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

The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Program in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Although ERAS Program had some advantages in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (LDG), its efficacy and safety remained unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the ERAS group and the traditional care (TC) group in LDG.

METHODS

Multiple databases were retrieved from 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2023. The risk ratio (RR), standardized mean difference (SMD) and their 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the results.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis contained 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies, which comprised 1468 patients. Regarding efficacy, the ERAS group had significantly shorter postoperative time to first flatus (SMD = -1.29 [95% CI: -1.68, -0.90]), shorter time to first defecation (SMD = -1.26 [95% CI: -1.90, -0.61]), shorter hospital stays (SMD = -0.99 [95% CI: -1.34, -0.63]), and lower hospitalization costs (SMD = -1.17 [95% CI: -1.86, -0.48]) compared to the TC group. Furthermore, in the ERAS group, C-reactive protein levels were lower on postoperative days 1, 3 or 4, and 7; albumin levels were higher on postoperative days 3 or 4 and 7; and interleukin-6 levels were lower on postoperative days 1 and 3. Regarding safety, the overall postoperative complication rate was lower in the ERAS group (RR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.60, 0.97]), but there was no significant difference in the individual postoperative complication rate. Other indicators were also not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ERAS Program with laparoscopy surgery was safe and effective for the perioperative management of patients with distal gastric cancer.

Revolutionizing Surgical Care: The Power of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)

The development of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has brought about substantial transformations in perioperative care, substituting conventional methods with a patient-centric, evidence-based strategy. ERAS protocol adopts a holistic approach to patient care, which includes all stages preceding, during, and following the operation. These programs prioritize patient-specific therapies that are tailored to their specific requirements. Nutritional assessment and enhancement, patient education, minimally invasive procedures, and multimodal pain management are all fundamental components of ERAS. ERAS provides a multitude of advantages, including diminished postoperative complications, abbreviated hospital stays, heightened patient satisfaction, and healthcare cost reductions. This article examines the foundational tenets of ERAS, their incorporation into the field of general surgery, their suitability for diverse surgical specialties, the obstacles faced during implementation, and possible directions for further investigation, such as the integration of digital health technologies, personalized patient care, and the long-term viability of ERAS protocols.

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.

Rapid rehabilitation effect on complications, wound infection, anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re-admission for gastrointestinal surgery subjects: A meta-analysis

We performed a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. A systematic literature search up to October 2021 was done and 31 studies included 4448 subjects with gastrointestinal surgery at the start of the study: 2242 of them were provided with rapid rehabilitation and 2206 were standard care. They were reporting relationships about the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the effect of rapid rehabilitation on the curative effect of gastrointestinal surgery subjects using the dichotomous method with a random‐ or fixed‐effect model. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54‐0.71, P < .001) and wound infection (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55‐0.98, P = .03) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. However, rapid rehabilitation had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.66‐1.22, P = .49), obstruction (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, −0.64 to 1.31, P = .65), and hospital re‐admission (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57‐1.08, P = .13) compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Rapid rehabilitation had significantly lower complications and wound infection, and had no significant effect on the anastomotic leak, obstruction, and hospital re‐admission compared with standard care in subjects with gastrointestinal surgery. Further studies are required to validate these findings.

Segmental transverse colectomy. Minimally invasive versus open approach: results from a multicenter collaborative study

The role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of transverse colon cancer is still controversial. The aim of this study is to investigate the advantages of a totally laparoscopic technique comparing open versus laparoscopic/robotic approach. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients with transverse colon cancer, treated with a segmental colon resection, were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic data, tumor stage, operative time, intraoperative complications, number of harvested lymph nodes and recovery outcomes were recorded. Recurrences and death were also evaluated during the follow-up. No differences were found between conventional and minimally invasive surgery, both for oncological long-term outcomes (recurrence rate p = 0.28; mortality p = 0.62) and postoperative complications (overall rate p = 0.43; anemia p = 0.78; nausea p = 0.68; infections p = 0.91; bleeding p = 0.62; anastomotic leak p = 0.55; ileus p = 0.75). Nevertheless, recovery outcomes showed statistically significant differences in favor of minimally invasive surgery in terms of time to first flatus (p = 0.001), tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.017), time to first mobilization (p = 0.001) and hospital stay (p = 0.004). Compared with laparoscopic approach, robotic surgery showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.005) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001). Finally, anastomosis evaluation confirmed the superiority of intracorporeal approach which showed significantly better results for time to first flatus (p = 0.001), to first mobilization (p = 0.003) and tolerance to solid diet (p = 0.001); moreover, we recorded a statistical difference in favor of intracorporeal approach for infection rate (p = 0.04), bleeding (p = 0.001) and anastomotic leak (p = 0.03). Minimally invasive approach is safe and effective as the conventional open surgery, with comparable oncological results but not negligible advantages in terms of recovery outcomes. Moreover, we demonstrated that robotic approach may be considered a valid option and an intracorporeal anastomosis should always be preferred.

