Enhanced Recovery After Surgery

Ketamine intolerance in patients on enhanced recovery after surgery protocols undergoing colorectal operations

BACKGROUND

Ketamine is used in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols because of its beneficial antihyperalgesic and antitolerance effects. However, adverse effects such as hallucinations, sedation, and diplopia could limit ketamine's utility. The main objective of this study was to identify rates of ketamine side effects in postoperative patients after colorectal surgery and, secondarily, to compare short-term outcomes between patients receiving ketamine analgesia and controls.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational cohort study. Subjects were adults who underwent ERAS protocol-guided colorectal surgery at a large, integrated health system. Patients were grouped into ketamine-receiving and preketamine cohorts. Patients receiving ketamine were divided into tolerant and intolerant groups. Propensity score-adjusted models tested multivariate associations of ketamine tolerance/intolerance vs control group.

RESULTS

A total of 732 patients underwent colorectal surgery within the ERAS program before ketamine's introduction (control). After ketamine's introduction, 467 patients received the medication. Intolerance was seen in 29% of ketamine recipients, and the most common side effect was diplopia. Demographics and surgical variables did not differ between cohorts. Multivariate models revealed no significant differences in hospital stays. Pain scores in the first 24 hours after surgery were slightly higher in patients receiving ketamine. Opiate consumption after surgery was lower for both ketamine tolerant and ketamine intolerant cohorts than for controls.

CONCLUSION

Rates of ketamine intolerance are high, which can limit its use and potential effectiveness. Ketamine analgesia significantly reduced opiate consumption without increasing hospital stays after colorectal surgery, regardless of whether it was tolerated.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Spine Pathways and the Role of Perioperative Checklists

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) proposes a multimodal, evidence-based approach to perioperative care. ERAS pathways have been shown to help reduce complications, hospital length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, pain scores, and ultimately surgical costs, while improving patient satisfaction scores and outcomes in multiple surgical subspecialties [1-6]. Numerous specialties have implemented ERAS programs across the globe, providing a foundation for spine surgeons to begin the process themselves. Over the last few years, a significant number of papers have been addressing ERAS pathways for spinal surgery [7-19]. The majority have addressed the lumbar spine [9, 20-26]. The number of cervical ERAS pathways has been limited [27-29]. Many spine programs have begun the implementation of ERAS pathways, incorporating principles and interventions to various spine surgical procedures. Although differences in implementation across programs exist, there are a few common elements that promote a successful enhanced recovery approach [11, 16, 23, 25, 30-33]. All spinal ERAS pathways have three major elements, which are preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. Within these phases some common elements include preoperative and intraoperative surgical checklists. Intraoperative checklist in addition to the "surgical time out" has been integrated into the workflow of most hospitals doing surgeries and have become a standard of care. The surgical checklist is designed to help reduce surgical errors and prevent wrong site/patient surgeries. Several surgical checklists have been developed throughout the years. Despite these safety protocols wrong site/level and other surgical errors continue to occur. Many cases of wrong level spine surgery (WLSS) still occur even when intraoperative imaging is performed [34, 35]. One survey reported that about 50% of spine surgeons have performed at least one WLSS during their career [36, 37]. Another survey reported that 36% of spine surgeons had performed at least one WLSS that was not recognized intraoperatively [38]. On a similar account, about 30% of spine surgery fellows have experienced wrong-site surgery [39]. From raw incidence rates, WLSS may seem rare, but these surveys show that the experience of WLSS is rather common among spine surgeons. WLSS is not yet a "never event." This may be due to poor quality of the intraoperative images, hindering subsequent level identification [34, 35, 38, 40]. Errors in interpretation of the imaging may also occur, including inconsistency in numbering vertebrae, inconsistency in landmark usage for level counting, and problems with numbering vertebrae due to lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) and other anatomical variants [34, 38, 41-43]. This chapter will describe a framework for the development and implementation of ERAS pathway for patients undergoing spine surgery. In addition, we will propose preoperative imaging guidelines and a comprehensive spine surgical checklist to incorporate into the perioperative phase to help reduce further surgical errors and WLSS.

