Implementation of a perioperative-enhanced recovery protocol in patients undergoing open gastrectomy for gastric cancer

Lessons learned from 150 total gastrectomies for prevention of cancer

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic total gastrectomy (PTG) is performed in carriers of CDH1 pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants and is becoming more frequent with broader use of germline genetic testing. There is an unmet need to standardize care and enhance outcomes among patients undergoing surgery for the prevention of gastric cancer.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 150 individuals with germline CDH1 P/LP variants who underwent PTG as part of a prospective natural history study from October 2017 to May 2023. All individuals received multidisciplinary, protocolized care before and after total gastrectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 150 asymptomatic patients with germline CDH1 P/LP variants underwent PTG with the aid of a multidisciplinary enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway. This study demonstrated that acute major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade of ≥3) was low (17/150 [11.3%]) and that the most common complication was anastomotic leak (11/150 [7.3%]) in the setting of a comprehensive preoperative and postoperative care pathway. Nearly all gastrectomy specimens (132/150 [88.0%]) harbored occult signet ring cell lesions on final pathology. There were no gastric cancer recurrences or gastric cancer-related deaths during the study period, with a median overall follow-up of 36 months (IQR, 24-48) from gastrectomy.

CONCLUSION

PTG can be performed with low surgical morbidity in a high-volume center. The delivery of patient-centered care by a multidisciplinary team and the application of an ERAS pathway may improve short-term outcomes. However, interventions that can reduce chronic morbidity associated with total gastrectomy warrant further study.

Clinical predictors of postoperative complications in the context of enhanced recovery (ERAS) in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer

The overall frequency of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer diverges between studies. We evaluated the frequency and assessed the relationship between complications and demographic and clinical features. For this observational study, data were extracted from the ERAS Registry managed by the University of Verona, Italy. Patients were evaluated and compared for postoperative complications according to the consensus-based classification and the Clavien-Dindo scale. The study population was 877 patients: 346 (39.5%) with esophageal and 531 (60.5%) with gastric cancer; 492 (56.2%) reported one or more postoperative complications, 213 (61.6%) of those with esophageal and 279 (52.5%) of those with gastric cancer. When stratified by consensus-based classification, patients with esophageal cancer reported general postoperative complications more frequently (p < 0.001) than those with gastric cancer, but there was no difference in postoperative surgical complications between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression models revealed an association between postoperative complications and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.36), operation time (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI 1.00-1.15), and days to solid diet intake (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI 1.20-1.59). Complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer are frequent, even in those treated according to ERAS principles, and are often associated with comorbidities, longer operative time, and longer time to solid diet intake.

Experience sharing on perioperative clinical management of gastric cancer patients based on the "China Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery Guidelines"

BACKGROUND

With the popularization of robotic surgical systems in the field of surgery, robotic gastric cancer surgery has also been fully applied and promoted in China. The Chinese Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery was published in the Chinese Journal of General Surgery in August 2021.

METHODS

We have made a detailed interpretation of the process of robotic gastric cancer surgery regarding the indications, contraindications, perioperative preparation, surgical steps, complication, and postoperative management based on the recommendations of China's Guidelines for Robotic Gastric Cancer Surgery and supplemented by other surgical guidelines, consensus, and single-center experience.

RESULTS

Twenty experiences of perioperative clinical management of robotic gastric cancer surgery were described in detail.

CONCLUSION

We hope to bring some clinical reference values to the front-line clinicians in treating robotic gastric cancer surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The guidelines were registered on the International Practice Guideline Registration Platform ( http://www.guidelines-registry.cn ) (registration number: IPGRP-2020CN199).

What defines the "value" of robotic surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Perspectives from a U.S. Cancer Center

The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery's value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

A Path to High-Value Gastric Cancer Surgery Care Delivery

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of a comprehensive regional program, including the Minimally Invasive Recovery and Empowerment Care (MIREC) pathway, that can significantly reduce hospital stays after laparoscopic gastrectomy without increasing adverse events.

Background

Cost-effectiveness and improving patient outcomes are crucial in providing quality gastric cancer care worldwide.

Methods

To compare the outcomes of gastric cancer surgery using 2 different models of care within an integrated healthcare system from February 2012 to March 2023. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. The secondary endpoints were the need for intensive care unit care, emergency room (ER) visits, readmission, reoperation, and death within 30 days after surgery.

Results

There were 553 patients, 167 in the pre-(February 2012-April 2016) and 386 in the post-MIREC period (May 2016-March 2023). Perioperative chemotherapy utilization increased from 31.7% to 76.4% (P < 0.0001). Laparoscopic gastrectomy increased from 17.4% to 97.7% (P < 0.0001). Length of hospitalization decreased from 7 to 2 days (P < 0.0001), with 32.1% and 88% of patients discharged home on postoperative day 1 and postoperative day 2, respectively. When comparing pre- and post-MIREC, intensive care unit utilization (10.8% vs. 2.9%, P < 0.0001), ER visits (34.7% vs. 19.7%, P = 0.0002), and readmission (18.6% vs. 11.1%, P = 0.019) at 30 days were also considerably lower. In addition, more patients received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (31.4% to 63.5%, P < 0.0001), and the time between gastrectomy and starting adjuvant chemotherapy was also less (49-41 days; P = 0.002).