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.

Effect of FOCUS-PDCA procedure on improving self-care ability of patients undergoing colostomy for rectal câncer

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of the FOCUS-PDCA procedure on the self-care ability of patients undergoing colostomy for rectal cancer.

METHOD

A nonrandomized controlled trial of 160 patients with rectal cancer undergoing colostomy. The control group received routine nursing intervention, and the observation group received the FOCUS-PDCA procedure. The self-care ability of the two groups was investigated 1 week and 1 month after surgery, and a comparative analysis was made between the groups.

RESULTS

One week after surgery, the self-care ability of rectal cancer patients with colostomy increased from 39.09 points before implementation of the FOCUS-PDCA procedure to 60.15 points after implementation; an increase of 21.06%. One month after surgery, the self-care ability increased from 61.50 points to 83.13 points after implementation of the FOCUS-PDCA procedure; an increase of 21.63%.

CONCLUSION

Application of the FOCUS-PDCA procedure improved the self-care ability of rectal cancer patients undergoing colostomy, improved their physical and mental health, reduced colostomy complications, and improved their quality of life. The results suggest that it is worth applying FOCUS-PDCA more widely.

Role for colorectal teams to support non-colorectal teams to improve clinical outcomes and adherence to ERAS guidelines for segmental colectomy: a cohort study

Background

To identify whether compliance with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations is associated with length of stay (LOS) in a New Zealand hospital for patients undergoing segmental colectomy in mixed acute and elective general surgery wards.

Methods

Consecutive elective colorectal surgeries (n = 770) between October 2012 and February 2019 were audited. Patients with non-segmental colectomies, multi-organ surgeries, LOS > 14 days, and those who died were excluded. Logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between patient demographics, compliance with ERAS guidelines, and suboptimal LOS (> 4 days).

Results

Analysis included 376 patients. Age, surgery prior to 2014, surgical approach, non-colorectal surgical team, operation type, and complications were significantly associated with suboptimal LOS. Non-compliance with ERAS recommendations for laparoscopy [OR 8.9, 95% CI (4.52, 19.67)], removal of indwelling catheters (IDC) [OR 3.14, 95% CI (1.85, 5.51)], use of abdominal drains [OR 4.27, 95% CI (0.99, 18.35)], and removal of PCA [OR 8.71, 95% CI (1.78, 157.27)], were associated with suboptimal LOS (univariable analysis). Multivariable analysis showed that age, surgical team, late removal of IDC, and open approach were independent predictors of suboptimal LOS.

Conclusions

Non-compliance with ERAS guidelines for laparoscopic approach and early removal of IDC was higher among procedures performed by non-colorectal surgery teams, and was also associated with adverse postoperative events and suboptimal LOS. This study demonstrates the importance of the surgical team’s expertise in affecting surgical outcomes, and did not find significant independent associations between most individual ERAS guidelines and suboptimal LOS once adjusting for other factors.

Is an enhanced recovery program (ERP) after rectal surgery as feasible as after colonic surgery? A multicentre Francophone study of 870 rectal resections

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery program (ERP) is well-established in colorectal surgery. Rectal surgery (RS) is known to be associated with high morbidity and prolonged hospital stay, which might explain why ERPs are less applied in this specific group of patients. The aim of this large-scale study was to assess the feasibility of an ERP in RS compared with colonic surgery.

METHODS

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database including 3740 patients eligible for colorectal resection from February 2014 to January 2017 in 75 European Francophone centres. Patients were divided into two groups (colon group C vs. rectum group R). The main endpoint was compliance with ERP components. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients for whom a defunctioning stoma (DS) was required after RS.

RESULTS

A total of 3740 patients were included. There were 2870 patients in group C and 870 patients in group R. The overall compliance rate for ERPs was 81.71% in group C and 79.09% in group R. Patients were significantly less mobilized within 24 h in group R. Specific recommendations for RS concerning bowel preparation and abdominal drainage were significantly less implemented. Overall morbidity was significantly higher in group R. Mean length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in group C. In the sub-group analysis, a DS was significantly associated with fewer compliance with early mobilization and early feeding, leading to significantly longer LOS (group R).

