Fast-track surgery combined with laparoscopy could improve postoperative recovery of low-risk rectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Effect of rapid rehabilitation nursing on improving clinical outcomes in postoperative patients with colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the cornerstone treatment for colorectal cancer. Rapid rehabilitation care predicated on evidence-based medical theory aims to improve postoperative nursing care, subsequently reducing the physical and mental traumatic stress response and helping patients who undergo surgery recover rapidly.

AIM

To assess the effect of rapid rehabilitation care on clinical outcomes, including overall postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, wound infections, and intestinal obstruction in patients with colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Elsevier Science Direct, and Springer Link databases from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2024, to screen eligible studies on rapid rehabilitation care among patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery. Patients were screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis of the data.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were enrolled, which included 2420 patients. The results showed that rapid rehabilitation care decreased the incidence of overall postoperative complications (OR: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.26-0.74, P = 0.002), anastomotic leaks (OR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.41-1.12, P = 0.13), wound infections (OR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29-0.72, P = 0.0007), and intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.54, 95%CI: 0.34-0.86, P = 0.01) compared to conventional care. Further trials and studies are needed to confirm these results.

CONCLUSION

Rapid rehabilitation care decreased the occurrence of postoperative complications, anastomotic leaks, wound infections, and intestinal obstruction compared to conventional care in patients who underwent colorectal surgery. Therefore, promoting the application of rapid rehabilitation care in clinical practice cannot be overemphasized.

The effects of enhanced recovery after surgery on wound infection, complications, and postoperative hospital stay in patients undergoing colorectal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) on surgical site infections, postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. A comprehensive search was conducted of PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Data from database inception to April 2023 to identify relevant studies on the application of ERAS in colorectal surgery. Studies were screened, and data were extracted based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software. A total of 22 studies, including 3702 patients (ERAS group: 1906; control group: 1796), were included in the final analysis. ERAS significantly reduced the incidence of surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR]: 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.69, p < 0.001), postoperative complications (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.27-0.41, p < 0.001), and length of hospital stay (standardised mean difference: -1.22 days, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.77 days, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that ERAS reduces the incidence of surgical site infections and postoperative complications and shortens the length of hospital stay in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Therefore, ERAS should be promoted and applied in clinical practice.

Impact of enhanced recovery pathways on patient-reported outcomes after abdominal surgery: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supports that enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) reduce length of stay and complications; however, these measures may not reflect the perspective of patients who are the main stakeholders in the recovery process. This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence regarding the impact of ERPs on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Five databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, Cochrane, and Web of Science) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of ERPs on PROs after abdominal surgery. We focused on distinct periods of recovery: early (within 7 days postoperatively) and late (beyond 7 days). Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2.0. Results were appraised descriptively as heterogeneity hindered meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

RESULTS

Fifty-six RCTs were identified [colorectal (n = 18), hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) (n = 11), upper gastrointestinal (UGI) (n = 10), gynecological (n = 7), urological (n = 7), general surgery (n = 3)]. Most trials had 'some concerns' (n = 30) or 'high' (n = 25) risk of bias. In the early postoperative period, ERPs improved patient-reported general health (colorectal, HPB, UGI, urological; very low to low certainty), physical health (colorectal, gynecological; very low to low certainty), mental health (colorectal, gynecological; very low certainty), pain (all specialties; very low to moderate certainty), and fatigue (colorectal; low certainty). In the late postoperative period, ERPs improved general health (HPB, UGI, urological; very low certainty), physical health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low to low certainty), mental health (UGI, gynecological, urological; very low certainty), social health (gynecological; very low certainty), pain (gynecological, urological; very low certainty), and fatigue (gynecological; very low certainty).

CONCLUSION

This review supports that ERPs may have a positive impact on patient-reported postoperative health status (i.e., general, physical, mental, and social health) and symptom experience (i.e., pain and fatigue) after abdominal surgery; however, data were largely derived from low-quality trials. Although these findings contribute important knowledge to inform evidence-based ERP implementation, there remains a great need to improve PRO assessment in studies focused on postoperative recovery.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robot-assisted versus transanal total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer patients: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive total mesorectal excision is increasingly being used as an alternative to open surgery in the treatment of patients with rectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to compare the total, operative and hospitalization costs of open, laparoscopic, robot-assisted and transanal total mesorectal excision.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) (S1 File) A literature review was conducted (end-of-search date: January 1, 2023) and quality assessment performed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria.