Conclusion

This comprehensive regional program, which encompasses regionalization care, laparoscopic approach, modern oncologic care, surgical subspecialization, and the MIREC pathway, can potentially improve gastric cancer surgery outcomes. These benefits include reduced hospital stays and lower complication rates. As such, this program can revolutionize how gastric cancer surgery is delivered, leading to a higher quality of care and increased value to patients.

Cost Analysis for Robotic and Open Gastrectomy

Objective

To determine the magnitude of the perioperative costs associated with robotic gastrectomy (RG).

Background

A robotic surgery platform has a high implementation cost and requires maintenance costs; however, whether the overall cost of RG, including all perioperative costs, is higher than conventional open gastrectomy (OG) remains unknown.

Methods

Patients who underwent a major gastrectomy during February 2018 through December 2021 were retrospectively identified. We calculated the perioperative costs of RG and OG and compared them overall as well as in different phases, including intraoperative costs and 30-day postsurgery inpatient and outpatient costs. We investigated factors potentially associated with high cost and estimated the likelihood of RG to reduce overall cost under a Bayesian framework. All cost data were converted to ratios to the average cost of all operations performed at our center in year FY2021.

Results

We identified 119 patients who underwent gastrectomy. The incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo >IIIa; RG, 10% vs OG, 13%) did not significantly differ between approaches. The median length of stay was 3 days shorter for RG versus OG (4 vs 7 days, P < 0.001). Intraoperative cost ratios were significantly higher for RG (RG, 2.6 vs OG, 1.7; P < 0.001). However, postoperative hospitalization cost ratios were significantly lower for RG (RG, 2.8 vs OG, 3.9; P < 0.001). Total perioperative cost ratios were similar between groups (RG, 6.1 vs OG, 6.4; P = 0.534). The multiple Bayesian generalized linear analysis showed RG had 76.5% posterior probability of overall perioperative cost reduction (adjusted risk ratio of 0.95; 95% credible interval, 0.85-1.07).

Conclusions

Despite increased intraoperative costs, total perioperative costs in the RG group were similar to those in the OG group because of reduced postoperative hospitalization costs.

Laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block: how I do it and a cost efficiency analysis

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy and efficiency of laparoscopic transverse abdominis plane block (Lap-TAP) in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy and gastrectomy compared to those of ultrasound-guided TAP (US-TAP).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the records of patients who underwent open or minimally invasive (MIS) pancreatoduodenectomy and major gastrectomy with the use of Lap-TAP or US-TAP at our institution between November 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021. We compared the estimated time and cost associated with Lap-TAP and US-TAP. We also compared postoperative opioid use and pain scores between patients who underwent open laparotomy with these TAPs.

RESULTS

A total of 194 patients were included. Overall, 114 patients (59%) underwent pancreatectomy, and 80 patients (41%) underwent gastrectomy. Additionally, 138 patients (71%) underwent an open procedure, and 56 patients (29%) underwent MIS. A total of 102 patients (53%) underwent US-TAP, and 92 (47%) underwent Lap-TAP. The median time to skin incision was significantly shorter in the Lap-TAP group (US-TAP, 59 min vs. Lap-TAP, 45 min; P < 0.001), resulting in an estimated reduction in operation cost by $602. Pain scores and postoperative opioid use were similar between Lap-TAP and US-TAP among open surgery patients, indicating equivalent pain control between Lap-TAP and US-TAP.

CONCLUSION

Lap-TAP was equally effective in pain control as US-TAP after pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, and Lap-TAP can reduce operation time and cost. Lap-TAP is considered the preferred approach for MIS pancreatectomy and gastrectomy, which occasionally needs conversion to laparotomy.

Association between use of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and postoperative complications after gastric surgery for cancer (POWER 4): a nationwide, prospective multicentre study

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in gastric cancer surgery remains controversial.

METHODS

Multicentre prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer. Adherence with 22 individual components of ERAS pathways were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were treated in a self-designed ERAS centre. Each centre had a three-month recruitment period between October 2019 and September 2020. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, adherence to the ERAS pathway, 30 day-mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

A total of 743 patients in 72 Spanish hospitals were included, 211 of them (28.4 %) from self-declared ERAS centres. A total of 245 patients (33 %) experienced postoperative complications, graded as moderate-to-severe complications in 172 patients (23.1 %). There were no differences in the incidence of moderate-to-severe complications (22.3% vs. 23.5%; OR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.41); P = 0.068), or overall postoperative complications between the self-declared ERAS and non-ERAS groups (33.6% vs. 32.7%; OR, 1.05 (95 % CI, 0.70 to 1.56); P = 0.825). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS pathway was 52% [IQR 45 to 60]. There were no differences in postoperative outcomes between higher (Q1, > 60 %) and lower (Q4, ≤ 45 %) ERAS adherence quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither the partial application of perioperative ERAS measures nor treatment in self-designated ERAS centres improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing gastric surgery for cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03865810.

