Enhanced recovery protocol in esophagectomy, is it really worth it? A cost analysis related to team experience and protocol compliance

Clinical predictors of postoperative complications in the context of enhanced recovery (ERAS) in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer

The overall frequency of postoperative complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer diverges between studies. We evaluated the frequency and assessed the relationship between complications and demographic and clinical features. For this observational study, data were extracted from the ERAS Registry managed by the University of Verona, Italy. Patients were evaluated and compared for postoperative complications according to the consensus-based classification and the Clavien-Dindo scale. The study population was 877 patients: 346 (39.5%) with esophageal and 531 (60.5%) with gastric cancer; 492 (56.2%) reported one or more postoperative complications, 213 (61.6%) of those with esophageal and 279 (52.5%) of those with gastric cancer. When stratified by consensus-based classification, patients with esophageal cancer reported general postoperative complications more frequently (p < 0.001) than those with gastric cancer, but there was no difference in postoperative surgical complications between the two groups. Multiple logistic regression models revealed an association between postoperative complications and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.36), operation time (adjusted OR, 1.08; 95% CI 1.00-1.15), and days to solid diet intake (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI 1.20-1.59). Complications in patients with esophageal and gastric cancer are frequent, even in those treated according to ERAS principles, and are often associated with comorbidities, longer operative time, and longer time to solid diet intake.

The "Weekday Effect" on Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol for Gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

While enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol demonstrated to improve outcomes after gastrectomy, some papers evidenced a detrimental effect on postoperative morbidity related to the "weekday effect." We aimed to understand whether the day of gastrectomy could affect postoperative outcomes and compliance with ERAS items.

METHODS

We included all patients that underwent gastrectomy for cancer between January 2017 and September 2021. Cohort was divided considering the day of surgery: Early group (Monday-Wednesday) and Late group (Thursday-Friday). Compliance with protocol and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-seven patients were included in Early group, while 154 were in Late group. The groups were comparable in preoperative characteristics. No significant difference in pre/intraoperative and postoperative ERAS items' compliance was apparent between Early and Late groups, with most items exceeding the 70% threshold. Median length of stay was 6.5 days and 6 days in Early and Late groups (p = 0.616), respectively. Morbidity was 50% in both groups, with severe complications that occurred in 13% of Early patients and 15% of Late patients. Ninety-day mortality was 2%, and it was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a center with a standardized ERAS protocol, the weekday of gastrectomy has no significant impact on the success of each ERAS item and on postoperative surgical and oncological outcomes.

Effect of the postural transition in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The advantages of prone position in minimally invasive esophagectomy have not been well studied. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of a transition from the left lateral decubitus position to the prone position for thoracic procedures in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with thoracic esophageal carcinomas who underwent thoracoscopic esophagectomy and laparoscopic gastric mobilization between January 2015 and December 2019. The left decubitus and prone positions were analyzed using propensity score-matched pairs for the baseline characteristics, morbidity, and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 114 consecutive patients were included in this study; 90 (78.9%) were male and the median age was 67.2 years old. Of these patients, 39 and 75 underwent left decubitus and prone esophagectomy, respectively. Prone esophagectomy was associated with a lower incidence of pneumonia than that performed in the decubitus position (12.5% vs. 37.5%, p = 0.0187). With respect to the long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups. The 4-year overall and relapse-free survival rates for prone and decubitus esophagectomy were 73.8% and 73.2%, and 84.4% and 71.8%, respectively (p = 0.9899 and 0.6751, respectively). Prone esophagectomy yielded a shorter operative time (total: 528 [485-579] min vs. 581 [555-610] min, p < 0.0022; thoracic section: 243 [229-271] min vs. 292 [274-309] min, p < 0.0001), less bleeding in the thoracic procedures (0 [0-10] mL vs. 70 [20-138] mL, p < 0.0001), a shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (19 [15-23] vs. 30 [21-46] days, p = 0.0002), and a lower total hospital charge (30,046 [28,175-32,660] US dollars vs. 36,396 [31,533-41,180] US dollars, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Transition into the prone position in minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible with adequate postoperative and oncological safety and economical in esophageal cancer surgery.