RESULTS

12 studies were included, reporting on 2542 patients (226 open, 1192 laparoscopic, 998 robot-assisted and 126 transanal total mesorectal excision). Total costs of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision were higher compared to the open technique in the majority of included studies. For robot-assisted total mesorectal excision, higher operative costs and lower hospitalization costs were reported compared to the open and laparoscopic technique. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to low study quality and a high level of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was caused by differences in the learning curve and statistical methods used.

CONCLUSION

Literature regarding costs of total mesorectal excision techniques is limited in quality and number. Available evidence suggests minimally invasive techniques may be more expensive compared to open total mesorectal excision. High-quality economical evaluations, accounting for the learning curve, are needed to properly assess costs of the different techniques.

Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway in Minimally Invasive Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has been proven valuable for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who received traditional surgery. While for those receiving minimally invasive surgery (MIS), its efficacy and safety remain debatable. Materials and Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane libraries, and Web of science, were searched for relevant articles from their inception to February 23, 2022. Eligible articles were subjected to quality assessment and data extraction. The comparison between ERAS and traditional care (TC) was performed. Primary outcomes of this study were postoperative length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, time to the first anal exhaust, and defecation. Results: Thirteen cohort studies covering 4308 patients were included. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly shorter LOS (weight mean differences [WMD]: -1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.33 to -1.45; P < .001), lower incidence of postoperative complications (risk ratios [RR]: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.5-0.88; P < .001), lower 30-day readmission rate (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.61-0.92; P < .05), and shorter time to the first defecation (WMD: -1.93; 95% CI: -3.26 to -0.59; P < .001), but unimproved mortality, reoperation rate, and time to the first anal exhaust (P > .05) compared with those in the TC group. Conclusions: ERAS was effective and safe for CRC patients receiving MIS from a real-world perspective. Hence, the implementation of ERAS should be recommended for minimally invasive CRC surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: CRD42022321333.

Acupoint Stimulation for Enhanced Recovery After Colon Surgery: A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) in improving bowel function and thus shortening hospital stay after laparoscopic colon surgery within the ERAS pathway.

Patients and Methods

From November 2016 to March 2018, 100 patients who underwent elective colon surgery were enrolled and 94 finished study (n = 47 for each) in three university hospitals. Patients in the TEAS group received TEAS 30 min before surgery and once a day for 3 days after surgery, while those in the Control Group received no stimulation. Primary outcome was the time to discharge.

Results

Compared with standardized postoperative care, TEAS resulted in a shorter time to first flatus (P=0.03) and time to first defecation (P=0.03), as well as a reduction in the length of hospital stay (P=0.02). Median patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) deliveries and PCA attempts at 24h, 48h and 72h after surgery were less in the TEAS group (P<0.01). No evidence of significant advantages in postoperative pain intensity, nausea, vomiting, sleeping quality and expenses was found in the TEAS group.

Conclusion

Perioperative TEAS further shortens the time to meet discharge criteria after laparoscopic colon surgery in patients under ERAS strategy.

Economic Impact of the Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocol in a Bariatric Patient Undergoing a Roux-En-Y Gastric Bypass

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have proven to be cost-effective in various surgical procedures, mainly in colorectal surgeries. However, there is still little scientific evidence evaluating the economic impact of their application in bariatric surgery. The present study aimed to compare the economic cost of performing a laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following an ERAS protocol, with the costs of following a standard-of-care protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective non-randomized study of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: patients following an ERAS protocol and patients following a standard-of-care protocol. The total costs of the procedure were subdivided into pharmacological expenditures, surgical material, and time expenses, the price of complementary tests performed during the hospital stay, and costs related to the hospital stay.

RESULTS

The 84 patients included 58 women (69%) and 26 men (31%) with a mean age of 44.3 ± 11.6 years. There were no significant differences in age, gender, and distribution of comorbidities between groups. Postoperative pain, nausea or vomiting, and hospital stay were significantly lower within the ERAS group. The pharmacological expenditures, the price of complementary tests performed during the hospital stay, and the costs related to the hospital stay, were significantly lower in the ERAS group. There were no significant differences in the surgical material and surgical time costs between groups. Globally, the total cost of the procedure was significantly lower in the ERAS group with a mean saving of 1458.62$ per patient. The implementation of an ERAS protocol implied a mean saving of 21.25% of the total cost of the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an ERAS protocol significantly reduces the perioperative cost of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Effect of single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery assisted with enhanced recovery after surgery on colorectal cancer: study protocol for a single-arm trial

Background

Studies have proved that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol can significantly improve the recovery course of patients during the perioperative period. The application of minimally invasive surgery is a critical component of ERAS protocol. Single-incision plus one port laparoscopic surgery (SILS plus one) could achieve further minimally invasive surgical results than conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS). The objective of this trial is to evaluate the safety and feasibility of SILS plus one with ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer.