Short-Term and Textbook Surgical Outcomes During the Implementation of a Robotic Gastrectomy Program

BACKGROUND

Whether gastric cancer patients derive greater benefit from robotic gastrectomy (RG), or open gastrectomy (OG) is unknown. We initiated a RG program in 2018, with prospective short-term outcome monitoring to ensure safety. We hypothesized that the RG program for gastric cancer can be safely implemented with equivalent safety and oncological textbook outcomes (TOs) to conventional open gastrectomy (OG).

METHODS

The study included patients who underwent curative-intent OG or RG for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2018 and December 2021. TO metrics were negative surgical margins, ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined, no severe (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications, no reinterventions within 90 days after surgery, no ICU admission, no prolonged length of stay (LOS; > 10 days), no 90-day postoperative mortality, and no readmission within 90 days after surgery. Overall TO was achieved when all these metrics were met.

RESULTS

Of 161 patients, 120 underwent OG, and 41 underwent RG. The two groups' demographic and disease characteristics did not differ significantly. Compared with OG patients, RG patients had a longer median surgery time (348 vs. 282 min), smaller median blood loss volume (50 vs. 150 mL), lower mean prescribed opioid dose at discharge (12 vs. 45 mg), and shorter median LOS (4 vs. 7 days; all p < 0.001). The groups' postoperative complication rates (10% vs. 17%) did not differ significantly (p = 0.283). The overall TO rate of the RG group (73%) was higher than that of the OG group (60%), but the difference was not significant (p = 0.131).

CONCLUSION

We were able to implement the RG program safely, without compromising safety or oncological outcomes.

State of the art of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in esophagogastric cancer surgery: the Western experience

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a framework to standardize care processes and improve outcomes. The results of this multimodal and multidisciplinary approach based on actions focused on reducing physiological surgical stress in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods are beneficial in reducing morbidity and hospital stay, without increasing readmissions across different surgical settings. The implementation of ERAS in resection procedures of esophageal and gastric cancer has been challenging due to the complexity of these surgical techniques and the high risk of complications. Despite the limited evidence of ERAS in esophagectomy operations, systematic reviews and meta-analysis have confirmed a reduction of pulmonary complications and hospital stay without increasing readmissions. In gastrectomy operations, the implementation of ERAS reduces the use of nasogastric tubes and intraabdominal drains, facilitates early diet, and reduces the length of hospital stay, without increasing complications. There is, however, wide heterogeneity and absence of standardization in the number and definition of the ERAS components. The development of ERAS consensus guidelines including procedure-specific components may reduce this variability. Regardless growing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS, the adherence rate is still low. The commitment of the multidisciplinary team and leadership is critical in the application and refinement of ERAS protocols in parallel with periodic audits. Pre- and post-habilitation methods are emerging concepts to be incorporated in ERAS protocols.

Analysis of Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Open Versus Robotic Gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive, robotic gastrectomy is associated with better short-term outcomes and quicker functional recovery. However, the degree to which the robotic approach influences postoperative pain and opioid use after gastrectomy is unknown. Our primary aim was to determine whether the robotic approach to gastrectomy reduces postoperative opioid use compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent gastrectomy (November 2018 to September 2021) were identified retrospectively. Clinical characteristics, short-term surgical outcomes, oral morphine equivalent (OME) use, and pain scores were collected. Both groups were managed through an enhanced recovery program in the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Of 81 patients, 50 underwent open and 31 underwent robotic gastrectomy. Compared with open gastrectomy patients, robotic gastrectomy patients had longer surgery time (360 vs. 288 min), less blood loss (50 vs. 138 mL), and shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days) (all medians, P < 0.001). Robotic gastrectomy patients used lower OMEs on postoperative days 0-4 (all P < 0.05) and in total for days 0-4 (total mean dose 65.0 vs. 169.5 mg; P < 0.001) than did open gastrectomy patients. The robotic gastrectomy patients were prescribed a lower mean OME dose than the open gastrectomy patients (19.0 vs. 29.0 mg, respectively; P = 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed that robotic approach was associated with lower opioid use (odds ratio 3.70; 95% CI 1.01-14.3; P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with open gastrectomy, robotic gastrectomy reduces opioid use in the early postoperative period and is associated with fewer OME discharge prescriptions and shorter hospital stay.