fluid infusion > 12 mL/Kg/h, preoperative hyperglycemia, presence of a drain, duration of surgery and major complications showed a negative association.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study supports that an enhanced recovery protocol in emergency surgery is feasible and safe. Laparoscopy was associated with an earlier recovery, whereas preoperative hyperglycemia, fluid overload, and abdominal drain were associated with a delayed recovery.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of minimally invasive, robotic and open approaches in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

PURPOSE

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic (LAP), laparoscopic-assisted (LAPA), hand-assisted laparoscopic (HAL), and robotic colorectal surgery using a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the cost-effectiveness of comparing the five different approaches in colorectal surgery were included in a literature search until September 2022. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were reported for total costs, surgical costs, operating time, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of surgical approaches into homogeneous clusters. The cophenetic correlation coefficient (cc) was evaluated to identify the most cost-effective clustering method. The primary outcomes assessed were: costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy, measuring total costs against postoperative complications, mortality rate, and LOS, respectively.

RESULTS

22 RCTs with 4239 patients were included. Open surgery had the lowest total costs, surgical costs, and operating time but the longest LOS and most postoperative complications. LOS was significantly decreased in LAP compared to open surgery (OR 0.67, 95% CrI 0.46-0.96). Robotic surgery resulted in the highest total costs, surgical costs, and most extended operative duration but the shortest LOS and lowest mortality. LAPA and robotic surgery were superior in the costs-morbidity analysis. HAL was associated with the worst costs-mortality profile. LAP, LAPA, and HAL were better in terms of costs-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, LAP and LAPA are the most cost-effective approaches for colorectal surgery in terms of overall postoperative complications, mortality, and LOS.

Overall survival comparing laparoscopic to open surgery for right-sided colon cancer: propensity score inverse probability weighting population study

BACKGROUND

This retrospective cohort study reports on overall survival and short-term complications, comparing laparoscopic to open resection for right-sided colon cancers. It is one of the largest studies in the field with generalizable population-level results.

METHOD

This study on right sided colon cancers used prospectively collected administrative data linked to a death registry over 5 years from 2014 to 2018. Exclusion criteria were private patients, patients aged less than 10 years, synchronous and metachronous cancers. Propensity score weighting was used to balance cohorts and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the hazard of death. In addition, logistic regression analysis was used to assess secondary outcomes. For completeness, unweighted data was similarly analysed.

RESULTS

There were 3603 patients identified for the analysis: 1729 open patients and 1874 laparoscopic patients. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis of the weighted data showed no evidence of a statistically significant effect of laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery on overall survival for right-sided colon cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04, P = 0.112). The weighted data showed lower odds of prolonged length of stay, return to theatre and discharge destination other than home in the laparoscopic cohort compared to the open cohort. There was no difference in inpatient mortality. Unweighted results were similar.

CONCLUSION

This study validates the use of laparoscopic surgery for right-sided colon cancer, showing similar long-term overall survival and inpatient mortality compared to open surgery. It is superior to open surgery for the short-term outcomes of LOS, return to theatre and discharge destination other than home.

Enhanced recovery program - Impact of ASA grade on length of hospital stay in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasties

INTRODUCTION

Total hip and knee arthroplasties are two of the most quality of life enhancing orthopedic procedures performed. Enhanced recovery (ER) programs have been implemented in orthopedic surgery and have helped optimize preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative factors to reduce the physiological and psychological stress of surgery. The American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] classification system is now the most widely collected system for measuring physical health status by hip and knee arthroplasty registries worldwide. The aim of the study is to determine whether the ASA score is a predictive of length of hospital stay in patients undergoing hip and knee surgeries in elective setting.

METHODS

Retrospective data is collected from a consecutive series of 441 charts and Irish National Orthopedics Register (INOR) for patients who underwent elective primary hip & knee replacements from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 in Our Lady's Hospital, Navan. All these patients were assigned either ASA Class 2 or 3 in preoperative assessment.

RESULTS

Total 441 patients were included. Patients with ASA 2 (319 patients of the total patient for the same period), average length of hospital stay was 4.8 ± 1.2 days, whereas for patients with ASA 3 (122 patients of the total), length of hospital stay was 6.5 ± 2.3 with mean difference between two groups was 1.7 days (95% confidence interval of this difference).

CONCLUSION

Patients with ASA 2 stayed shorter in the hospital compared to patients with ASA 3. Therefore, we recommend that pre-operative patients' optimization to downgrade a patient from an ASA 3 to ASA 2, but prospective analysis would be beneficial to examine the resource implications of such an initiative as well as patient outcomes with longer term follow up.

Outcomes of open vs laparoscopic vs robotic vs transanal total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer can be achieved using open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or transanal techniques (TaTME). However, the optimal approach for access remains controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to assess operative and oncological outcomes of all four surgical techniques.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched systematically from inception to September 2020, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two TME surgical techniques. A network meta-analysis using a Bayesian random-effects framework and mixed treatment comparison was performed. Primary outcomes were the rate of clear circumferential resection margin (CRM), defined as > 1 mm from the closest tumour to the cut edge of the tissue, and completeness of mesorectal excision. Secondary outcomes included radial and distal resection margin distance, postoperative complications, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was used to rank the relative effectiveness of each intervention for each outcome. The higher the SUCRA value, the higher the likelihood that the intervention is in the top rank or one of the top ranks.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 6151 patients were included. Compared with OpTME, there was no difference in the rates of clear CRM: LapTME RR = 0.99 (95% (Credible interval) CrI 0.97-1.0); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.96-1.1). There was no difference in the rates of complete mesorectal excision: LapTME RR = 0.98 (95% CrI 0.98-1.1); RoTME RR = 1.1 (95% CrI 0.98-1.4); TaTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.91-1.2). RoTME was associated with improved distal resection margin distance compared to other techniques (SUCRA 99%). LapTME had a higher rate of conversion to open surgery when compared with RoTME: RoTME RR = 0.23 (95% CrI 0.034-0.70). Length of stay was shortest in RoTME compared to other surgical approaches: OpTME mean difference in days (MD) 3.3 (95% CrI 0.12-6.0); LapTME MD 1.7 (95% CrI - 1.1-4.4); TaTME MD 1.3 (95% CrI - 5.2-7.4). There were no differences in 5-year overall survival (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.74, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.7, 95% CrI 0.79, 3.4), disease-free survival rates (LapTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.76, 1.4; TaTME HR 1.1, 95% CrI 0.52, 2.4), or anastomotic leakage (LapTME RR = 0.92 (95% CrI 0.63, 1.1); RoTME RR = 1.0 (95% CrI 0.48, 1.8); TaTME RR = 0.53 (95% CrI 0.19, 1.2). The overall quality of evidence as per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessments across all outcomes including primary and secondary outcomes was deemed low.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients eligible for a RCT, RoTME achieved improved distal resection margin distance and a shorter length of hospital stay. No other differences were observed in oncological or recovery parameters between (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME), or trans-anal TME (TaTME). However, the overall quality of evidence across all outcomes was deemed low.