Methods

This is a prospective, single-center, open-label, single-arm trial. A total of 120 eligible patients with colorectal cancer will receive SILS plus one followed by the ERAS management during the perioperative period. The primary endpoint is postoperative hospital stay. The secondary endpoints include rehabilitative rate of the fourth postoperative day, postoperative medical cost, postoperative pain score, postoperative recovery indexes, inflammatory immune response indexes, compliance with ERAS measures, 6 min postoperative walking test (6MWT), hospital readmissions, and early postoperative complications.

Discussion

This trial will be the first to evaluate the short-term outcomes of SILS plus one assisted with ERAS protocol for patients with colorectal cancer and will provide valuable clinical evidence on the benefit of the combination of these two techniques, hopefully, to provide patients with more safe, economic, feasible, and rapid surgery and perioperative strategies.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trial Registry, NCT0426829. Registered February 15, 2020 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04268290).

Clinical validation of implementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol in elderly colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of applying enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in elderly colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery at our institution, from January 2017 to December 2017, were reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the young group (YG, patients aged 70 and under 70 years) and the old group (OG, patients over 70 years old). Perioperative outcomes and length of hospital stay were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

In total, 335 patients were enrolled; 237 were YG and 98 were OG. Despite the poorer baseline characteristics of OG, the perioperative outcomes were similar. Length of hospital stay was not different between the groups (YG, 5 days vs. OG, 5 days; P=0.320). When comparing the postoperative complications using the comprehensive complication index (CCI), there was no significant difference (YG, 8.0±13.2 vs. OG, 11.7±23.0; P=0.130). In regression analysis, old age (>70 years) was not a risk factor for high CCI in all patients. In multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein (CRP) level on postoperative day (POD) 3 to 4 was the only strong predictive factor for high CCI in elderly patients.

CONCLUSION

Implementing the ERAS protocol in patients aged >70 years is safe and feasible. High CRP (≥6.47 mg/dL) on POD 3 to 4 can be used as a safety index to postpone discharge in elderly patients.

Predictive factors of high comprehensive complication index in colorectal cancer patients using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol: role as a safety net in early discharge

Purpose

This study was performed to evaluate complications using comprehensive complication index (CCI) in colorectal cancer patients with implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, and to investigate the predictive factors associated with high morbidity rates. It can be used as a safety net in determining the timing of discharge.

Methods

A total of 335 consecutive patients who underwent elective colorectal cancer surgery between January 2017 and December 2017 at a single tertiary center were enrolled. Postoperative complications were defined as occurring within 30 days after surgery. The predictive factor analysis for the high CCI group was also performed.

Results

In total, 116 patients experienced postoperative complications. Wound-related complications and postoperative ileus were the most common. The mean CCI for overall colorectal cancer surgery was 9.1 ± 16.7. Patients featuring low CCI (<26.2) were 297 (88.7%) and high CCI were 38 (11.3%). In multivariable analysis, obstructive colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 3.278; 95% confidence interval, 1.217–8.829; P = 0.019) and CRP value on postoperative day (POD) 3–4 (odds ratio, 1.152; 95% confidence interval, 1.036–1.280; P < 0.010) were significant predictors for high CCI.

Conclusion

The clinical usefulness of CCI in colorectal cancer patients with the ERAS protocol was verified, and it can be used for surgical quality control. More cautious care is needed and the timing of discharge should be carefully determined for patients with obstructive colorectal cancer or POD 3–4 CRP of ≥6.47 mg/dL.