CONCLUSION

ERP is safe and effective in RS, despite the well-known higher morbidity and LOS compared with colonic surgery. DS could be a limiting factor in ERP implementation after RS.

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.

Enhanced recovery after surgery in colon and rectal surgery: identification of predictive variables of failure in a monocentric series including 733 patients

To identify factors associated with early deviation and delayed discharge within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathway. This is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery and managed with a standardized ERAS pathway between April 2015 and October 2018. ERAS items were assessed within 48 h after surgery. Patients with early complications were excluded. The influence of factors on length of stay was calculated by univariate and multivariate analysis. A binary logistic regression was used to model a predicting score. Seven hundred and thirty-three patients met the inclusion criteria. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 75 years (P = 0.02), ASA score ≥ 3 (P = 0.03), open surgery or conversion to open (P = 0.001), non-compliance with the intra-operative balanced fluid therapy (P = 0.049), failure to early removal of the urinary catheter (P = 0.001), to discontinue IV fluid (P = 0.02) and to early mobilization (P = 0.001) were independently associated with ERAS failure. The generated score had a specificity of 84% and a positive predictive value of 72%. Patients who would have a length of stay longer than the median for each surgical procedure were properly identified (Area under ROC Curve = 0.753, P < 0.001). The delayed discharge could be predicted at 48 h from the intervention. The ability of the model to weight the specific role of each statistically significant variable might be a useful tool to identify the most frail patients.

Robotic vs laparoscopic right colectomy – the burden of age and comorbidity in perioperative outcomes: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have shown the safety, feasibility and oncologic adequacy of robotic right hemicolectomy (RRH). Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) is considered technically challenging. Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome this technical limitation, but it is related to high costs. To maximize the benefits of such surgery, only selected patients are candidates for this technique. In addition, due to progressive aging of the population, an increasing number of minimally invasive procedures are performed on elderly patients with severe comorbidities, who are usually more prone to post-operative complications.

AIM

To investigate the outcomes of RRH vs LRH with regard to age and comorbidities.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 123 minimally invasive procedures (68 LRHs vs 55 RRHs) for right colon cancer or endoscopically unresectable adenoma performed in our Center from January 2014 until September 2019. The surgical procedures were performed according to standardized techniques. The primary clinical outcome of the study was the length of hospital stay (LOS) measured in days. Secondary outcomes were time to first flatus (TFF) and time to first stool evacuation. The robotic technique was considered the exposure and the laparoscopic technique was considered the control. Routine demographic variables were obtained, including age at time of surgery and gender. Body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status were registered. The age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (ACCI) was calculated; the tumor-node-metastasis system, intra-operative variables and post-operative complications were recorded. Post-operative follow-up was 180 d.

RESULTS

LOS, TFF, and time to first stool were significantly shorter in the robotic group: Median 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 5-8] vs 7 (IQR 6-10.5) d, P = 0.028; median 2 (IQR 1-3) vs 3 (IQR 2-4) d, P < 0.001; median 4 (IQR 3-5) vs 5 (IQR 4-6.5) d, P = 0.005, respectively. Following multivariable analysis, the robotic technique was confirmed to be predictive of significantly shorter hospitalization and faster restoration of bowel function; in addition the dichotomous variables of age over 75 years and ACCI more than 7 were significant predictors of hospital stay. No outcomes were significantly associated with Clavien-Dindo grading. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that patients aged over 75 years had a longer LOS (median 6 -IQR 5-8- vs 7 -IQR 6-12- d, P = 0.013) and later TFF (median 2 -IQR 1-3- vs 3 -IQR 2-4- d, P = 0.008), while patients with ACCI more than 7 were only associated with a prolonged hospital stay (median 7 -IQR 5-8- vs 7 -IQR 6-14.5- d, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

RRH is related to shorter LOS when compared with the laparoscopic approach, but older age and several comorbidities tend to reduce its benefits.

Mid-transverse colon cancer and extended versus transverse colectomy: Results of the Italian society of surgical oncology colorectal cancer network (SICO CCN) multicenter collaborative study

INTRODUCTION

Transverse colon cancer (TCC) is poorly studied, and TCC cases are often excluded from large prospective randomized trials because of their complexity and their potentially high complication rate. The best surgical approach for TCC has yet to be established. The aim of this large retrospective multicenter Italian series is to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of both hemicolectomy and transverse colectomy in order to identify the best surgical approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with mid-transverse colon cancer treated with a segmental colon resection or an extended hemicolectomy (right or left) between 2006 and 2016 in 28 high-volume (more than 70 procedures/year) Italian referral centers for colorectal surgery.