Systemic versus Oral and Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis (SOAP) study in colorectal surgery: prospective randomized multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus regarding the role of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic prophylaxis (OABP) in reducing postoperative complications in colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of OABP given in addition to MBP in the setting of a prospective randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients awaiting elective colorectal surgery in four Hungarian colorectal centres were included in this multicentre, prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. Patients were randomized to receive MBP with or without OABP (OABP+ and OABP- groups respectively). The primary endpoints were surgical-site infection (SSI) and postoperative ileus. Secondary endpoints were anastomotic leak, mortality, and hospital readmission within 30 days.

RESULTS

Of 839 patients assessed for eligibility between November 2016 and June 2018, 600 were randomized and 529 were analysed. Trial participation was discontinued owing to adverse events in seven patients in the OABP+ group (2.3 per cent). SSI occurred in eight patients (3.2 per cent) in the OABP+ and 27 (9.8 per cent) in the OABP- group (P = 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ileus did not differ between groups. Anastomotic leakage occurred in four patients (1.6 per cent) in the OABP+ and 13 (4.7 per cent) in the OABP- (P = 0.02) group. There were no differences in hospital readmission (12 (4.7 per cent) versus 10 (3.6 per cent); P = 0.25) or mortality (3 (1.2 per cent) versus 4 (1.4 per cent); P = 0.39).

CONCLUSION

OABP given with MBP reduced the rate of SSI and AL after colorectal surgery with anastomosis, therefore routine use of OABP is recommended.

Continuous peripheral perfusion index in patients admitted to hospital wards - An observational study

INTRODUCTION

Risk patients admitted to hospital wards may quickly develop haemodynamic deterioration and early recognition has high priority to allow preventive intervention. The peripheral perfusion index (PPI) may be an indicator of circulatory distress by assessing peripheral perfusion non-invasively from photoplethysmography. We aimed to describe the characteristics of PPI in hospitalized patients since this is not well-studied.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients admitted due to either acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) or after major abdominal cancer surgery were included in this study. Patients were monitored continuously up to 96 hours with a pulse oximeter. Comparisons between median PPI each day, time of day and admission type were described with mean difference (MD) and were analysed using Wilcoxon rank sum test and related to morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

PPI data from 291 patients were recorded for a total of 9279 hours. Median PPI fell from 1.4 (inter quartile range, IQR 0.9-2.3) on day 1 to 1.0 (IQR 0.6-1.6) on day 4. Significant differences occurred between PPI day vs evening (MD = 0.18, 95% CI 0.16-0.20, P = .028), day vs night (MD = 0.56, 95% CI 0.49-0.62, P < .0001) and evening vs night (MD = 0.38, 95% CI 0.33-0.42, P = .002). No significant difference in median PPI between AECOPD and surgical patients was found (MD = 0.15, 95% CI -0.08-0.38, P = .62).

CONCLUSION

Lower PPI during daytime vs evening and night-time were seen for both populations. The highest frequency of serious adverse events and mortality was seen among patients with low median PPI. The clinical impact of PPI monitoring needs further confirmation.

Analgesic Efficacy of Nefopam as an Adjuvant in Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Acute Postoperative Pain After Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Despite rapid advancements in laparoscopic surgical techniques and perioperative management, postoperative pain remains a significant clinical issue. We examined the analgesic efficacy of nefopam as an adjuvant in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 120 patients who did or did not receive 80 mg of nefopam as an adjuvant in fentanyl PCA; they were allocated to the nefopam (n = 60) or non-nefopam group (n = 60). The demographic, clinical, and anesthetic data, with data on pain severity and opioid administration at the postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 3, and 5, were compared between the groups. The pain score and opioid administration did not differ at the PACU or on PODs 1, 3, or 5. The day of PCA discontinuation, time to pass flatus, length of the hospital stay, and incidence of nausea/vomiting, dizziness, and headache also did not differ between the groups. Fentanyl PCA with 80 mg of nefopam as an adjuvant did not have a superior analgesic effect after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Patient education about recovery after colorectal surgery: systematic scoping review

AIM

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to optimize recovery through a series of evidence-based recommendations. A key component of ERAS is the provision of patient education. Whilst the recommendation for this is strong, the evidence to inform its format, timing and delivery is unclear. The aim of this review was to describe previous educational interventions used to improve recovery after colorectal surgery and to explore opportunities for future research.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched between 1 January 1990 and 12 February 2020. Studies which described or assessed the effectiveness of a patient education or information resource to improve recovery after colorectal surgery were eligible. Outcomes of interest included the format, timing and delivery of interventions, as well as key features of intervention and study design. A narrative synthesis of data was produced through a process of charting and summarizing key results.