Benchmarks in colorectal surgery: multinational study to define quality thresholds in high and low anterior resection

BACKGROUND

Benchmark comparisons in surgery allow identification of gaps in the quality of care provided. The aim of this study was to determine quality thresholds for high (HAR) and low (LAR) anterior resections in colorectal cancer surgery by applying the concept of benchmarking.

METHODS

This 5-year multinational retrospective study included patients who underwent anterior resection for cancer in 19 high-volume centres on five continents. Benchmarks were defined for 11 relevant postoperative variables at discharge, 3 months, and 6 months (for LAR). Benchmarks were calculated for two separate cohorts: patients without (ideal) and those with (non-ideal) outcome-relevant co-morbidities. Benchmark cut-offs were defined as the 75th percentile of each centre's median value.

RESULTS

A total of 3903 patients who underwent HAR and 3726 who had LAR for cancer were analysed. After 3 months' follow-up, the mortality benchmark in HAR for ideal and non-ideal patients was 0.0 versus 3.0 per cent, and in LAR it was 0.0 versus 2.2 per cent. Benchmark results for anastomotic leakage were 5.0 versus 6.9 per cent for HAR, and 13.6 versus 11.8 per cent for LAR. The overall morbidity benchmark in HAR was a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®) score of 8.6 versus 14.7, and that for LAR was CCI® score 11.9 versus 18.3.

CONCLUSION

Regular comparison of individual-surgeon or -unit outcome data against benchmark thresholds may identify gaps in care quality that can improve patient outcome.

Temporary vs. permanent stoma: factors associated with the development of complications and costs for rectal cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare in-hospital complication rates and treatment costs between rectal cancer patients receiving permanent and temporary stomas. Surgical complications and costs associated with permanent stoma formation are still poorly understood. While choosing between the two stoma options is usually based on clinical and technical factors, disparities exist.

METHODS

Patients with rectal cancer, stoma formation, complications, and cost of care were identified from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration Discharge Database. Rectal cancer patients who underwent elective surgery and received a permanent or temporary stoma were identified using ICD-10 codes. Patients who underwent colostomy with resection were included in the "Permanent stoma" group, and those who underwent "resection with ileostomy" were included in the "temporary stoma" group. Multivariable models compared patients receiving temporary vs. permanent stomas.

RESULTS

Regression models revealed no difference in the odds of having a complication between patients who obtained permanent versus temporary stoma (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.70-1.32). Further, after adjusting for the number of surgeries, demographic variables, socioeconomic and regional factors, comorbidities, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference between permanent and temporary stomas for rectal cancer (ß - 0.05, p = 0.03) in the log cost of creating a permanent stoma.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest there are no differences associated with complications, and reduced cost for permanent compared to temporary stomas. Increased costs are also associated with receiving minimally invasive surgery. As a result, disparities associated with receipt of MIS could ultimately influence the type of stoma received.

The Global States and Hotspots of ERAS Research From 2000 to 2020: A Bibliometric and Visualized Study

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has been implemented in surgeries for more than 20 years, this study investigated the global states and hotspots of ERAS research.

Methods

Based on the Web of Science database, a bibliometric and visualized study of original ERAS research from 2000 to 2020 was performed, including the trends of publications and citations; distribution of countries, authors, institutions, sources; study design, level of evidence, served surgeries and surgical disciplines. Hotspots were revealed by research interests and keywords.

Results

Within the field of original ERAS research, there was a rising trend in annual publications and citations. The USA was the greatest contributor. Kehlet, H, University of Copenhagen were the most influential author and institution, respectively. British Journal of Surgery and Annals of Surgery were the most cited journals. Though there were more prospective designs, more than half of the studies presented level IV evidence and had fewer citations and citation densities compared to that of level II and level III. ERAS protocol was overwhelmingly implemented in colorectal surgeries. Most studies focused on elements of ERAS, the top three research interests were “length of stay,” “pain management,” and “complications.” In recent years, bariatric surgery, compliance with ERAS, and feasibility in the elderly were new hotspots.

Conclusion

Revealing the global states and hotspots can help researchers better understand the trends in ERAS research. The USA was the greatest contributor to ERAS research. Kehlet, H, was the most influential author in the field. Bariatric surgery, compliance with ERAS, and feasibility in the elderly represent the new trend of ERAS research. Most of the ERAS research had a low evidence levels, studies with high-level evidence are still required in this field.

Self-assembling peptide haemostatic gel reduces incidence of pelvic collection after total mesorectal excision: Prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Pelvic surgery has the potential to leave behind a large raw surface, which can bleed and ooze postoperatively. The adoption of precision surgical approach for rectal cancers has led to reduction in blood loss. We aimed to assess 1) the feasibility and 2) the safety of using a self-assembling peptide (SAP) haemostatic agent (PuraStat®) after rectal cancer surgery to reduce the incidence of pelvic collections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective cohort pilot study compared the results of 25 consecutive cases of total mesorectal excision (TME) with use of 5-10 ml of SAP, and 25 consecutive cases without PuraStat® application (CON, control group). The groups were compared for complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III and IV classification), postoperative drain output and length of hospital stay (LOS). Statistical analysis was carried out using paired samples T test and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (SAP = 25, CON = 25) were enrolled into this study. Mean drain outputs (ml) on day 1, day 2 and day 3 were 60 ± 18, 89 ± 42 and 64 ± 45 in SAP group, and 102 ± 31, 95 ± 52, 66 ± 37 in CON group. This was significantly better for SAP group in day one after surgery. The mean LOS was shorter in SAP group (5.7 versus 7.4 days in CON, p 0.04). Clavien-Dindo III & IV complications were seen in two and five cases respectively (p 0.18). R0 resection rate (p 0.32) and lymph node harvest (p 0.13) were similar in both groups. There were no complications seen in relation to the application of the SAP.

CONCLUSIONS

These initial data suggest that SAP is a safe product, and feasible to apply in the pelvis after TME surgery. It appears to shorten the LOS and reduce the postoperative drain output and may reduce the incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III & IV complications.