RESULTS

The study included 1529 patients, 388 of whom underwent a segmental resection while 1141 underwent an extended resection. A higher number of complications has been reported in the segmental group than in the extended group (30.1% versus 23.6%; p 0.010). In 42 cases the main complication was the anastomotic leak (4.4% versus 2.2%; p 0.020). Recovery outcomes also showed statistical differences: time to first flatus (p 0.014), time to first mobilization (p 0.040), and overall hospital stay (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the extended group. Even if overall survival were similar between the groups (95.1% versus 97%; p 0.384), 3-year disease-free survival worsened after segmental resection (78.1% versus 86.2%; p 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results, an extended right colon resection for TCC seems to be surgically safer and more oncologically valid.

Multicomponent hospital-led interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective surgery: a systematic review

Background

Elective older adult inpatient admissions are increasingly common. Older adults are at an elevated risk of adverse events in hospital, potentially increasing with lengthier hospital stay. Hospital-led organisational strategies may optimise hospital stay for elective older adult inpatients.

Objectives

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-led multicomponent interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults undergoing elective hospital admissions.

Data sources

Seven bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database) were searched from inception to date of search (August 2017), alongside carrying out of web searches, citation searching, inspecting relevant reviews, consulting stakeholders and contacting authors. This search was duplicated, with an additional cost-filter, to identify cost-effectiveness evidence.

Review methods

Comparative studies were sought that evaluated the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of relevant interventions in elective inpatients with a mean or median age of ≥ 60 years. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently by two reviewers. The main outcome was length of stay, but all outcomes were considered. Studies were sorted by procedure, intervention and outcome categories. Where possible, standardised mean differences or odds ratios were calculated. Meta-analysis was performed when multiple randomised controlled trials had the same intervention, treatment procedure, comparator and outcome. Findings were explored using narrative synthesis.

Findings

A total of 218 articles were included, with 80 articles from 73 effectiveness studies (n = 26,365 patients) prioritised for synthesis, including 34 randomised controlled trials conducted outside the UK and 39 studies from the UK, of which 12 were randomised controlled trials. Fifteen studies included cost-effectiveness data. The evidence was dominated by enhanced recovery protocols and prehabilitation, implemented to improve recovery from either colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. Six other surgical categories and four other intervention types were identified. Meta-analysis found that enhanced recovery protocols were associated with 1.5 days’ reduction in hospital stay among patients undergoing colorectal surgery (Cohen’sd = –0.51, 95% confidence interval –0.78 to –0.24;p < 0.001) and with 5 days’ reduction among those undergoing upper abdominal surgery (Cohen’sd = –1.04, 95% confidence interval –1.55 to –0.53;p < 0.001). Evidence from the UK was not pooled (owing to mixed study designs), but it echoed findings from the international literature. Length of stay usually was reduced with intervention or was no different. Other clinical outcomes also improved or were no worse with intervention. Patient-reported outcomes were not frequently reported. Cost and cost-effectiveness evidence came from 15 highly heterogeneous studies and was less conclusive.

Limitations

Studies were usually of moderate or weak quality. Some intervention or treatment types were under-reported or absent. The reporting of variance data often precluded secondary analysis.

Conclusions

Enhanced recovery and prehabilitation interventions were associated with reduced hospital stay without detriment to other clinical outcomes, particularly for patients undergoing colorectal surgery, lower limb arthroplasty or upper abdominal surgery. The impacts on patient-reported outcomes, health-care costs or additional service use are not well known.

Future work

Further studies evaluating of the effectiveness of new enhanced recovery pathways are not required in colorectal surgery or lower limb arthroplasty. However, the applicability of these pathways to other procedures is uncertain. Future studies should evaluate the implementation of interventions to reduce service variation, in-hospital patient-reported outcomes, impacts on health and social care service use, and longer-term patient-reported outcomes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017080637.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Application value of laparoscopy in radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction

Application value of laparoscopy in radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction was explored. The medical records of 104 patients undergoing radical mastectomy and omental breast reconstruction from July 2015 to August 2017 in Inner Mongolia Xing'an League People's Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-three patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were the experimental group and 51 patients undergoing open surgery were the control group. The surgery conditions, upper limb function, postoperative complications, volume similarity between unilateral subcutaneous glands and autologous omentum, cosmetic excellent rate and treatment satisfaction were observed. The surgical duration of the patients in the experimental group was significantly longer than that in the control group, but the intraoperative blood loss was less and hospital stay was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). The improvement of upper limb function in the experimental group was significantly better than that in the control group (P<0.05). The cosmetic excellent rate in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications in the experimental group was significantly less than that in the control group (P<0.001). The satisfaction degree of patients in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P<0.001). Filling the autologous omentum while excising the unilateral mammary gland is an equivalent replacement, which can make the appearance of the breast on the operation side similar to that on the healthy side, thus improving the excellent rate of breast beauty and patient satisfaction.