Improving postoperative outcome in rectal cancer surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in an era of increasing laparoscopic resection

PURPOSE

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Programs of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

Methods

Single-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

Eighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

Conclusions

Results from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Retrospective analysis of safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery pathways in stage II-III colorectal cancer patients submitted to surgery and adjuvant therapy

Background

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is suggesting laparoscopic surgeries for colorectal cancer. Conventional perioperative procedures like long preoperative fasting and bowel procedures are not useful and harmful to patients undergoing surgeries for colorectal cancer. The objectives of the study were to compare surgery outcomes, hospital stays, and survival of patients who received fast-track (laparoscopy/open) surgical procedure followed by chemotherapy against those who received conventional (laparoscopy/open) surgical procedure followed by chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

Methods

The study analyzes the outcomes of a total of 542 colorectal cancer (preoperative biopsies stage II or III) patients submitted to surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. The study cohort is retrospectively subdivided in 4 groups submitted to open or laparoscopic resection with or without fast-track protocol appliance and two different chemotherapy regimens. Patients who ended up being TNM stage I have not received the adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results

The fast-track surgical procedure had shorter total hospital stays and postoperative hospital stays than the conventional surgical procedures. Flatus resumption time, the time until first defecation, and intraoperative blood loss were shorter for the fast-track surgical procedures than the conventional surgical procedures. Those surgery outcomes were also shorter for the fast-track laparoscopy than the open fast-track. Resumption of a fluid diet and ambulation onset time were shorter for the fast-track surgical procedures than the conventional surgical procedures. The surgical checkpoints that were compliance by patient of fast-track surgeries were significantly fewer than those of the conventional surgeries. Clinically significant difference for QLQ-C30/CR38 score after chemotherapy was reported between patients who received open conventional surgeries and those patients who received fast-track laparoscopy (59.63 ± 2.26 score/patient vs. 71.67 ± 5.19 score/patient). There were no significant differences for the number of patients with any grade adverse effects (p = 0.431) or with grade 3–4 adverse effects (p = 0.858), and the disease-free and overall survival among cohorts.

Conclusions

The fast-track surgical procedure is effective and safe even in a multidisciplinary scenario as colorectal cancer treatment in which surgery is only a part of management.

Level of evidence: III

Technical efficacy stage: 4.

Enhanced recovery after surgery for laparoscopic gastrectomy in gastric cancer: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG) has been highlighted for its safety and better short-term clinical outcomes in treating gastric cancer. However, only a slight reduction of the post-operative hospital stay was observed in gastric cancer patients undergoing LDG with conventional perioperative management, compared to patients undergoing open surgery. Thus, an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for LDG is needed to further reduce the post-operative hospital stays. This prospective, open-label, single-arm cohort study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the ERAS program for gastric cancer patients undergoing LDG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients with gastric cancer indicated for LDG were consecutively enrolled from December 2016 to January 2018. The ERAS program included short fasting time, effective perioperative pain management, early, goal-oriented ambulation, and oral feeding. The safety assessment was the incidence of post-operative complications, mortality, and readmission in 30 days. The primary efficacy assessment was recovery time defined by post-operative hospital stays and rehabilitative rate on post-operative day 4.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight of 114 patients were finally enrolled. The incidence of post-operative complication, mortality, and readmission in 30 days was 20. 4%, 0%, 7.1%, respectively. The Clavien-Dindo grade III complication rate was 6.1%, while the pulmonary complication rate was 1% only. The median post-operative stay was 6 days (5.0-7.0 days), and the rehabilitative rate on post-operative day 4 was 78%.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS program might be optimal perioperative management for gastric cancer patients after LDG without compromising safety.

TRIAL NUMBER

NCT03016026.

The Japan Society for Surgical Infection: guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infection, 2018

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological surgical site infections (SSIs) were published in Japanese by the Japan Society for Surgical Infection in 2018. This is a summary of these guidelines for medical professionals worldwide.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenterological SSIs, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Modifications were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the general public and relevant medical societies.

RESULTS

There were 44 questions prepared in seven subject areas, for which 51 recommendations were made. The seven subject areas were: definition and etiology, diagnosis, preoperative management, prophylactic antibiotics, intraoperative management, perioperative management, and wound management. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information. The final version of the recommendations was published in 2018, in Japanese.

CONCLUSIONS

The Japanese Guidelines for the prevention, detection, and management of gastroenterological SSI were published in 2018 to provide useful information for clinicians and improve the clinical outcome of patients.

Influence of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol on Postoperative Inflammation and Short-term Postoperative Surgical Outcomes After Colorectal Cancer Surgery

Purpose

Many studies have shown that the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols improve postoperative surgical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to observe the effects on postoperative inflammatory markers and to explore the effects of a high degree of compliance and the use of epidural anesthesia on inflammation and surgical outcomes.

