[The "Big Five" of Invasiveness - the Usefulness of Drains, Probes and Catheters in Colorectal Surgery]

Verbreitung von Fast-Track-Konzepten in Deutschland

Hintergrund

Fast-Track-Konzepte haben die perioperative Betreuung von Patienten in den letzten 30 Jahren grundlegend verändert. Evidenz für diese Konzepte ist ausreichend vorhanden.

Ziel der Arbeit

Ziel dieses Artikels war es, die Verbreitung von Fast-Track-Konzepten in Deutschland anhand von Routinedaten zu evaluieren.

Material und Methoden

Es wurde eine retrospektive Analyse aller kolorektalen Resektionen der Helios-Kliniken der Jahre 2016 bis 2021 durchgeführt. Diese wurden bezüglich Krankenhausverweildauer, Intensivbelegung, Beatmungsanteil, Mortalität, Komplikationsrate und Zugangsweg analysiert.

Ergebnisse und Diskussion

Eine intensivmedizinische Belegung nach kolorektalen Resektionen ist in Deutschland weiterhin die Regel. Insbesondere bei onkologischen kolorektalen Resektionen werden nach wie vor zwei Drittel der Patienten perioperativ intensivmedizinisch betreut. Die stationäre Liegedauer bei kolorektalen Resektionen ist im internationalen Vergleich weiter überdurchschnittlich lang und auch über die letzten Jahre nur langsam rückläufig (z. B. Kolonkarzinom 2016: 18,6 ± 11,9 Tage/2021: 13,8 ± 9,3). Der Anteil offen-chirurgischer kolorektaler Eingriffe ist rückläufig, macht aber auch 30 Jahre nach Einführung der Laparoskopie einen relevanten Anteil aus (z. B. Kolonkarzinom 2016: 71,10 %/2021: 56,44 %). Die Versorgung von Patienten mit kolorektalen Resektionen scheint demnach weiterhin nicht nach Fast-Track-Prinzipen umgesetzt zu sein.

Laparoscopic rectal resection without epidural catheters-does it work?

PURPOSE

Placement of an epidural catheter (EC) in colorectal resections is still recommended as a valid measure to achieve a low level of pain. However, EC is associated with increased invasiveness and with an increased risk of bladder emptying disorders and a decrease in blood pressure, which all relate to delayed mobilization. Preliminary data shows that EC placement may not be necessary for laparoscopic colon resections. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate how the omission of EC placement influences short-term postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic rectal resections.

METHODS

All laparoscopic rectal resections occurring between 2013 and 2020 were prospectively examined. Resections from January 2013 to February 2018 (group A) were compared with resections from March 2018 to December 2020 (group B; after the internal change of the perioperative pain regime). In addition to EC placement, the other target parameters of our study were urinary catheter placement during the inpatient stay, postoperative pain > 3 days on a numerical rating scale (NRS), mobilization in the first 5 postoperative days, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo, intermediate care unit stay (IMC stay) in days, and hospital length of stay in days.

RESULTS

In the entire study period, 221 laparoscopic rectal resections were performed: 122 in group A and 99 resections in group B. The frequency of EC placement and urinary catheter placement, postoperative IMC stay, and hospital length of stay was significantly lower in group B (p < 0.05). The postoperative mobilization of patients in group B was possible more quickly. There were no differences in the level of pain, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, and postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo.

CONCLUSION

Omission of EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections led to faster mobilization, a shorter IMC stay, and a shorter hospital stay without increasing the pain level. Postoperative complications did not change when an EC was not placed. Therefore, routine EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections is unnecessary.

[First 18 months as certified ERAS® center for colorectal cancer : Lessons learned and results of the first 261 patients]

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) describes a multimodal, interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment concept that optimizes the postoperative convalescence of the patient through the use of evidence-based measures.

GOAL OF THE WORK

The aim of this article is to present the experiences of our center certified by the ERAS® Society for colorectal resections 18 months after successful implementation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Since the beginning of the certification 261 patients have been treated in our clinic according to the specifications of the ERAS® concept. As a comparison group the last 50 patients prior to implementation were evaluated in terms of compliance with ERAS® requirements, length of hospital stay and readmission rate, the need for care in an intensive or intermediate care ward, the number of necessary reoperations and the complication rate.

RESULTS

Compliance increased from 39.3% preERAS® to 81.1% after ERAS® implementation (p < 0.001). At the same time the length of stay of ERAS® patients was reduced from 7 days to 5 days (p = 0.001). While the rate of surgical complications was the same between the two groups (p = 0.236), nonsurgical complications occurred significantly less frequently in the ERAS® cohort (p = 0.018).

DISCUSSION

There are well-known stumbling blocks in implementing and maintaining an ERAS® concept; however, it is worthwhile for the patient to circumnavigate this and establish ERAS® as the standard treatment path.