Hospital Costs and Long-term Survival of Patients Enrolled in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Open Liver Resection: Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

The clinical benefits of enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) have been extensively researched, but few studies have evaluated their cost-effectiveness. Our ERP for open liver resection is based closely on the guidelines produced by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (2016). This study follows on from a previous randomized controlled trial. We also undertook a long-term follow-up of the patients enrolled in the original trial alongside an analysis of the associated health economics.

Objective

We aimed to undertake a health economic and long-term survival analysis as part of a trial investigating the implementation of an ERP for open liver resection.

Methods

The enhanced recovery elements utilized included extra preoperative education, carbohydrate loading, oral nutritional supplements, postresection goal-directed fluid therapy (LiDCOrapid), early mobilization, and physiotherapy (twice a day compared with once per day in the standard care group). A decision-analytic model was used to compare the study endpoints for ERP versus standard care provided to patients undergoing open liver resection. Outcomes obtained included costs per life-years gained. Resource use and costs were estimated from the perspective of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. A decision tree and Markov model were constructed using results from our earlier trial and augmented by external data from other published clinical trials. Long-term follow-up was also undertaken for up to 5 years after the surgery, and data were analyzed to ascertain if the ERP conferred any benefit on long-term survival.

Results

Patients receiving ERP had an average life expectancy of 6.9 years versus 6.1 years in the standard care group. The overall costs were £9538.279 (£1=US $1.60) for ERP and £14,793.05 for standard treatment. This results in a cost-effectiveness ratio of –£6748.33/QALY. Patients receiving ERP required fewer visits to their general practitioner (P=.006) and required lesser help at home with day-to-day activities (P=.04) than patients in the standard care group. Survival was significantly improved at 2 years at 91% (42/46) for patients receiving ERP versus 73% (33/45) for the standard care group (P=.03). There was no statistically significant difference at 5 years after the surgery.

Conclusions

ERPs for patients undergoing open liver resection can improve their medium-term survival and are cost-effective for both hospital and community settings.

Oral antibiotic bowel decontamination in open and laparoscopic sigmoid resections for diverticular disease

PURPOSE

There is an ongoing debate on whether or not to use oral antibiotic bowel decontamination in colorectal surgery, despite the numerous different regimens in terms of antibiotic substances and duration of application. As we routinely use oral antibiotic bowel decontamination (selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) regimen and SDD regimen plus vancomycin since 2016) in surgery for diverticular disease, our aim was to retrospectively analyze the perioperative outcome in two independent centers.

METHODS

Data from two centers with a routine use of oral antibiotic bowel decontamination for up to 20 years of experience were analyzed for the perioperative outcome of 384 patients undergoing surgery for diverticular disease.

RESULTS

Overall morbidity was 12.8%, overall mortality was 0.3%, the overall rate of anastomotic leakage (AL) was 1.0%, and surgical site infections (SSIs) were 5.5% and 7.8% of all infectious complications including urinary tract infections and pneumonia. No serious adverse events were related to use of oral antibiotic bowel decontamination. Most of the patients (93.8%) completed the perioperative regimen. Additional use of vancomycin to the SDD regimen did not show a further reduction of infectious complications, including SSI and AL.

CONCLUSION

Oral antibiotic decontamination appears to be safe and effective with low rates of AL and infectious complications in surgery for diverticular disease.

Surgical approach for rectal cancer: A network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic, robotic and transanal TME approaches

BACKGROUND

The optimal approach for total mesorectal excision (TME) of rectal cancer remains controversial.

AIM

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after open (OpTME), laparoscopic (LapTME), robotic (RoTME) and transanal TME (TaTME).

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was performed up to January 1, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least 2 TME strategies. A Bayesian arm-based random effect network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed, specifically, a mixed treatment comparison (MTC).

RESULTS

30 RCTs (and six updates) of 5586 patients with rectal cancer were included. No significant differences were identified in recurrence rates or survival rates. Operating time was shorter with OpTME (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] 0.96) compared to LapTME, RoTME and TaTME. Although OpTME was associated with the most blood loss (SUCRA 0.90) and had a slower recovery with increased length of stay (SUCRA 0.90) compared to the minimally invasive techniques, there was no difference in postoperative morbidity. OpTME was associated with a more complete TME specimen compared to LapTME (Risk Ratio [RR] 1.05, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] 1.01, 1.11), and TaTME had less involved CRMs (RR 0.173, 95% CrI 0.02, 0.76) versus LapTME. There were no differences between the modalities in terms of deep TME defects, DRM distance, or lymph node yield.

CONCLUSIONS

While OpTME was the most effective TME modality for short term histopathological resection quality, there was no difference in long-term oncologic outcomes. Minimally invasive approaches enhance postoperative recovery, at the cost of longer operating times. Technique selection should be based on individual tumour characteristics and patient expectations, as well as surgeon and institutional expertise.

Peritoneal spillage is not an issue in patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly being performed via the minimally invasive route. However, reports of postoperative wound and port site seeding as well as peritoneal spillage have been worrisome. We investigated the risk of peritoneal spillage in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for CRC.

METHODS

Cytology specimens were gained from the retrieval bag following intracorporeal resection and specimen retrieval using an endoscopic retrieval bag. Histopathologic examination of the cytology specimens was performed for the presence of malignant cells.

RESULTS

Cytology specimens of 73 (34 female and 39 male) consecutive patients with a median age of 71 years were included for analysis. Advanced CRC in stages III and IV was present in 41% of the study population. Malignant cells were not found in any specimen.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic oncologic resection of colorectal cancer is not a risk factor for peritoneal spillage. Minimally invasive oncologic colorectal resection is safe without the increased risk of peritoneal carcinomatosis.

Prophylactic Foley catheter insertion into defunctioning ileostomy to reduce obstruction after colorectal surgery: pilot randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Defunctioning ileostomies provide faecal diversion in major colorectal surgery. This reduces the consequences of an anastomotic leak. However, the formation of an ileostomy carries risks including obstruction at the level of the fascia. Post-operative oedema at the level of the fascia may contribute to obstruction. We hypothesize that the prophylactic insertion of a Foley catheter into the afferent limb of a defunctioning loop ileostomy may help decompress and improve time to low-residue diet (LRD). The objective of the study was to assess the feasibility of a Foley catheter, prophylactically inserted into the afferent limb of a defunctioning loop ileostomy, after major colorectal surgery.

METHODS

The study was a prospective pilot-randomized controlled trial. Ethical approval was obtained from Northern B Health and Disability Ethics Committee 15/NTB/91 ANZCTR Trial ID: ACTRN12615000691549.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients undergoing major elective colorectal surgery with a defunctioning ileostomy, between the years of 2015 and 2018 at North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand were included in this study. Patients were randomly allocated to either the Foley catheter (n = 26) or non-Foley catheter (n = 23) group. The median time taken to tolerate LRD the primary outcome, was 2 days in the Foley group versus 2 days in the non-Foley group (P = 0.05). There were no differences in the secondary outcome measures such as time to stoma output, length of stay or complications.

