Development of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: results of the first 120 consecutive cases from a university hospital

The ERAS^® represents a dynamic culmination of upon perioperative care elements, successfully applied to different surgical specialties with shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates. The aim of this study is to describe the introduction of the ERAS protocol in colorectal surgery in our hospital analysing our first series. Between September 2014 and June 2016, 120 patients suffering from colorectal diseases were included in the study. Laparoscopic approach was used in all patients if not contraindicated. Patients were discharged when adequate mobilization, canalization, and pain control were obtained. Analysed outcomes were: length of hospital stay, readmission rate, perioperative morbidity, and mortality. Malignant lesions were the most common indication (84.2%; 101/120). Laparoscopic approach was performed in the 95.8% of cases (115/120) with a conversion rate of 4.4% (5/115). Surgical procedures performed were: 36 rectal resections (30%), 36 left colonic resections (30%), 42 right hemicolectomy (35%), and 6 Miles (5%). The median hospital stay was of 4 (3-34) days in the whole series with a morbidity rate of 10% (12/120); four patients experienced Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa complications; and only one anastomotic leak was observed. No 30-day readmission and no perioperative mortality were recorded. At the univariate analysis, the presence of complications was the only predictive factor for prolonged hospital stay (p < 0.001). In our experience, implementation of ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery allows a significant reduction of hospital stay improving perioperative management and postoperative outcomes.

Short-term follow-up after laparoscopic versus conventional total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer in a large teaching hospital

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic resection for low rectal cancer remains controversial, and large randomized studies on oncologic outcome are lacking. The objective of this study was to analyze the short-term results of laparoscopic resection versus conventional total mesorectal excision (TME) for low rectal cancer (≤10 cm from the anal verge).

METHODS

The institutional colorectal surgery database was reviewed, and 166 consecutive patients operated for low rectal cancer between 2006 and 2011 were included in this analysis which focuses on the first 18 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Eighty patients underwent conventional TME, whereas 86 patients underwent laparoscopic TME. Patient characteristics were comparable between groups. Conversion rate was 17 %. Laparoscopic rectal resection resulted in significantly less blood loss (200 versus 475 ml, p = <0.001) and a 3-day shorter hospital stay (median, 7 versus 10 days; p = 0.06). Oncologic results from resected specimens were comparable, although significantly more lymph nodes were harvested in laparoscopic resections (median, 13 versus 11; p = 0.005). Disease-free survival after curative resection was better in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.04), but this was no longer significant after correction for potential confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of short-term results of laparoscopic versus conventional TME for low rectal cancer demonstrates that laparoscopic surgery is feasible and safe, resulting in similar oncologic outcomes with less blood loss, a trend towards less postoperative complications and shorter duration of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to attribute to the body of evidence of equivalence or even superiority of laparoscopic resections compared to conventional resections for distal rectal cancer.