Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in sacral tumour surgery and comprehensive description of a multidisciplinary program: a prospective study in a specialized hospital in China

PURPOSE

There were fewer data to guide the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) theory into sacral tumour surgery. In the present study, we were aiming to describe a multidisciplinary program of ERAS and evaluate the availability in sacral tumour surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients with sacral tumour between March 2021 and September 2021 at a single centre. We proposed a multidisciplinary program of ERAS for pre-admission, preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and post-discharge clinical care which positively influenced outcomes of patients with sacral tumour. All patients were prospectively assigned into two groups, ERAS group in which patients received ERAS protocols (n = 63), No-ERAS group in which patients had conventional clinical pathways (n = 62). Patient data were collected which included demographics, preoperative preparation, detailed information of surgical procedure, 60-day reoperation rate, 60-day readmission, postoperative length of stay (PLOS), time to first ambulation and flatus after surgery, time to removal of last drainage tube, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score at first ambulation and discharge. Complications referred to ones that occurred within 60 days after surgery. The above parameters were compared between ERAS group and No-ERAS group.

RESULTS

Time to first ambulation after surgery in ERAS group (mean 20.9 h) was significantly shorter than that in No-ERAS group (mean 104.3 ho). Meanwhile, time to first flatus after surgery in ERAS group (mean 26.7 h) was also significantly shorter than that in No-ERAS group (mean 37.3 h). Patients in ERAS group had statistically shorter PLOS (10.7 days) as compared to that in No-ERAS group (13.8 days). In ERAS group, 19 of 63 patients (30.2%) were discharged within seven days after surgery as compared to seven of 62 patients (11.3%) in No-ERAS group. VAS score at first ambulation in ERAS group was not obviously higher than that in No-ERAS group though the time of first ambulation in ERAS group was statistically earlier than one in No-ERAS group. Furthermore, VAS score at discharge in ERAS group was significantly lower than that in No-ERAS group. The rate of postoperative incision necrosis was 6.3% (4/63) in ERAS group and 8.1% (5/62) in No-ERAS group and all of these nine patients underwent reoperation before discharge. The difference was not statistically significant in the wound complication of incision necrosis and 60-day reoperation rate. Only one readmission occurred in No-ERAS group due to the surgical site infection and also there was no significant difference of 60-day readmission rate between these two groups. Furthermore, there was no statistical difference of complications of femoral artery thrombosis and rectal rupture between ERAS group and No-ERAS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed ERAS pathway for sacral tumour surgery and early walking facilitate safe and prompt discharge. ERAS protocols of sacral tumour surgery could decrease PLOS without significantly increasing postoperative complications, 60-day readmission rate and 60-day reoperation rate. The application of ERAS pathway in the field of sacral tumour surgery should have personalized feature with regard to resection type.

Differential effect of interventions in patients with prediabetes stratified by a machine learning-based diabetes progression prediction model

AIM

To investigate whether stratifying participants with prediabetes according to their diabetes progression risks (PR) could affect their responses to interventions.

METHODS

We developed a machine learning-based model to predict the 1-year diabetes PR (ML-PR) with the least predictors. The model was developed and internally validated in participants with prediabetes in the Pinggu Study (a prospective population-based survey in suburban Beijing; n = 622). Patients from the Beijing Prediabetes Reversion Program cohort (a multicentre randomized control trial to evaluate the efficacy of lifestyle and/or pioglitazone on prediabetes reversion; n = 1936) were stratified to low-, medium- and high-risk groups using ML-PR. Different effect of four interventions within subgroups on prediabetes reversal and diabetes progression was assessed.

RESULTS

Using least predictors including fasting plasma glucose, 2-h postprandial glucose after 75 g glucose administration, glycated haemoglobin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, and the ML algorithm XGBoost, ML-PR successfully predicted the 1-year progression of participants with prediabetes in the Pinggu study [internal area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.80 (0.72-0.89)] and Beijing Prediabetes Reversion Program [external area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.80 (0.74-0.86)]. In the high-risk group pioglitazone plus intensive lifestyle therapy significantly reduced diabetes progression by about 50% at year l and the end of the trial in the high-risk group compared with conventional lifestyle therapy with placebo. In the medium- or low-risk group, intensified lifestyle therapy, pioglitazone or their combination did not show any benefit on diabetes progression and prediabetes reversion.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests personalized treatment for prediabetes according to their PR is necessary. ML-PR model with simple clinical variables may facilitate personal treatment strategies in participants with prediabetes.