CONCLUSION

This trial failed to show a statistical difference in time taken to tolerate a LRD residue in the Foley catheter group. There was no difference in length of stay, time to flatus or stoma output.

Laparoscopic Surgery Is Safe and Beneficial in True Functional High-Risk Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Utilization of Cardiopulmonary Exercise Test

Background: Patients with colorectal cancer deemed to be high-risk may be denied an elective laparoscopic resection due to subjective reasons. A comparison of the 30-day outcomes in true functional high-risk patients who underwent either open or laparoscopic colorectal resection was undertaken. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort of all functional high-risk patients as assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise test between July 2015 and April 2018 were identified. Anaerobic threshold of <11 mL/kg/minute was used as a physiologic indicator to determine a high-risk patient. Adherence to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was ensured. P values were computed via two-sided Fisher's exact test, and the exact Mann-Whitney U-test. Forest plots for relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were displayed on a log scale. Results: One hundred forty-six patients were identified as high-risk. Outcomes demonstrated a trend to laparoscopic benefit in all Clavien-Dindo grades of postoperative complications, but especially in severe complications of grades 3-4 (3.5% versus 10.2%). Readmissions demonstrated a trend to laparoscopic surgery benefit (7% versus 11.8%), as did mortality (1.7% versus 3.4%). The rate of surgery-site complications was higher after open surgery (42.1% versus 22.4%, P = .0201). Wound infections were observed more frequently after open surgery (12.5% versus 1.72%, P = .0280). The estimated risk of all-grade complications was significantly higher after open anterior rectal resection (63.0% versus 29.6%, P = .0281) and there was significantly shorter stay after laparoscopic right colectomy (5 v. 7 days, P = .0490). Conclusions: Laparoscopic approach for colorectal resections in high-risk patients is safe and beneficial compared to open surgery, especially in patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of the rectum and right colon.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Versus Transanal Mesorectal Excision for Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare techniques for rectal cancer resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Different surgical approaches exist for mesorectal excision.

METHODS

Systematic literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials included, reporting on 6237 participants, comparing: open versus laparoscopic versus robotic versus transanal mesorectal excision. No significant differences identified between treatments in intraoperative morbidity, conversion rate, grade III/IV morbidity, reoperation, anastomotic leak, nodes retrieved, involved distal margin, 5-year overall survival, and locoregional recurrence. Operative blood loss was less with laparoscopic surgery compared with open, and with robotic surgery compared with open and laparoscopic. Robotic operative time was longer compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal. Laparoscopic operative time was longer compared with open. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in lower overall postoperative morbidity and fewer wound infections compared with open. Robotic surgery had fewer wound infections compared with open. Time to defecation was longer with open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic. Hospital stay was longer after open surgery compared with laparoscopic and robotic, and after laparoscopic surgery compared with robotic. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in more incomplete or nearly complete mesorectal excisions compared with open, and in more involved circumferential resection margins compared with transanal. Robotic surgery resulted in longer distal resection margins compared with open, laparoscopic, and transanal.

CONCLUSIONS

The different techniques result in comparable perioperative morbidity and long-term survival. The laparoscopic and robotic approaches may improve postoperative recovery, and the open and transanal approaches may improve oncological resection. Technique selection should be based on expected benefits by individual patient.

Impact of anaemia at discharge following colorectal cancer surgery

OBJECTIVES

Preoperative anaemia is common in patients with colorectal cancer and increasingly optimised prior to surgery. Comparably little attention is given to the prevalence and consequences of postoperative anaemia. We aimed to investigate the frequency and short- or long-term impact of anaemia at discharge following colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

A dedicated, prospectively populated database of elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer procedures undertaken with curative intent within a fully implemented ERAS protocol was utilised. The primary endpoint was anaemia at time of discharge (haemoglobin (Hb) < 120 g/L for women and < 135 g/L for men). Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative details and postoperative outcomes were captured. Median follow-up was 61 months with overall survival calculated with the Kaplan-Meier log rank method and Cox proportional hazard regression based on anaemia at time of hospital discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 532 patients with median 61-month follow-up were included. 46.4% were anaemic preoperatively (cohort mean Hb 129.4 g/L ± 18.7). Median surgical blood loss was 100 mL (IQR 0-200 mL). Upon discharge, most patients were anaemic (76.6%, Hb 116.3 g/L ± 14, mean 19 g/L ± 11 below lower limit of normal, p < 0.001). 16.7% experienced postoperative complications which were associated with lower discharge Hb (112 g/L ± 12 vs. 117 g/L ± 14, p = 0.001). Patients discharged anaemic had longer hospital stays (7 [5-11] vs. 6 [5-8], p = 0.037). Anaemia at discharge was independently associated with reduced overall survival (82% vs. 70%, p = 0.018; HR 1.6 (95% CI 1.04-2.5), p = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

Anaemia at time of discharge following elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery and ERAS care is common with associated negative impacts upon short-term clinical outcomes and long-term overall survival.

FACTORS RELATED TO THE REDUCTION OF THE RISK OF COMPLICATIONS IN COLORECTAL SURGERY WITHIN PERIOPERATIVE CARE RECOMMENDED BY THE ACERTO PROTOCOL

Background:

Perioperative care multimodal protocol significantly improve outcome in surgery.

Aim:

To investigate risk factors to various endpoints in patients submitted to elective colorectal operations under the ACERTO protocol.

Methods:

Cohort study analyzing through a logistic regression model able to assess independent risk factors for morbidity and mortality, patients submitted to elective open colon and/or rectum resection and primary anastomosis who were either exposed or non-exposed to demographic, clinical, and ACERTO interventions.

