Ambulatory proctologic surgery: Recommendations of the French National Coloproctology Society (SNFCP)

Preoperative Pressure Pain Threshold Is Associated With Postoperative Pain in Short-Stay Anorectal Surgery: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND:

Postoperative pain management is key for patient satisfaction. Pressure pain threshold (PPT) has been studied in some surgical cohorts but has not been studied in relationship to acute postoperative pain in short-stay patients undergoing anorectal surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative finger PPT measurements can identify respective patients with higher postoperative pain. Aiming to understand the relationship with subjective postoperative pain perception, we tested the hypotheses that preoperative PPT is associated with postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and correlates with postoperative analgesic consumption in short-stay patients undergoing anorectal surgery.

METHODS:

We prospectively assessed preoperative PPT in a cohort undergoing anorectal surgery, known as a moderately to severely painful procedure. Linear mixed-effects models were used to assess the relationship with postoperative VAS pain scores at 1 and 3 days as well as 4 weeks postoperatively. Logistic regression was used to study the relationship with additional postoperative analgesic consumption.

RESULTS:

We studied 128 patients and found that preoperative PPT is significantly associated with postoperative pain (P value for interaction = .025). Logistic regression modeling additionally revealed an association between the preoperative PPT and the need for additional postoperative analgesics, with odds of requiring additional analgesia decreasing by about 10% for each 1-point increase in PPT (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 00.81–0.98; P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS:

Preoperative finger PPT is associated with postoperative pain and might help identify patients who are at risk of developing more severe postoperative pain on anorectal surgery. Especially in ambulatory and short-stay settings, this approach can help to address patients’ high variability in pain sensitivity to facilitate appropriate postoperative analgesia, timely discharge, and prevent readmission.

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.

High post-operative pain scores despite multimodal analgesia in ambulatory anorectal surgery: a prospective cohort study

Background: Ambulatory surgery for anorectal procedures has become widely accepted. Recent reviews recommend a multimodal approach to pain management. However, these recommendations are largely based on single intervention studies. Our goal was to evaluate post-operative pain in patients receiving a multimodal analgesic regimen. Methods: All patients undergoing an ambulatory anorectal procedure between December 2015 and September 2016 received a pain diary. Mean pain throughout the day and pain during defecation where recorded on day 0-14 and day 21 postoperatively using a numeric rating scale-11. Use of oral analgesics was also recorded. Results: Forty-two patients completed the pain diary. The use of local anesthetic infiltration did not result in a significant difference in pain scores in this study. Patients who received written information on postoperative pain management and hygienic measures had higher intake of oral analgesics. Despite receiving multimodal analgesic treatment, patients undergoing surgery for hemorrhoids or anal fissures reported pain scores ≥4 and used analgesics longer. Conclusion: A multimodal analgesic approach consisting of local anesthetic infiltration, multiple oral analgesics and written information seems to be insufficient for certain patient groups after ambulatory anorectal surgery. Especially patients undergoing surgery for hemorrhoids or an anal fissure should receive adequate analgesia. Pain during defecation is problematic and finding a solution for this problem remains challenging. Further research into the combined use of different analgesic modalities is recommended.

Early experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Ventral rectopexy can be performed robotically with only limited trauma for the patient, making its performance in an ambulatory setting potentially interesting. The aim of this study is to report our preliminary experience with ambulatory robotic ventral rectopexy in consecutive patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ten consecutive patients underwent robotic ventral rectopexy for total rectal prolapse (n=8) or symptomatic enterocele (n=2) between February 2014 and April 2015. Patients were selected for outpatient treatment based on criteria of patient motivation, favorable social conditions, and satisfactory general condition. Patient characteristics, technical results and cost were reported.

RESULTS

The mean operating time was 94minutes (range: 78-150). The average operating room occupancy time was 254minutes (222-339). There were no operative complications, conversion to laparotomy, or postoperative complication. The average duration of hospital stay was 11 (8-32) hours. Two patients required hospitalization: one for persistent pain and the other for urinary retention. The average maximum pain score recorded on postoperative day 1 was 2/10 on a visual analog scale (range: 0-5/10). Estimated average cost (excluding amortization of the purchase of the robot) was €9088 per procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory management of robotic ventral rectopexy is feasible and safe.