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

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.

Comparison of prolonged postoperative ileus between laparoscopic right and left colectomy under enhanced recovery after surgery: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

There were differences in the recovery of bowel function and prolonged postoperative ileus (PPOI) between laparoscopic right colectomy (RC) and left colectomy (LC) under the guidance of enhanced recovery after surgery.

Methods

We selected 870 patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colectomy from June 2016 to December 2021, including 272 patients who had RC and 598 who had LC. According to 1:1 proportion for propensity score matching and correlation analysis, 247 patients who had RC and 247 who had LC were finally enrolled.

Results

The incidence of PPOI in all patients was 13.1%. Age, sex, smoking habit, preoperative serum albumin level, operation type, and operation time were the important independent risk factors based on multivariate logistic regression and correlation analysis for PPOI (p<0.05). Age, sex, body mass index, preoperative serum albumin level, operation time, and degree of differentiation between the two groups were significantly different before case matching (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics and preoperative biochemical parameters between the two groups after case matching (p>0.05). The incidence of PPOI in patients who had RC was 21.9%, while that in patients who had LC was 13.0%. The first flatus, first semi-liquid, and length of stay in LC patients were lower than those in RC patients (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The return of bowel function in LC was faster than that in RC, and the incidence of PPOI was relatively lower. Therefore, caution should be taken during the early feeding of patients who had laparoscopic RC.

Safety and effectiveness evaluation of a two-handed technique combining harmonic scalpel and laparoscopic Peng's multifunction operative dissector in laparoscopic hemihepatectomy

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a two-hand technique combining harmonic scalpel (HS) and laparoscopic Peng's multifunction operative dissector (LPMOD) in patients who underwent laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LHH).

METHODS

We designed and conducted a case-control study nested in a prospectively collected laparoscopic liver surgery database. Patients who underwent LHH for liver parenchyma transection using HS + LPMOD were defined as cases (n = 98) and LPMOD only as controls (n = 47) from January 2016 to May 2018. Propensity score matching (1:1) between the case and control groups was used in the analyses.

RESULTS

The case group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss in milliliters (169.4 ± 133.5 vs. 221.5 ± 176.3, P = 0.03) and shorter operative time in minutes (210.5 ± 56.1 vs. 265.7 ± 67.1, P = 0.02) comparing to the control group. The conversion to laparotomy, postoperative hospital stay, resection margin, the mean peak level of postoperative liver function parameters, bile leakage rate, and others were comparable between the two groups. There was no perioperative mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated that the two-handed technique combing HS and LPMOD in LHH is safe and effective which is associated with shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss compared with LPMOD alone. The technique facilitates laparoscopic liver resection and is recommended for use.

Oncologic and long-term outcomes of enhanced recovery after surgery in cancer surgeries - a systematic review

Background

Clinical evidence has proved that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) can improve short-term clinical outcomes after various types of surgeries, but the long-term benefits have not yet been examined, especially with respect to cancer surgeries. Therefore, a systematic review of the current evidence was conducted.

Methods

The Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following key words as search terms: “ERAS” or “enhanced recovery” or “fast track”, “oncologic outcome”, “recurrence”, “metastasis”, “long-term outcomes”, “survival”, and “cancer surgery”. The articles were screened using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the data from the included studies were extracted and analyzed.

Results

A total of twenty-six articles were included in this review. Eighteen articles compared ERAS and conventional care, of which, 12 studies reported long-term overall survival (OS), and only 4 found the improvement by ERAS. Four studies reported disease-free survival (DFS), and only 1 found the improvement by ERAS. Five studies reported the outcomes of return to intended oncologic treatment after surgery (RIOT), and 4 found improvements in the ERAS group. Seven studies compared high adherence to ERAS with low adherence, of which, 6 reported the long-term OS, and 3 showed improvements by high adherence. One study reported high adherence could reduce the interval from surgery to RIOT. Four studies reported the effect of altering one single item within the ERAS protocol, but the results of 2 studies were controversial regarding the long-term OS between laparoscopic and open surgery, and 1 study showed improvements in OS with restrictive fluid therapy.

Conclusions

The use of ERAS in cancer surgeries can improve the on-time initiation and completion of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery, and the high adherence to ERAS can lead to better outcomes than low adherence. Based on the current evidence, it is difficult to determine whether the ERAS protocol is associated with long-term overall survival or cancer-specific survival.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02306-2.