Methods

Four hundred patients underwent colorectal cancer surgery at 2 hospitals during 2 different periods, namely, from January 2006 to December 2009 and from January 2017 to July 2017. Data related to the patient’s clinicopathological features, inflammatory markers, percentage of compliance with elements of the ERAS protocol, and use of epidural anesthesia were collected from a prospectively maintained database.

Results

The complication rate and the length of hospital stay (LOS) were less in the ERAS group than in the conventional group (P = 0.005 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively). The postoperative white blood cell count and the duration required for leukocytes to normalize were reduced in patients following the ERAS protocol (P ≤ 0.001). Other inflammatory markers, such as lymphocyte count (P = 0.008), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.032), and C-reactive protein level (P ≤ 0.001), were lower in the ERAS protocol group. High compliance ( ≥ 70%) was strongly associated with the complication rate and the LOS (P = 0.008 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

ERAS protocols decrease early postoperative inflammation and improves short-term postoperative recovery outcomes such as complication rate and the LOS. High compliance ( ≥ 70%) with the ERAS protocol elements accelerates the positive effects of ERAS on surgical outcomes; however, the effect on inflammation was very small.

Fast-track multidisciplinary treatment versus conventional treatment for colorectal cancer: a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery, fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX chemotherapy are effective strategies for shortening the duration of hospital stay for cancer patients. This trial aimed to clarify the safety and efficacy of the fast-track multidisciplinary treatment (FTMDT) model compared to conventional surgery combined with chemotherapy in Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

METHODS

This trial was a prospective randomized controlled study with a 2 × 2 balanced factorial design and was conducted at six hospitals. Patients in group 1 (FTMDT) received fast-track perioperative treatment and XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients in group 2 (conventional treatment) received conventional perioperative treatment and mFOLFOX6 adjuvant chemotherapy. Subgroups 1a and 2a had laparoscopic surgery and subgroups 1b and 2b had open surgery. The primary endpoint was total length of hospital stay during treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were randomly assigned to the four subgroups, and 342 patients were finally analyzed, including 87 patients in subgroup 1a, 85 in subgroup 1b, 86 in subgroup 2a, and 84 in subgroup 2b. The total hospital stay of group 1 was shorter than that of group 2 [13 days, (IQR, 11-17 days) vs. 23.5 days (IQR, 15-42 days), P = 0.0001]. Compared to group 2, group 1 had lower surgical costs, fewer in-hospital complications and faster recovery (all P < 0.05). Subgroup 1a showed faster surgical recovery than that of subgroup 1b (all P < 0.05). There was no difference in 5-year overall survival between groups 1 and 2 [87.1% (95% CI, 80.7-91.5%) vs. 87.1% (95% CI, 80.8-91.4%), P = 0.7420].

CONCLUSIONS

The FTMDT model, which integrates laparoscopic surgery, fast-track treatment, and XELOX chemotherapy, was the superior model for enhancing the recovery of Chinese patients with colorectal cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01080547 , registered on March 4, 2010.

Factors associated with failure of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal and gastric surgery

Background: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway is widely applied in the perioperative period of stomach and colorectal surgery, and can decrease the length of hospital stay of the patients without compromising the safety of the patients. However, some patients are removed from this pathway for various reasons. Here we found some factors that taking the patients out from the procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of collected data of 550 patients over a 3-year period was conducted, with 292 in the ERAS group and 258 in the conventional care group. Then various basic elements were analyzed to explore the reasons for the failure to complete the ERAS program. Results: Total length of hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in the ERAS group, and a similar incidence of complication rates were observed in the two groups. In this study, the significant factors that associated with complications were advanced age (OR 2.18; p = .031), history of abdominal surgery (OR 2.03; p = .04), incomplete gastrointestinal obstruction (OR 3.42; p < .001), laparoscopic surgery (OR 0.39; p = .004) and intraoperative neostomy (OR 2.37; p = .006). Conclusions: We found that advanced age (>80 years old), history of abdominal surgery, gastrointestinal obstruction and stoma formation were the risk factors. We anticipated to design a risk assessment system upon the high-risk patients from the present ERAS pathway, and make a modified ERAS pathway for those patients.