Application of ERAS protocol in esophagectomy: a national survey among Italian centers performing esophageal surgery

The application of enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines for esophageal surgery in different units remains unclear. This survey intended to investigate how such protocol is applied among Italian esophageal surgery units. A survey with 40 questions was mailed to Italian centers that performed at least 10 esophagectomies per year. It included questions about the type of hospital and unit and pre-, intra- and post-operative items. Difficulties encountered were investigated. Thirteen (65%) centers answered the survey, and all met the minimal safety requirements, e.g., the presence of intensive care units and 24-h on-call operative endoscopy and radiology facilities. Fifty percent of esophagectomies with a minimally invasive approach were performed in 84.6% of the centers. Regarding pre-operative items, the highest scores were for the application of nutritional support, dysphagia palliation and presence of a multidisciplinary tumor board, whereas the lowest score was for the use of immunonutrition. Regarding intra-operative items, hypothermia prevention and the use of goal-directed fluid therapy and volatile anesthesia were diffusely adopted, whereas the rate of using abdominal drains was high. Regarding post-operative items, nausea prevention, multimodal analgesia and early mobilization were applied frequently, whereas the use of nasogastric tubes and regular transfer to intensive care units was diffused. The primary barriers in enhanced recovery after surgery protocol application were resistance and a lack of paramedic personnel. This survey's results highlight the efforts undertaken by several centers to apply enhanced recovery after surgery philosophy and in this regard, demonstrate a good standing in Italy.

Feasibility of enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery has generally been applied to gastrointestinal surgeries; however, few studies have investigated minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of an enhanced recovery protocol after minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy.

METHODS

Data were collected between January 2015 and April 2020 for patients who underwent esophagectomy. Of these patients, those who underwent minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy was selected for the investigation. Perioperative outcomes and nutritional index were compared using propensity score matching between the conventional group and the enhanced recovery group.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients were enrolled in this study. Of these, 73 and 46 were treated with conventional and enhanced recovery protocol, respectively. Forty-two pairs were matched in two groups. The enhanced recovery group showed a lower rate of pulmonary complications (9.5% vs. 28.5%, p = 0.0235), abdominal dysfunctions (16.7% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.0078), and shorter hospital stay as compared with the conventional group (17.5 days vs. 23 days, p = 0.0034). The loss of body weight (6.3% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.0065) and body mass index (5.6% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.0017) were significantly lower in the enhanced recovery group than in the conventional group. In contrast, nutritional biochemistry data did not differ significantly between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the promotion of an enhanced recovery protocol in minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy maintains nutritional status without increasing postoperative complications.

Effect of direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy on costs and quality of life

AIMS

Following (minimally invasive) esophagectomy, patients often rely on tube feeding, since oral intake is often delayed. Consequently, additional support by a dietician and home care is needed until oral intake is commenced. In this study, the effects of direct start of oral feeding compared with tube feeding following an esophagectomy was evaluated on treatment costs and health-related quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Patients undergoing a minimally invasive esophagectomy were randomized in the NUTRIENT II study between controls (nil-per-mouth during 5 days and subsequent tube feeding) and a group in whom oral feeding was started directly postoperatively. Total hospital costs (including readmission and outpatient costs) and home care data for a period of 6 months after surgery were analyzed. QoL (measured using EORTC-QLQ-C30 and EORTC OG-25) was assessed preoperatively and 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total 132 patients were included (n = 65 direct oral feeding group and n = 67 control group). Mean patient hospital costs were €26,014 in the intervention group over a 6-month period compared to €26,989 in the control group (p = .825). Furthermore, people with direct oral feeding required significantly less home care assistance; i.e. 23 (48.9%) intervention patients versus 37 (77.1%) control patients (p = .004). Also, QoL in patients with direct oral feeding progressed more quickly when compared to the control group.

LIMITATIONS

Hospital costs were derived from a single hospital unit whereas costs from all the participating units may be a better reflection of the cost deviation. Availability of homecare data was limited, leading to difficulty in detecting differences in costs.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that direct oral feeding leads to similar total costs and a significantly reduced need for home care assistance. Furthermore, QoL in intervention group increased more quickly when compared to the control group.