Results:

Two hundred thirty four patients were analyzed and submitted to 156 (66.7%) rectal and 78 (33.3%) colonic procedures. The length of hospital postoperative stay (LOS) ≥ 7 days was related to rectal surgery and high NNIS risk index; preoperative fasting ≤4 h (OR=0.250; CI95=0.114-0.551) and intravenous volume of crystalloid infused > 30ml/kg/day (OR=0.290; CI95=0.119-0.706). The risk of postoperative site infection (SSI) was approximately four times greater in malnourished; eight in rectal surgery and four in high NNIS index. The duration of preoperative fasting ≤4 h was a protective factor by reducing by 81.3% the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). An increased risk for anastomotic fistula was found in malnutrition, rectal surgery and high NNIS index. Conversely, preoperative fasting ≤4 h (OR=0.11; CI95=0.05-0.25; p<0.0001) decreased the risk of fistula. Factors associated with pneumonia-atelectasis were cancer and rectal surgery, while preoperative fasting ≤ 4 h (OR=0.10; CI95=0.04-0.24; p<0.0001) and intravenous crystalloid ≤ 30 ml/kg/day (OR=0.36; CI95=0.13-0.97, p=0.044) shown to decrease the risk. Mortality was lower with preoperative fasting ≤4 h and intravenous crystalloids infused ≤30 ml/kg/day.

Conclusion:

This study allows to conclude that rectal procedures, high NNIS index, preoperative fasting higher than 4 h and intravenous fluids greater than 30 ml/kg/day during the first 48 h after surgery are independent risk factors for: 1) prolonged LOS; 2) surgical site infection and anastomotic fistula associated with malnutrition; 3) postoperative pneumonia-atelectasis; and 4) postoperative mortality.

An Enhanced Recovery Protocol that Facilitates Same-day Discharge for Simple Laparoscopic Appendectomies

Acute appendicitis is the most common gastrointestinal condition requiring urgent operation in the pediatric population with laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) being the current surgical technique. We describe the implementation of a standardized protocol to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and facilitate same-day discharge after LA.

Modern perioperative medicine - past, present, and future

Modern perioperative medicine has dramatically altered the care for patients undergoing major surgery. Anaesthetic and surgical practice has been directed at mitigating the surgical stress response and reducing physiological insult. The development of standardised enhanced recovery programmes combined with minimally invasive surgical techniques has lead to reduction in length of stay, morbidity, costs, and improved outcomes. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society and its national chapters provide a means for sharing best practice in this field and developing evidence based guidelines. Research has highlighted persisting challenges with compliance as well as ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of ERAS. There is also a growing need for increasingly personalised care programmes as well as complex geriatric assessment of frailer patients. Continuous collection of outcome and process data combined with machine learning, offers a potentially powerful solution to delivering bespoke care pathways and optimising individual management. Long-term data from ERAS programmes remain scarce and further evaluation of functional recovery and quality of life is required.

Hospital Teaching Status Impacts Surgical Discharge Efficiency

OBJECTIVE

There is a paucity of data regarding the efficiency of care provided by teaching hospitals. Yet, instruction on transitions in care and an understanding of systems-based practice are key components of modern graduate medical education. We aimed to determine the relationship between hospital teaching status and the discharge efficiency from a surgical service.

SETTING

Patients who were cared for at teaching and nonteaching hospitals captured in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample from 2012.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 272,090 patients who underwent one of 44 predefined general surgery procedure types.

DESIGN

Patients were stratified based on treating hospital teaching status (TH vs. NTH). Procedure-specific early discharge (PSED) was defined for each operation type as a discharge that occurred within the lowest 25th percentile for overall length of stay. PSED was used as the discharge efficiency metric. To adjust for cofounders and hospital level clustering, multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to examine the association between teaching status and PSED. Subgroup analysis was performed by operation type. Models were constructed with and without adjustment for inpatient complications.

RESULTS

There were 140,878 (51.8%) patients who received care at a TH. TH status was significantly associated with lower PSED (TH: 10.7% vs. NTH: 11.4%; p < 0.001) and longer length of stay (TH: 5.5 days vs. NTH: 4.5 days; p < 0.001). In the adjusted model of the overall cohort, patients treated at a TH were 8% less likely to receive a PSED compared to those treated at NTH (odds ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval (0.88, 0.97); p < 0.002). Differences in the rates and odds of PSED were noted across the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Teaching hospital status is associated with a reduced likelihood of PSED. The effect of TH on PSED varied by procedure subgroup. Examining the recovery pathways and discharge practices at NTH may allow for the identification of more efficient methods of care that can be applied to the broader healthcare system.

Application value of laparoscopy in radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction

Application value of laparoscopy in radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction was explored. The medical records of 104 patients undergoing radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction from July 2015 to August 2017 in Inner Mongolia Xing'an League People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-three patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were the experimental group and 51 patients undergoing open surgery were the control group. The surgery conditions, upper limb function, postoperative complications, volume similarity between unilateral subcutaneous glands and autologous omentum, cosmetic excellent rate and treatment satisfaction were observed. The surgical duration of the patients in the experimental group was significantly longer than that in the control group, but the intraoperative blood loss was less and hospital stay was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). The improvement of upper limb function in the experimental group was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.05). The cosmetic excellent rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications in the experimental group was significantly less than that in the control group (P<0.001). The satisfaction degree of patients in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). Filling the autologous omentum while excising the unilateral mammary gland is an equivalent replacement, which can make the appearance of the breast on the operation side similar to that on the healthy side, thus improving the excellent rate of breast beauty and patient satisfaction.

Cost-effectiveness of current approaches in rectal surgery

Colorectal cancer is ranked as the fourth malignant cause of mortality. With the tremendous revolution in the modern medical techniques, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated into rectal surgery. The effectiveness of surgical procedures is usually measured by a combination of qualitative (quality of life) and quantitative (years of life) measures, while the costs should reflect the use of different resources that were involved in delivering the medical care and they are affected by several factors, including length of hospital stay. In this review, we provide an insight into the cost-effectiveness of the different types of rectal surgeries in order to present a systematic approach for future preferences. A comprehensive literature review using Medline (via PUBMED), Embase and Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials (via clinical trial.org) was performed. Minimally invasive rectal surgeries have considerable cost-effective properties that outweigh those of the open techniques in terms of earlier return to bowel function, lower morbidity rates, reduced pain, shorter length of hospital stay and the overall patients’ quality of life although there was no difference in long-term oncological and survival outcomes. The paucity of currently available long-term oncologic, quality of life, and economic outcomes may limit an adequate comparison of robotic surgeries to other surgical techniques. It is therefore recommended to conduct focused studies to help balance the cost/benefit factors along with other technical considerations aimed at reducing the cost of robotic systems with subsequent improvement of their cost-effectiveness.

•

Colorectal cancer is the fourth cause of mortality. Minimally invasive surgery is now considered the standard of care.

•

Cost of minimally invasive surgery is offset by the better outcomes due to less complications and shorter hospital stay.

•

TaTME requires two working teams and two sets of instruments which increases the total cost.

•

Robotic surgery in obese patients demonstrated superior results when it comes to hospital stay and overall complications.

•

Well conducted clinical trials looking at cost effectiveness of new technologies in colorectal surgery are needed.