Is the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Effective and Safe in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has shown a few advantages in colorectal cancer surgery. However, the effectiveness of the ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery is still unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of ERAS program in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with traditional perioperative care (TC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for eligible RCTs comparing ERAS program with TC in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. The main outcomes included the average length of postoperative hospital stay (PHS), time to first flatus and defecation, overall complication, readmission, and mortality rates were undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs involving 1298 patients were included in our study (639 in ERAS group and 659 in TC group). ERAS group had shorter average length of PHS (weighted mean difference [WMD] - 2.00 day, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 2.52 to - 1.48, p = 0.00), time to first flatus (WMD - 12.18 h, 95%CI - 16.69 to - 7.67, p = 0.00), and time to first defecation (WMD - 32.93 h, 95%CI - 45.36 to - 20.50, p = 0.00) than TC group. In addition, the overall complication rates (risk ratio [RR] 0.59, 95%CI 0.40 to 0.86, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in ERAS group compared with TC group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated that ERAS program is a much better effective and safe protocol for laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery compared with TC. Hence, ERAS program should be recommended in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Programs for Laparoscopic Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols or laparoscopic technique has been applied in various surgical procedures. However, the clinical efficacy of combination of the two methods still remains unclear. Thus, our aim was to assess the role of ERAS protocols in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in various databases from January 1990 to October 2017. The results were analyzed according to predefined criteria.

RESULTS

In the present meta-analysis, the outcomes of 34 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled studies and 19 non-randomized controlled studies) enrolling 3615 patients (1749 in the ERAS group and 1866 in the control group) were pooled. ERAS group was associated with shorter hospital stay (WMD - 2.37 days; 95% CI - 3.00 to - 1.73; P 0.000) and earlier time to first flatus (WMD - 0.63 days; 95% CI - 0.90 to - 0.36; P 0.000). Meanwhile, lower overall postoperative complication rate (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.51-0.76; P 0.000) and less hospital cost (WMD 801.52 US dollar; 95% CI - 918.15 to - 684.89; P 0.000) were observed in ERAS group. Similar readmission rate (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.52-1.03, P 0.070) and perioperative mortality (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.53-3.34; P 0.549) were found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ERAS protocol for laparoscopic abdominal surgery is safe and effective. ERAS combined with laparoscopic technique is associated with faster postoperative recovery without increasing readmission rate and perioperative mortality.

Propensity score matching comparison of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer in a middle-income country: short-term outcomes and cost analysis

Background

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery; however, economic studies have yielded contradictory results. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for patients with rectal cancer.

Methods

Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent elective low anterior resection for rectal cancer treatment by laparoscopic and open surgery in a single Brazilian cancer center. Matched covariates included age, gender, body mass index, pTNM stage, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, type of anesthesia, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, and interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and index surgery. The clinical and economic outcomes were evaluated. The follow-up period was within 30 days of the index procedure. The clinical outcomes were reoperation, postoperative complications, operative time, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and postoperative hospital stay. For economic outcomes, a cost analysis was used to compare the costs.

Results

Initially, 220 patients were evaluated. After propensity score matching, 100 patients were included in the analysis (50 patients in the open surgery group and 50 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group). There were no differences in patients' baseline characteristics. Operative time was longer for laparoscopic surgery (247 minutes vs 285 minutes, P=0.006). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes. The hospital costs were similar between the two groups (Brazilian reais 21,233.15 vs Brazilian reais 21,529.28, P=0.115), although the intraoperative costs were higher for laparoscopic surgery, mainly owing to the surgical devices and the theater-related costs. The postoperative costs were lower for laparoscopic surgery, owing to lower intensive care unit, ward, and reoperation costs.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer is not costlier than open surgery from the health care provider's perspective, since the intraoperative costs were offset by lower postoperative costs. Open surgery tends to have a longer length of stay.

Enhanced Recovery Protocols for Adults Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Enhanced surgical recovery protocols are designed to reduce hospital length of stay and health care costs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to systematically review and summarize evidence from randomized and controlled clinical trials comparing enhanced recovery protocols versus usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery with emphasis on recent trials, protocol components, and subgroups for surgical approach and colorectal condition.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE from 2011 to July 2017; reference lists of existing systematic reviews and included studies were reviewed to identify all eligible trials published before 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

English language trials comparing a protocol of preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative components with usual care in adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected.

INTERVENTION

The enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Length of stay, perioperative morbidity, mortality, readmission within 30 days, and surgical site infection were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials of open or laparoscopic surgery for cancer or noncancer conditions were included. Enhanced recovery protocols consisted of 4 to 18 components. Few studies fully described the various components. Length of stay (mean reduction, 2.6 days; 95% CI, -3.2 to -2.0) and risk of overall perioperative morbidity (risk ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.80) were lower in enhanced recovery protocol groups than in usual care groups (moderate-quality evidence). All-cause mortality (rare), readmissions, and surgical site infection rates were similar between protocol groups (low-quality evidence). In predefined subgroup analyses, findings did not vary by surgical approach (open vs laparoscopic) or colorectal condition.

