Ambulatory colectomy: No innovation without evaluation

Short-Stay Left Colectomy for Colon Cancer: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgical practices have decreased hospital length of stay (LOS) after surgery. This study aimed to determine the safety of short-stay (≤24-hour) left colectomy for colon cancer patients in the US.

STUDY DESIGN

Adult colon cancer patients who underwent elective left colectomies were identified using the American College of Surgeons NSQIP database (2012 to 2021). Patients were categorized into 4 LOS groups: LOS 1 day or less (≤24-hour short stay), 2 to 4, 5 to 6, and 7 or more. Primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative overall and serious morbidity. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to explore the association between LOS and overall and serious morbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 15,745 patients who underwent left colectomies for colon cancer were identified with 294 (1.87%) patients undergoing short stay. Short-stay patients were generally younger and healthier with lower 30-day overall morbidity rates (LOS ≤1 day: 3.74%, 2 to 4: 7.38%, 5 to 6: 16.12%, and ≥7: 37.64%, p < 0.001). Compared with patients with LOS 2 to 4 days, no differences in mortality and readmission rates were observed. On adjusted analysis, there was no statistical difference in the odds of overall (LOS 2 to 4 days: odds ratio 1.90, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.60, p = 0.049) and serious morbidity (LOS 2 to 4 days: odds ratio 0.86, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.76, p = 0.672) between the short-stay and LOS 2 to 4 days groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although currently performed at low rates in the US, short-stay left colectomy is safe for a select group of patients. Attention to patient selection, refinement of clinical pathways, and close follow-up may enable short-stay colectomies to become a more feasible reality.

Eligibility criteria for ambulatory colectomy

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To determine the statistical indicators aimed at identifying patients for whom ambulatory colectomy could be proposed without additional risk.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The medical charts of patients who benefited from scheduled colonic or rectal resection during conventional hospitalization stays between 2018 and 2019 were reviewed. Eligibility for ambulatory colectomy was defined by hospital stay≤4 days and absence of any postoperative complication. Patient characteristics were compared, and the results were modeled in the form of a decision-making tree. The effect of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for each sub-group was calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred and ten (110) patients were selected (41 "eligible" and 69 "non-eligible"). Median age was 73 years (27-95). Nearly 80% of the patients were operated for cancer. In multivariate analysis, age (≥65 years, OR=3.15, CI95%=1.22-8.12), diabetes (OR=3.91, CI95%=1.03-14.8) and indication (sigmoidectomy for diverticulosis, OR=0.21, CI=95%=0.05-0.9) were the only identified independent variables. Likelihood for ambulatory eligibility was 83.3% (<65 years, sigmoidectomy pour diverticulosis, +ERAS=92%-96.9%), 58.3% (<65 years, other indication, +ERAS=63.4%-89.9%), 35.7% (≥65 years without diabetes, +ERAS=40.0%-55.9%) and 8.3% (≥65 years with diabetes, +ERAS=10.0%-20.1%).

CONCLUSION

Sigmoidectomy for diverticulosis in a patient under 65 years age represents the best indication for ambulatory colectomy, a procedure that must not be proposed to diabetic patients over 65 years of age. In the other cases (<65 years operated in another indication and non-diabetic≥65 years), ambulatory surgery is possible, pending satisfactory application of the ERAS protocol.

Risk management in outpatient surgery

Outpatient surgery has become a national policy priority set by health care authorities (targets for more than 70% of outpatient procedures by 2022), making ambulatory hospitalization the new standard of care. This practice introduces new risks along the patient's course. Even though these risks are low and although the literature and data from insurance databases is reassuring, the risks in outpatient surgery remain poorly understood. Risks can be organizational in view of the many stages of the patient journey that must be formalized-medical, anesthetic or surgical-in view of planned discharge the same evening as the procedure, and medico-legal because of the importance of the discharge authorization and the information provided to the patient. A risk management approach (a priori or a posteriori) has become a mandatory part of a policy of continuous quality improvement and safety of care. The coordination of all the team members (surgeon, anesthesiologist, nursing and administrative staff and the patient's accompanying person) as well as the patient's active participation are essential to minimize risks and prevent complications.

How to implement an enhanced recovery programme after colorectal surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Although the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery was introduced more than 20 years ago, its implementation in daily practice still remains difficult.

RESULTS

This article addresses bottlenecks and barriers to the development of enhanced recovery programme (ERP). Barriers to the implementation are multifactorial and are raised by the different actors of these programmes: surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, patients. Solutions and steps that must be respected to succeed in introducing ERP in an hospital are proposed.

CONCLUSIONS

Large-scale implementation of ERP continues to face mainly lack of trust and communication. Solutions exist and are based particularly on team work and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Quality of life at home and satisfaction of patients after enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Quality of life of patients at home after an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for surgery has been least studied especially in elderly patients.

METHODS

Our first 41 patients entered in the colorectal GRACE database were interviewed through telephone about their postoperative stress, fatigue, pain, difficulty in feeding, home autonomy, and satisfaction. We compared the responses of the elderly patients (>70 years, n = 19) with those of the younger patients.

RESULTS

The time between the surgery and the questionnaire was 79 ± 48 days. Early return was experienced as stressful by ±20% of the patients. Fatigue and pain were low (respectively: simple numerical scale [SNS] = 4.2 ± 3.2 and 2.5 ± 2.9). When present, pain was relieved by the prescribed treatment. One-third of the patients described some difficulty in feeding. Fifty percent of the patients felt completely autonomous when returned at home, 80% attributed the rapid recovery of autonomy to the ERP. Finally, 87% were globally satisfied (SNS: 8.5 ± 1.0). The characteristics of the 'elderly' group (77 ± 6 years) and their questionnaire responses were similar to those of the younger patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite some limitations (retrospective, different time between surgery and the telephone survey), our study suggests that quality of life at home after ERP for colorectal surgery is very satisfactory for over 80% of patients. Furthermore, this study confirms that elderly patients benefit from an ERP for colorectal surgery like younger patients.