RAMIE: tradition drives innovation-feasibility of a robotic-assisted intra-thoracic anastomosis

Due to the difficulties in the intra-thoracic esophagogastric anastomosis creation, totally minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy (MIE) did not encountered a large diffusion, preferring hybrid techniques or cervical anastomosis. Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) has gained popularity due to an easy reproducibility of the open anastomotic technique. In this feasibility study, we described the RAMIE technique introduced in our Center, providing innovative details for a mechanical end-to-end anastomosis. With patient in prone position, esophagectomy is conducted through the meso-esophagus plan. Robotic hand-sewn purse-string is realized above Azygos vein. A 4-cm thoracotomy in the fifth intercostal space is performed by enlarging the trocar incision. The tubulization is performed to create an access pouch for the introduction of the circular stapler. After the creation of the end-to-end anastomosis, the access pouch is resected and a robotic over-sewn is realized. From January 2020 until July 2020, ten patients were enrolled. No restriction in term of age, BMI, ASA grade or previous surgery were applied. Median operative time was 700 min. R0 resection was achieved in all cases with a good lymph node harvesting. No anastomotic leak or stricture were observed. One chyle leak was treated conservatively. Median length of stay was 8 days and 90 days mortality was 0%. This study evidenced how robotic surgery allowed us to perform the same anastomosis of our open technique with good oncological results and morbidity and length of stay comparable with our previous results. Of note, longer operative time has been recorded. Further studies after the completion of the learning curve are necessary to address more definite conclusions.

Feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections: a UK-wide survey

INTRODUCTION

The usage of a feeding jejunostomy has been a well-established practice in maintaining nutrition in patients undergoing resections for upper gastrointestinal cancer. As surgical technique has evolved, together with the adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the routine insertion of feeding jejunostomy tubes appears to be changing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was constructed using Google Forms. The link was distributed to consultant upper gastrointestinal surgeons via the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons' membership database. Results were collated and analysed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

A total of 55 responses were received from 28 units across the UK; 27 respondents (49.1%) no longer routinely use feeding jejunostomy in upper gastrointestinal resections, oesophagectomy or gastrectomy. The most common primary feeding modality used by these respondents was oral diet 17 (65.4%), with total parenteral nutrition (19.2%) and nasojejunal (11.5%) routes also being used. Respondents who used feeding jejunostomies inserted them primarily for oesophagectomy (n = 27; 96.4%), with fewer surgeons using them in extended total gastrectomy (n = 12; 42.9%) and total gastrectomy (n = 11; 39.3%). Of the total, 20 surgeons (71.4%) would insert the jejunostomy using an open approach, with 19 (67.9%) employing a Witzel tunnel. Eleven respondents (39.3%) would continue feeding via the jejunostomy after discharge. Some 24 responders thought that feeding jejunostomies did not facilitate the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway (strongly and slightly disagree), whereas 17 considered that they did (strongly and slightly agree); 13 responders did not have strong views either way.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a split in current practice regarding the usage of feeding jejunostomies. There is also a division of opinion on the role of feeding jejunostomy in enhanced recovery after surgery.

Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?

The morbidity and mortality benefits of performing high-risk operations in high-volume centers by high-volume surgeons are evident. Regionalization is a proposed strategy to leverage high-volume centers for esophagectomy to improve quality outcomes. Internationally, regionalization occurs under national mandates. Those mandates do not exist in the United States and spontaneous regionalization of esophagectomy has only modestly occurred in the U.S. Regionalization must strike a careful balance and not limit access to optimal oncologic care to our most vulnerable cancer patient populations in rural and disadvantaged socioeconomic areas. We reviewed the recent literature highlighting: the justification of hospital and surgeon annual esophagectomy volumes for regionalization; how safety performance metrics could influence regionalization; whether regionalization is occurring in the US; what impact regionalization may have on esophagectomy costs; and barriers to patients traveling to receive oncologic treatment at regionalized centers of excellence.