RESULTS

A total of 1298 papers were inspected, and 11 were eligible for inclusion. Five papers were reports of randomized controlled trials, and others reported a mix of non-randomized and qualitative studies. The design of educational interventions included audio-visual resources (n = 3), smartphone device applications (n = 3) and approaches to facilitate person-to-person counselling (n = 5). Most of the counselling interventions reported positive outcomes (mainly in length of hospital stay), whereas the other types reported mixed results. Patients and the public were seldom involved as collaborators in the design of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education is generally advantageous, but there is insufficient evidence to optimize its design and delivery in the setting of colorectal surgery.

Analgesic Efficacy of Preemptive Transversus Abdominis Plane Block in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Despite rapid advancements in laparoscopic surgical devices and techniques, pain remains a significant issue. We examined the efficacy of preemptive transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 153 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with or without TAP block; among them, 142 were allocated to the TAP or non-TAP group. We performed between-group comparisons of demographic, clinical, and anesthetic data and pain scores at a postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) and at postoperative days 1, 3, and 5. There were no significant between-group differences in demographic and clinical characteristics. The mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) were significantly lower in the TAP group at the start and end of surgery. The post-extubation bispectral index was significantly higher in the TAP group. There were no significant between-group differences in the pain scores and opioid consumption at the PACU or at postoperative days 1, 3, and 5, or in the time to pass flatus, the hospital stay length, and postoperative complications. Preemptive TAP block showed an intraoperative, but not postoperative, analgesic effect, characterized by a low mean arterial pressure, heart rate, and MAC.

Evaluation of Enhanced Recovery After Following a Surgical Protocol for Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis

Introduction:

Cytoreductive surgery with or without hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS ± HIPEC) has positive effects on the survival of patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) due to intra-abdominal tumors. Currently, the available literature on the safety of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol for PC, which is associated with severe morbidity and mortality, is insufficient.

Aim:

This study aimed to present our results from treating patients using the ERAS protocol for PC that developed due to intra-abdominal tumors.

Material and Methods:

The data of 120 consecutive patients with PC due to different etiologies of abdominal origin and who underwent CRS ± HIPEC were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the ERAS protocol was applied. Information on demographics, length of hospital stay, cost, morbidity, and mortality was statistically compared between groups.

Results:

A total of 102 patients were included in the study. The first 40 patients did not undergo the ERAS protocol, whereas 62 patients did undergo the protocol. The mean length of hospital stay was 10 days in the non-ERAS group and 7 days in the ERAS group. The ERAS group was observed to have earlier mobilization, earlier gas and stool release, lower oral intake, and fewer respiratory problems than the non-ERAS group.

Conclusion:

CRS ± HIPEC has a positive effect on survival. The simultaneous application of the ERAS protocol with the aforementioned procedure has positive effects on intestinal motility and postoperative outcomes. In addition, this protocol may reduce costs by shortening the length of hospital stay.

Enhanced recovery after spine surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVEEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multidimensional approach to improving the care of surgical patients using subspecialty- and procedure-specific evidence-based protocols. The literature provides evidence of the benefits of ERAS implementation, which include expedited functional recovery, decreased postoperative morbidity, reduced costs, and improved subjective patient experience. Although extensively examined in other surgical areas, ERAS principles have been applied to spine surgery only in recent years. The authors examine studies investigating the application of ERAS programs to patients undergoing spine surgery.METHODSThe authors conducted a systematic review of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases up to November 20, 2018.RESULTSTwenty full-text articles were included in the qualitative analysis. The majority of studies were retrospective reviews of nonrandomized data sets or qualitative investigations lacking formal control groups; there was 1 protocol for a future randomized controlled trial. Most studies demonstrated reduced lengths of stay and no increase in rates of readmissions or complications after introduction of an ERAS pathway.CONCLUSIONSThese introductory studies demonstrate the potential of ERAS protocols, when applied to spine procedures, to reduce lengths of stay, accelerate return of function, minimize postoperative pain, and save costs.