Quality of Life in Oncology

Continuous improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer lead to improved cure rates and longer survival. However, in many patients, the disease becomes chronic. In this context, the patients' quality of life (QOL) becomes a crucial issue. After an introduction about QOL, results from different areas of cancer treatment are presented considering their impact on QOL. Finally, implications are discussed for researchers, clinicians, and patients.

Quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence in T1 colorectal cancer patients treated with endoscopic or surgical tumor resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To optimize therapeutic decision-making in early invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) patients, it is important to elicit the patient's perspective next to considering medical outcome. Because empirical data on patient-reported impact of different treatment options are lacking, we evaluated patients' quality of life, perceived time to recovery, and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic or surgical treatment for T1 CRC.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we selected patients with histologically confirmed T1 CRC who participated in the Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and received endoscopic or surgical treatment between January 2014 and July 2017. Quality of life was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment 30-item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 5-level EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire. We used the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) to evaluate patients' fear of cancer recurrence. A question on perceived time to recovery after treatment was also included in the set of questionnaires sent to patients.

RESULTS

Of all 119 eligible patients, 92.4% responded to the questionnaire (endoscopy group, 55/62; surgery group, 55/57). Compared with the surgery group, perceived time to recovery was on average 3 months shorter in endoscopically treated patients after adjustment for confounders (19.9 days vs 111.3 days; P = .001). The 2 treatment groups were comparable with regard to global quality of life, functioning domains, and symptom severity scores. Moreover, patients in the endoscopy group did not report more fear of cancer recurrence than those in the surgery group (CWS score, 0-40; endoscopy 7.6 vs surgery 9.7; P = .140).

CONCLUSIONS

From the patient's perspective, endoscopic treatment provides a quicker recovery than surgery, without provoking more fear of cancer recurrence or any deterioration in quality of life. These results contribute to the shared therapeutic decision-making process of clinicians and T1 CRC patients.

Postoperative Outcomes Within Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol in Elective Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. POWER.2 Study: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Multicentre, Observational Cohort Study

Objective

The number of indications for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery is increasing. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) represents the next step in the evolution of standardised care. The primary aim of this study is to measure the in-hospital 30-day medical and surgical postoperative complications rate. The study's secondary aims are to determine the length of stay, 30-day mortality rate, 30-day reoperation and readmission rates, the ERAS overall compliance and predefined ERAS individual items compliance.

Methods

This multicentre, prospective, observational study will include adult patients (aged >18 years) undergoing elective THR and TKR surgery. Consecutive patients undergoing surgery within the 2-month data collection period will be included. Centres that offer the THR and/or TKR surgery will be eligible to participate. The data collection will be done through an online data collection form via a secure, password-protected platform at each centre with predefined data fields.

Results

Ethical approval for this study has been obtained from the Comité de Ética de la Investigación de la Comunidad Autónoma de Aragón (C.P.-C.I. PI18/135; on 23 May 2018). It was prospectively registered on 27 June 2018, at www.clinicaltrials.gov with identification no. NCT03570944.

Conclusion

The study will be disseminated through the SPARN-RedGERM, SEDAR, GERM and through social media. Peer-reviewed publications will be published under corporate authorship, including POWER.2 Study Group and SPARN-RedGERM.

Presentation, diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer

Colorectal (bowel) cancer remains a common disease, particularly in developed countries. If diagnosed early, it has a high five-year survival rate, yet the disease remains a significant cause of mortality. This article aims to improve nurses' understanding of the signs and symptoms of colorectal cancer, and the role of all nurses in supporting early diagnosis and providing follow-up care. It also discusses the available treatment options for colorectal cancer, enabling nurses to offer informed care to patients, who in turn, can make informed decisions about their treatment.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus conventional perioperative care in colorectal surgery. A single center cohort study

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols consist of a set of perioperative measures aimed at improving patient recovery and decreasing length of stay and postoperative complications. We assess the implementation and outcomes of an ERAS program for colorectal surgery.

Methods

Single center observational study. Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, 3 years before (Pre-ERAS) and 2 years after (Post-ERAS) the implementation of an ERAS protocol. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared. The primary outcome was the number of patients with 180 days follow-up with moderate or severe complications; secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay, and specific complications. Data were extracted from patient records.

Results

There were 360 patients in the Pre-ERAS group and 319 patients in the Post-ERAS Group. 214 (59.8%) patients developed at least one complication in the pre ERAS group, versus 163 patients in the Post-ERAS group (51.10%). More patients in the Pre-ERAS group developed moderate or severe complications (31.9% vs. 22.26%, p = 0.009); and severe complications (15.5% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.0001). The median length of stay was 13 (17) days in Pre-ERAS Group and 11 (10) days in the Post-ERAS Group (p = 0.034). No differences were found on mortality rates (4.7% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.154), or readmission (6.39% vs. 4.39%; p = 0.31). Overall ERAS protocol compliance in the Post-ERAS cohort was 88%.

Conclusions

The implementation of ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery was associated with a significantly reduction of postoperative complications and length of stay.

Comparing the experience of enhanced recovery programme for gynaecological patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open gynaecological surgery: a prospective study

Background

Enhanced recovery has been shown to improve patients’ experience after surgery. There are no previous studies comparing patients’ experience between those undergoing laparoscopic and open gynaecological surgery. Therefore, the aim of this prospective study is to compare patients’ functional recovery based on milestones set by the enhanced recovery programme and patients’ satisfaction between the two groups.

Methods

All eligible patients undergoing gynaecological surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme from March to August 2014 were involved in this study. All patients received the questionnaires on admission which were then collected prior to discharge. They were followed up by telephone within 7 days.

Results

Two hundred sixty-three patients were involved. One hundred forty-four questionnaires were returned (54% response rate). Fifty-one percent (n = 74) were from the laparoscopic group and 49% (n = 70) were from the laparotomy group. In terms of achieving milestones, more patients in the laparotomy group performed the deep breathing exercises (laparoscopic versus open; 66.2% versus 87.1% (p = 0.003). The laparoscopic group were more able to eat on day 0, but by day 1, there was no difference between the groups. Both groups were similar in their ability to drink (p = 0.98), mobilise (p = 0.123) and sit out in a chair (p = 0.511). In the laparoscopic group, the patients’ experience was better for pain control (p < 0.0001) and nausea control (p = 0.003) from recovery to day 1, and they were more able to put on their own clothes (p = 0.001) and were more confident in mobilising (p < 0.0001) and in going home (p < 0.0001). The laparoscopic group had greater patient satisfaction with their pain always being well controlled (p < 0.0001) whilst more patients in the laparotomy group reported being satisfied to very satisfied with their overall care on the gynaecology ward (p = 0.04). Both groups were equally satisfied with their care from nursing staff (p = 0.709) and doctors (p = 0.431).