LIMITATIONS

Protocols varied across studies and little information was provided regarding compliance with, or implementation of, specific protocol components.

CONCLUSIONS

Enhanced recovery protocols for adults undergoing colorectal surgery improve patient outcomes with no increase in adverse events. Evidence was insufficient regarding which components, or component combinations, are key to improving patient outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017067991.

Laparoscopic treatment of rectal cancer and lateral pelvic lymph node dissection: are they obsolete?

Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer offers favorable short-term results without compromising long term oncological outcomes so far, according to the data from major trials. For this reason, it is currently considered as a standard option for rectal cancer surgery. The learning curve of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is generally longer compared to colon cancer. Appropriate standardization and training of laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery is required. Several RCTs suggested the potential negative effect on quality of resected specimen, which can increase local recurrence. The long-term outcomes - especially local recurrence rate - of these RCTs are awaited. Lateral pelvic lymph node dissection (LPLND) has a certain effect of reducing local recurrence of rectal cancer even after neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Since LPLND is associated with postoperative morbidity, we should carefully select the candidate to maximize the effect of LPLND and minimize the morbidity caused by LPLND. Recent advancements in imaging study such as CT and MRI enable us to find the suitable candidates for LPLND. The morbidity caused by LPLND could be reduced by minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic surgery and robotic surgery. We have to improve oncological outcomes and reduce morbidity by the multidisciplinary strategy for rectal cancer including total mesorectal excision, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and LPLND together with laparoscopic surgery.

Preliminary Report on Introduction of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol for Laparoscopic Rectal Resection: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic rectal surgery seems to improve postoperative recovery of patients who undergo surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate preliminary results of implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for laparoscopic rectal resection (LRR) for cancer at our institute.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Patients who underwent LRR for cancer at our institute after introduction of enhanced recovery protocol were compared with a control group of patients who previously underwent surgery with traditional protocol. Primary endpoints evaluated were length of stay (LOS) and rates of complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

We studied 150 consecutive patients, 56 operated with the traditional approach and 94 according to ERAS protocol. The mean (range) LOS was 10 (4-27) days for patients in control group versus 8.5 (3-32) days for patients in the ERAS group (P = .0823). No evidence of a different rate (P = .227) of complications was registered between the two groups. One patient in each group was readmitted.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the ERAS protocol in LRR for cancer at our institute led to an initial reduction in hospital LOS, without increase in morbidity or readmission rate compared with our previous experience with traditional protocol.

Network meta-analysis of protocol-driven care and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic approaches and standardized recovery protocols have reduced morbidity following colorectal cancer surgery. As the optimal regimen remains inconclusive, a network meta-analysis was undertaken of treatments for the development of postoperative complications and mortality.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, trial registries and related reviews were searched for randomized trials comparing laparoscopic and open surgery within protocol-driven or conventional perioperative care for colorectal cancer resection, with complications as a defined endpoint. Relative odds ratios (ORs) for postoperative complications and mortality were estimated for aggregated data.

RESULTS

Forty trials reporting on 11 516 randomized patients were included with the network. Open surgery within conventional perioperative care was the index for comparison. The OR relating to complications was 0·77 (95 per cent c.i. 0·65 to 0·91) for laparoscopic surgery within conventional care, 0·69 (0·48 to 0·99) for open surgery within protocol-driven care, and 0·43 (0·28 to 0·67) for laparoscopic surgery within protocol-driven care. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials of low rectal cancer and those with a high risk of bias did not affect the treatment estimates. Meta-analyses demonstrated that mortality risk was unaffected by perioperative strategy.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery combined with protocol-driven care reduces colorectal cancer surgery complications, but not mortality. The reduction in complications with protocol-driven care is greater for open surgery than for laparoscopic approaches. Registration number: CRD42015017850 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway vs traditional care in laparoscopic rectal resection: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway with traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic rectal resection.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. Single-center consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery after an ERAS program were compared with patients who received traditional care over an 8-year period. Primary and total length of stay, and readmission, morbidity and mortality rates were analyzed. For ERAS group, the actual adherence to protocol was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-seven patients, 162 in the ERAS group and 135 in conventional care, were studied. Median primary and total length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group (9 vs 12 days; p = 0.0001; 10 vs 12 days; p = 0.01; respectively). The ERAS group experienced a faster recovery of bowel function than the traditional care group (p = 0.0001). A similar morbidity rate was observed in the two groups (32.3 % in ERAS vs 36.1 % in traditional care p = 0.41). Readmission rates were 4.9 % in the ERAS versus 1.5 % in the traditional care group (p = 0.19). There was no mortality in either group. Overall mean compliance with the ERAS protocol was 85.7 % (range 54.4-100 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of the ERAS protocol in laparoscopic rectal resection led to a reduction in primary and total length of hospital stay without an increase in morbidity or readmission rates when compared to traditional care.

Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are used widely in surgical practice. As protocols are multidisciplinary with multiple components, it is difficult to compare and contrast reports. The present study examined compliance and transferability to clinical practice among ER publications related to colorectal surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register databases were searched for current colorectal ER manuscripts. Each publication was assessed for the number of ER elements, whether the element was explained sufficiently so that it could be transferred to clinical practice, and compliance with the ER element.

RESULTS

Some 50 publications met the reporting criteria for inclusion. A total of 22 ER elements were described. The median number of elements included in each publication was 9, and the median number of included patients was 130. The elements most commonly included in ER pathways were early postoperative diet advancement (49, 98 per cent) and early mobilization (47, 94 per cent). Early diet advancement was sufficiently explained in 43 (86 per cent) of the 50 publications, but only 22 (45 per cent) of 49 listing the variable reported compliance. The explanation for early mobilization was satisfactory in 41 (82 per cent) of the 50 publications, although only 14 (30 per cent) of 47 listing the variable reported compliance. Other ER elements had similar rates of explanation and compliance. The most frequently analysed outcome measures were morbidity (49, 98 per cent), length of stay (47, 94 per cent) and mortality (45, 90 per cent).

CONCLUSION

The current standard of reporting is frequently incomplete. To transfer knowledge and facilitate implementation of pathways that demonstrate improvements in perioperative care and recovery, a consistent structured reporting platform is needed.

Health economics in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs

PURPOSE

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program aims to combine and coordinate evidence-based perioperative care interventions that support standardizing and optimizing surgical care. In conjunction with its clinical benefits, it has been suggested that ERAS reduces costs through shorter convalescence and reduced morbidity. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ERAS programs. The aim of this systematic review, therefore, is to evaluate the claims that ERAS is cost-effective and to characterize how these costs were reported and evaluated.

SOURCE

The electronic databases, MEDLINE(®) and EMBASE™, were searched from inception to April 2014.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for review. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols in various abdominal surgeries have been investigated, including colorectal, bariatric, gynecological, gastric, pancreatic, esophageal, and vascular surgery. All studies reported cost savings associated with hastening recovery and reducing morbidity and complications. All studies included in this review focused primarily on in-hospital costs, with some attempting to account for readmission costs and follow-up services. In all but two studies, the breakdown of cost data for the individual studies was poorly detailed.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, ERAS protocols appear to be both clinically efficacious and cost effective across a variety of surgical specialties in the short term. Nevertheless, studies reporting out-of-hospital cost data are lacking. Further research is required to determine how best to evaluate both medium- and long-term costs relating to ERAS pathways while taking quality of life data into account.

Fast-track surgery versus traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a meta-analysis

Background

Both laparoscopic and fast-track surgery (FTS) have shown some advantages in colorectal surgery. However, the effectiveness of using both methods together is unclear. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the effects of FTS with those of traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Ovid databases for eligible studies until April 2014. The main end points were the duration of the postoperative hospital stay, time to first flatus after surgery, time of first bowel movement, total postoperative complication rate, readmission rate, and mortality.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials and 5 clinical controlled trials with 1,317 patients were eligible for analysis. The duration of the postoperative hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD], –1.64 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], –2.25 to –1.03; p < 0.001), time to first flatus (WMD, –0.40 day; 95% CI, –0.77 to –0.04; p = 0.03), time of first bowel movement (WMD, –0.98 day; 95% CI, –1.45 to –0.52; p < 0.001), and total postoperative complication rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.80; p < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the FTS group. No significant differences were noted in the readmission rate (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41–1.01; p = 0.06) or mortality (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.42–5.71; p = 0.51).

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery, FTS is associated with a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay, more rapid postoperative recovery, and, notably, greater safety than is expected from traditional care.