A Comparison of Pathologic Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Resections for Rectal Cancer Using the ACS-NSQIP Proctectomy-Targeted Database: a Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is ongoing debate regarding the benefits of minimally invasive techniques for rectal cancer surgery. The aim of this study was to compare pathologic outcomes of patients who underwent rectal cancer resection by open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) proctectomy-targeted database.

METHODS

All patients from the 2016 ACS-NSQIP proctectomy-targeted database who underwent elective proctectomy for rectal cancer were identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on initial operative approach: open surgery, laparoscopy, and robotic surgery. Pathologic and 30-day clinical outcomes were then compared between the groups. A propensity score analysis was performed to control for confounders, and adjusted odds ratios for pathologic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A total of 578 patients were included-211 (36.5%) in the open group, 213 (36.9%) in the laparoscopic group, and 154 (26.6%) in the robotic group. Conversion to open surgery was more common among laparoscopic cases compared to robotic cases (15.0% vs. 6.5%, respectively; p = 0.011). Positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) was observed in 4.7%, 3.8%, and 5.2% (p = 0.79) of open, laparoscopic, and robotic resections, respectively. Propensity score adjusted odds ratios for positive CRM (open surgery as a reference group) were 0.70 (0.26-1.85, p = 0.47) for laparoscopy and 1.03 (0.39-2.70, p = 0.96) for robotic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of minimally invasive surgical techniques for rectal cancer surgery does not appear to confer worse pathologic outcomes.

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.

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.

Clinical and Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Open and Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery

BACKGROUND

The short-term benefits of laparoscopy for rectal surgery are equivocal. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and economic impact of an enhanced recovery pathway (ERP) for laparoscopic and open rectal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent elective rectal resection with primary anastomosis between January 2009 and March 2012 at two tertiary-care, university-affiliated institutions were identified. Patients who met inclusion criteria were divided into four groups, according to surgical approach (laparoscopic [lap] or open) and perioperative management (ERP or conventional care [CC]). Length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and hospital costs were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 381 patients were included in the analysis (201 open-CC, 34 lap-CC, 38 open-ERP, and 108 lap-ERP). Patients were mostly similar at baseline. ERPs significantly reduced median LOS after both open cases (open-CC 10 days versus open-ERP 7.5 days, P = .003) and laparoscopic cases (lap-CC 5 days versus lap-ERP 4.5 days, P = .046). ERPs also reduced variability in LOS compared with CC. There was no difference in postoperative complications with the use of ERPs (open-CC 51% versus open-ERP 50%, P = .419; lap-CC 32% versus lap-ERP 36%, P = .689). On multivariate analysis, both ERP (-3.6 days [95% confidence interval, CI -6.0 to -1.3]) and laparoscopy (-3.6 days [95% CI -5.9 to -1.0]) were independently associated with decreased LOS. Overall costs were only lower when lap-ERP was compared with open-CC (mean difference -2420 CAN$ [95% CI -5628 to -786]).

CONCLUSIONS

ERPs reduced LOS after rectal resections, and the combination of laparoscopy and ERPs significantly reduced overall costs compared to when neither strategy was used.

Pulmonary Complications after Surgery for Rectal Cancer in Elderly Patients: Evaluation of Laparoscopic versus Open Approach from a Multicenter Study on 477 Consecutive Cases

Aim

To evaluate the impact of open or laparoscopic rectal surgery on pulmonary complications in elderly (>75 years old) patients.

Methods

Data from consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or open rectal surgery for cancer were collected prospectively from 3 institutions. Pulmonary complications were defined according to the ACS/NSQUIP definition.

Results

A total of 477 patients (laparoscopic group: 242, open group: 235) were included in the analysis. Postoperative pulmonary complications were significantly more common after open surgery (8 out of 242 patients (3.3%) versus 23 out of 235 patients (9.8%); p = 0.005). In addition, PPC occurrence was associated with the increasing of postoperative pain (5.04 ± 1.62 versus 5.03 ± 1.58; p = 0.001) and the increasing of operative time (270.06 ± 51.49 versus 237.37 ± 65.97; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Our results are encouraging to consider laparoscopic surgery a safety and effective way to treat rectal cancer in elderly patients, highlighting that laparoscopic surgery reduces the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.