[Selective intestinal preparation in a multimodal rehabilitation program. Influence on preoperative comfort and the results after colorectal surgery]

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Older Adults Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery is increasingly applied in older adults undergoing colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of enhanced recovery protocols on clinical outcomes including hospital-acquired geriatric syndromes in older adults undergoing colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

This review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and trial registry databases were searched (January 1980 to April 2020).

STUDY SELECTION

Two researchers independently screened all articles for eligibility. Randomized controlled trials evaluating enhanced recovery protocols in older adults undergoing colorectal surgery were included.

INTERVENTION

The enhanced recovery protocol was utilized.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes of interest were functional decline and delirium. Other outcomes studied were length of stay, complications, readmission, mortality, gut function, mobilization, pain, reoperation, quality of life, and psychological status.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials (n = 1277 participants) were included. In terms of hospital-acquired geriatric syndromes, functional decline was reported in 1 study with benefits reported in enhanced recovery after surgery participants, and meta-analyses showed reduced incidence of delirium (risk ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.98). Meta-analyses also showed reduction in urinary tract infections (risk ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.90), time to first flatus (standardized mean differences, -1.00; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.02), time to first stool (standardized mean differences, -0.59; 95% CI, -0.76 to -0.42), time to mobilize postoperatively (standardized mean differences, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.27 to -0.58), time to achieve pain control (standardized mean differences, -0.59; 95% CI, -0.90 to -0.28), and hospital stay (mean differences, -2.20; 95% CI, -3.46 to -0.94).

LIMITATIONS

The small number of randomized trials in older adults is a limitation of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery protocols in older adults undergoing colorectal surgery appear to reduce the incidence of delirium and functional decline, 2 important hospital-acquired geriatric syndromes, as well as to improve other clinical outcomes. Future research should measure these geriatric syndromes and focus on high-risk older adults including those with frailty.

Impact of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis

AIM

To analyse the effect of mechanical bowel preparation vs no mechanical bowel preparation on outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing adult patients receiving mechanical bowel preparation with those receiving no mechanical bowel preparation, subdivided into those receiving a single rectal enema and those who received no preparation at all prior to elective colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies (23 randomised controlled trials and 13 observational studies) including 21568 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery were included. When all studies were considered, mechanical bowel preparation was not associated with any significant difference in anastomotic leak rates (OR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.74 to 1.10, P = 0.32), surgical site infection (OR = 0.99, 95%CI: 0.80 to 1.24, P = 0.96), intra-abdominal collection (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.63 to 1.17, P = 0.34), mortality (OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.57 to 1.27, P = 0.43), reoperation (OR = 0.91, 95%CI: 0.75 to 1.12, P = 0.38) or hospital length of stay (overall mean difference 0.11 d, 95%CI: -0.51 to 0.73, P = 0.72), when compared with no mechanical bowel preparation, nor when evidence from just randomized controlled trials was analysed. A sub-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation vs absolutely no preparation or a single rectal enema similarly revealed no differences in clinical outcome measures.

CONCLUSION

In the most comprehensive meta-analysis of mechanical bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery to date, this study has suggested that the use of mechanical bowel preparation does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications when compared with no preparation. Hence, mechanical bowel preparation should not be administered routinely prior to elective colorectal surgery.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery programmes (ERPs) have been developed over the past 10 years to improve patient outcomes and to accelerate recovery after surgery. The existing literature focuses on specific specialties, mainly colorectal surgery. The aim of this review was to investigate whether the effect of ERPs on patient outcomes varies across surgical specialties or with the design of individual programmes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to January 2013 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing ERPs with standard care in adult elective surgical patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight trials were included in the review, with a total of 5099 participants. Study design and quality was poor. Meta-analyses showed that ERPs reduced the primary length of stay (standardized mean difference -1·14 (95 per cent confidence interval -1·45 to -0·85)) and reduced the risk of all complications within 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0·71, 95 per cent c.i. 0·60 to 0·86). There was no evidence of a reduction in mortality (RR 0·69, 95 per cent c.i. 0·34 to 1·39), major complications (RR 0·95, 0·69 to 1·31) or readmission rates (RR 0·96, 0·59 to 1·58). The impact of ERPs was similar across specialties and there was no consistent evidence that elements included within ERPs affected patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

ERPs are effective in reducing length of hospital stay and overall complication rates across surgical specialties. It was not possible to identify individual components that improved outcome. Qualitative synthesis may be more appropriate to investigate the determinants of success.