Conclusion

The two groups were in general equally able to achieve the majority of the milestones despite differences in symptoms such as pain, nausea and confidence in mobilising and going home. Pre-operative education can empower patients to engage in their recovery. There is a high level of patient satisfaction in both groups.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus conventional perioperative care in colorectal surgery. A single center cohort study]

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols consist of a set of perioperative measures aimed at improving patient recovery and decreasing length of stay and postoperative complications. We assess the implementation and outcomes of an ERAS program for colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Single center observational study. Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, 3 years before (Pre-ERAS) and 2 years after (Post-ERAS) the implementation of an ERAS protocol. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared. The primary outcome was the number of patients with 180 days follow-up with moderate or severe complications; secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay, and specific complications. Data were extracted from patient records.

RESULTS

There were 360 patients in the Pre-ERAS group and 319 patients in the Post-ERAS Group. 214 (59.8%) patients developed at least one complication in the pre ERAS group, versus 163 patients in the Post-ERAS group (51.10%). More patients in the Pre-ERAS group developed moderate or severe complications (31.9% vs. 22.26%, p=0.009); and severe complications (15.5% vs. 5.3%; p<0.0001). The median length of stay was 13 (17) days in Pre-ERAS Group and 11 (10) days in the Post-ERAS Group (p=0.034). No differences were found on mortality rates (4.7% vs. 2.5%; p=0.154), or readmission (6.39% vs. 4.39%; p=0.31). Overall ERAS protocol compliance in the Post-ERAS cohort was 88%.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery was associated with a significantly reduction of postoperative complications and length of stay.

A cost-utility analysis of small bite sutures versus large bite sutures in the closure of midline laparotomies in the United Kingdom National Health Service

Purpose

This study aimed to perform an economic evaluation of small bite sutures versus large bite sutures in the closure of midline laparotomies in the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS).

Methods

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using data from a systematic literature review. Large bite sutures placed 10 mm from the wound edge were compared to small bite sutures 3–6 mm from the wound edge. The analysis used a 3-year time horizon in order to take into account complications including incisional hernias and surgical site infections (SSIs). Cost and benefit data were considered from the perspective of the NHS. A two-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the impact of a variation in the clinical effectiveness of small bite sutures.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated to be −£482.61 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the proposed small bite suture technique, indicating a cost saving to the NHS. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that small bites are a cost-neutral technique provided that the cost of using small bites is less than £98 per patient. Small bites cost less than £20,000/QALY when they reduce either the rate of SSIs by more than 15% or the rate of hernias by more than 3.4%.

Conclusion

This study proposes that small bite sutures should become the mainstay suturing technique in the closure of midline laparotomies, replacing large bite sutures, which dominate current practice. The financial savings accompanied by the decrease in SSI rates and herniation warrant the use of this new technique. The sensitivity analysis demonstrates that findings hold true for a wide range of levels of clinical effectiveness for small bites.

Does the number of operating specialists influence the conversion rate and outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic techniques in colorectal surgery have been widely utilised due to short-term patient benefits but conversion to open surgery is associated with adverse short- and long-term patient outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of dual specialist operating on the conversion rate and patient outcomes following laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A prospectively populated colorectal cancer surgery database was reviewed. Cases were grouped into single or dual consultant procedures. Cluster analysis and odds ratio (OR) were used to identify risk factors for conversion. Primary outcome measures were conversion to open and five year overall survival (OS) calculated using the Kaplan-Meier log-rank method.

RESULTS

750 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection between 2002 and 2015 (median age 73, 319 (42.5%) female, 282 (37.6%) rectal malignancies, 135 patients (18%) had two consultants). The single surgeon conversion rate was 20.4% compared to 5.5% for dual operating (OR 4.4, 95% CI 1.87-10.2, p < 0.001). There were no demographic or tumour differences between the laparoscopic/converted and number of surgeon groups. Two-step cluster analysis identified cluster I (lower risk) 406 patients, 8% converted and cluster II (higher risk) 261 patients, conversion rate 30%. Median follow-up was 48 months (range 0-168). Five-year OS was significantly inferior for both converted and single surgeon cases (63% vs. 77%, p < 0.001 and 61% vs. 70%, p = 0.033, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In selected colorectal cancer patients operated by fully trained laparoscopic surgeons, we observed a reduction in conversion with associated long-term survival benefit from dual operating specialists.

Development of a model care pathway for adults undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: Evidence-based key interventions and indicators

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

During the last decades, perioperative care for patients with colorectal cancer has shifted towards more standardized care, so-called "enhanced recovery after surgery." Those programs aim to optimize interventions in perioperative care to decrease the rate of postoperative complications, improve patients' recovery, and shorten hospital stay. The purpose of this literature review is to identify, summarize, and operationalize the clinical content of both key interventions and clinical indicators to develop an evidence-based model pathway for surgical patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic search in 3 databases was conducted to identify key interventions (KIs) and indicators to measure the effect of implementation of care pathways. The KIs from the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol were listed and used as framework to identify and match KIs used in the included studies. The Clinical Pathway Compass was used to categorize the indicators.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included. The number of KI used in the study protocols ranged from 9 to 20. In total, 33 KIs were identified. Little information was available concerning the implementation of and compliance to the protocol. Length of stay and complication rate are the most common used indicators (used in 15/15 and 14/15 of the studies), followed by 21 other measures. All but one of the included studies reported a reduction in length of stay.

CONCLUSION

There is a considerable variation in both number of KIs and indicators as well as operationalization of key interventions, for surgical patients with colorectal cancer documented in literature. Therefore, we summarized the input from different studies and developed an evidence-based model pathway, which can serve as a basis for a local/regional care pathway team to build their own pathway.

Laparoscopic vs open complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for colon cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (L-CME) with its open (O-CME) counterpart.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SciELO, and Korean Journal databases from their inception until May 2017. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that included patients with colonic cancer comparing L-CME and O-CME. Primary outcomes included the quality of the resected specimen (lymph nodes retrieved, complete mesocolic plane excision, tumor to arterial high tie, resected mesocolon surface). Secondary outcomes included the three-year and five-year overall and disease-free survival rates, recurrence of the disease, surgical data, and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Two authors of the review screened the methodological quality of the eligible trials and independently extracted data from individual studies.

RESULTS

A total of one RCT and eleven CCTs (four from Europe and seven from Asia) met the inclusion criteria for the current meta-analysis. These studies involved 1619 patients in L-CME and 1477 patients in O-CME. The L-CME was associated with the same quality of the resected specimen, with no differences regarding the retrieved lymphnodes (MD = -1.06, 95%CI: -3.65 to 1.53, P = 0.42), and tumor to high tie distance (MD = 14.26 cm, 95%CI: -4.30 to 32.82, P = 0.13); the surface of the resected mesocolon was higher in the L-CME group (MD = 11.75 cm², 95%CI: 9.50 to 13.99, P < 0.001). The L-CME was associated with a lower rate of blood transfusions (OR = 0.45, 95%CI: 0.27 to 0.75, P = 0.002), faster recovery of gastrointestinal function, and less postoperative overall complication rate. The L-CME approach was associated with a statistical significant better three-year overall (OR = 2.02, 95%CI: 1.31 to 3.12, P = 0.001, I² = 28%) and disease-free (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.00 to 2.10, P = 0.05, I² = 0%) survival.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach offers the same quality of the resected specimen as the open approach in complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation for colon cancer. The laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision with central vascular ligation is superior in all perioperative results and at least non-inferior in long-term oncological outcomes.

A meta-analysis of short-term outcome of laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery on colorectal carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to study the superiority and safety of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal carcinoma.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopy in rectal cancer is still not recommended as the treatment of choice by National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Laparoscopic rectal surgery is more complex and technically demanding, especially for mid and low rectal cancer.

METHODS

A computer-based online research of retrospective or prospective studies addressing laparoscopic surgery versus conventional open surgery for colorectal carcinoma published in the last 11 years was performed in electronic database (Wangfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Current Contents, Pubmed, Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cohrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Selective trials were analyzed by the Review Manager 5.2 software.

RESULTS

A total of 9 clinical trials, involving a total of 4747 patients, were identified. A meta-analysis showed that operating time was not significantly different between the 2 groups [WMD = 0.46, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -55.68 to 56.60, P = .99], intraoperative blood loss in laparoscopic surgery group was less than conventional open surgery group (WMD = -64.66, 95% CI: -87.31 to 42.01, P < .01); No significant difference in the number of lymph node retrieved from postoperative pathologic specimens was found between the 2 groups (WMD = -0.75, 95% CI: -1.72 to 0.23, P = .14); Postoperative time to flatus in laparoscopic surgery group was earlier than that in open surgery significantly (WMD = -1.22, 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.91, P < .01). The cases of postoperative complications were significantly different between the 2 groups, which showed that the cases of laparoscopic surgery group were less than those of open surgery group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52∼0.72, P < .01]; Moreover, hospital stay of laparoscopic surgery group was shorter than that of open surgery that showed significant difference (WMD = -2.38, 95% CI:-3.30 to -1.46, P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery are superior than conventional open surgery that include more safety and feasibility, and is expected to be a standardization operation method for colorectal carcinoma.

Effects of multimodal fast-track surgery on liver transplantation outcomes

BACKGROUND

Fast-track surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery have been applied to many surgical procedures; however, data on fast-track surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery following liver transplantation is limited. This study aimed to conduct a prospective study to determine the effects of fast-track surgery on prognosis after liver transplantation.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized study. One hundred twenty-eight patients undergoing liver transplantation were selected for the fast-track (FT group, n=54) or conventional process (NFT group, n=74). The primary endpoints were intensive care unit (ICU) stay and hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were as follows: operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion volume, postoperative complications, readmission rate, and postoperative mortality.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in preoperative demographics between the two groups. The median ICU stay was 2 days (range 1-7 days) in the FT group and 5 days (range 3-12 days) in the NFT group (P<0.01). Furthermore, the hospital stay was also significantly reduced in the FT group (P<0.01). The operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative blood transfusion volume were decreased in the FT group compared with the NFT group (P<0.05). Based on Spearman correlation analysis, the ICU stay and hospital stay may be positively correlated with operative time, anhepatic phase time and intraoperative blood loss. There were no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications, readmissions, and postoperative mortality between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Fast-track procedures effectively reduce the ICU stay and hospital stay without adversely affecting prognosis. This study demonstrated that fast-track protocols are safe and feasible in liver transplantation.

Does hospital readmission following colorectal cancer resection and enhanced recovery after surgery affect long term survival?

AIM

Hospital readmission is undesirable for patients and care providers as this can affect short-term recovery and carries financial consequences. It is unknown if readmission has long-term implications. We aimed to investigate the impact of 30-day readmission on long-term overall survival (OS) following colorectal cancer resection within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) care and explore the reasons for and the severity and details of readmission episodes.

METHOD

A dedicated, prospectively populated database was reviewed. All patients were managed within an established ERAS programme. Five-year OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The number, reason for and severity of 30-day readmissions were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system, along with total (initial and readmission) length of stay (LoS). Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors predicting readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1023 consecutive patients underwent colorectal cancer resection between 2002 and 2015. Of these, 166 (16%) were readmitted. Readmission alone did not have a significant impact on 5-year OS (59% vs 70%, P = 0.092), but OS was worse in patients with longer total LoS (20 vs 14 days, P = 0.04). Of the readmissions, 121 (73%) were minor (CD I-II) and 27 (16%) required an intervention of which 16 (10%) were returned to theatre. Gut dysfunction 32 (19%) and wound complications 23 (14%) were the most frequent reasons for readmission. Prolonged initial LoS, rectal cancer and younger age predicted for hospital readmission.

CONCLUSION

Readmission does not have a significant impact on 5-year OS. A broad range of conditions led to readmission, with the majority representing minor complications.

A critical appraisal of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for oncological and non-oncological resections

The aim of this study was to critically appraise the cost effectiveness of the laparoscopic colorectal (LCRS) surgery using published randomised, control trials (RCTs). Published RCTs comparing the cost effectiveness of LCRS with conventional open surgery were selected from the search of standard electronic databases and the extracted data were analysed using the statistical software RevMan 5.3. Seven RCTs on 2197 patients reported the cost effectiveness of the LCRS. There was significant heterogeneity (τ ² = 161,772.25, χ ² = 166.69, df = 6, p = 0.00001, I ² = 96%) among included randomised, controlled trials. In the random effects model analysis (MD 320.37, 95% CI -38.21, 678.95, z = 1.75, p < 0.08), the LCRS was costing £320.37 more than open colorectal resection but it failed to reach the statistical significance indicating that LCRS is as much cost effective as the open approach. LCRS is a cost effective intervention and should be offered routinely to all patients requiring colorectal resections provided the resources and expertise are available.