Addition of a scripted pre-operative patient education module to an existing ERAS pathway further reduces length of stay

Robotic ambulatory colorectal resections: a systematic review

Colorectal surgery has progressed greatly via minimally invasive techniques, laparoscopic and robotic. With the advent of ERAS protocols, patient recovery times have greatly shortened, allowing for same day discharges (SDD). Although SDD have been explored through laparoscopic colectomy reviews, no reviews surrounding robotic ambulatory colorectal resections (RACrR) exist to date. A systematic search was carried out across three databases and internet searches. Data were selected and extracted by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria included robotic colorectal resections with a length of hospital stay of less than one day or 24 h. 4 studies comprising 136 patients were retrieved. 56% of patients were female and were aged between 21 and 89 years. Main surgery indications were colorectal cancer and recurrent sigmoid diverticulitis (43% each). Most patients had low anterior resections (48%). Overall, there was a 4% complication rate postoperatively, with only 1 patient requiring readmission due to postoperative urinary retention (< 1%). Patient selection criteria involved ASA score cut-offs, nutritional status, and specific health conditions. Protocols employed shared similarities including ERAS education, transabdominal plane blocks, early removal of urinary catheters, an opioid-sparing regime, and encouraged early oral intake and ambulation prior to discharge. All 4 studies had various follow-up methods involving telemedicine, face-to-face consultations, and virtual ward teams. RACrRs is safe and feasible in a highly specific patient population; however, further high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to draw more significant conclusions. Several limitations included small sample size and the potential of recall bias due to retrospective nature of 2 studies.

An investigation on the compliance of perioperative practices using ERAS protocols and barriers to the implementation of the ERAS protocols in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Although ERAS protocols have many benefits, there are some deficiencies in their understanding and implementation by healthcare professionals. The present study was conducted to investigate the compliance of the current perioperative practices of healthcare professional with the ERAS protocols and to assess barriers to the implementation of ERAS protocols in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This cross-sectional descriptive study conducted in the surgical clinics and operating rooms of a training and research hospital between January 2020 and September 2020 included 110 physician and nurse members of surgical teams. Data were collected using the Questionnaire for Evaluating the Use of the ERAS Protocol and Identifying Barriers to Implementation in Colorectal Surgery.

RESULTS

The compliance of the current perioperative practices by healthcare professionals with the ERAS protocols ranged between 15.5% (routinely leaving nasogastric tubes in situ following colorectal resection) and 61.8% (being aware of the concept of balanced analgesia). Variables such as the healthcare professional's profession, title, years in practice and colorectal surgery experience led to a difference between them in terms of their compliance of the practices with the ERAS protocols (p < 0.05). Based on the healthcare professionals' comments about barriers to the implementation of the ERAS protocol, themes such as education, teamwork, communication and lack of resources were created.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professionals' compliance level of the current perioperative practices with the ERAS protocols was mostly low. Barriers to the implementation of the ERAS protocols had a multi-factor structure that concerns the multidisciplinary team.

Benefits of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway With Quadratus Lumborum Blocks for Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the effect of the implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol among patients receiving minimally invasive gynecologic surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary care hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 328 females who underwent minimally invasive gynecologic surgeries requiring at least one overnight stay at Keck Hospital of University of Southern California (USC), California, USA, from 2016 to 2020 were included in this study.

INTERVENTIONS

The institutional ERAS protocol was implemented in late 2018. A total of 186 patients from 2016 to 2018 prior to the implementation were compared to 142 patients from 2018 to 2020 after the implementation. Intraoperatively, the ERAS group received a multimodal analgesic regimen (including bilateral quadratus lumborum (QL) blocks) and postoperative care geared toward a satisfactory, safe, and expeditious discharge.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The two groups were similar in demographics, except for the shorter surgical time noted in the ERAS group. The median opioid use was significantly less among the ERAS patients compared with the non-ERAS patients on postoperative day 1 (7.5 vs. 14.3 mg; p<0.001) and throughout the hospital stay (17.4 vs. 36.2 mg; p<0.001). The ERAS group also had a shorter median hospital length of stay compared to the non-ERAS group (p<0.01). Among patients with a malignant diagnosis, patients in the ERAS group had significantly less postoperative day 1 and total opioid use and a shorter hospital stay (p<0.01). Within the ERAS group, 20% of the patients did not end up receiving a QL block. Opioid use and length of stay were similar between patients who did and did not receive the QL block.

CONCLUSIONS

The ERAS pathway was associated with a reduction in opioid use postoperatively and a shorter length of hospital stay after minimally invasive gynecologic surgery. There was a more significant decrease in opioid use and hospital length of stay for patients with malignant diagnoses compared to patients with benign diagnoses. Further research can be done to fully delineate the effect of QL blocks in ERAS protocols.

Disparities and Risk Factors for Surgical Complication in American Indians and Native Hawaiians

INTRODUCTION

American Indian and Alaskan Natives (AIAN) and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (NHPI) research is limited, particularly in postoperative surgical outcomes. This study analyzes disparities in AIAN and NHPI surgical complications across all surgical types and identifies factors that contribute to postoperative complications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined all surgeries from 2011 to 2020 in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, queried by race. Multivariable models analyzed the association of race and ethnicity and 30-day postoperative complication. Next, multivariable models were used to identify preoperative variables associated with postoperative complications, specifically in AIAN and NHPI patients. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

AIAN patients were associated with higher odds of postoperative complication (AOR: 1.008 [CI: 1.005-1.011], P < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic white patients. The comorbidities that were of higher incidence in AIAN patients, which also adversely contributed to postoperative complication, included dependent functional status, diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), open wounds, preoperative weight loss, bleeding disorders, preoperative transfusion, sepsis, hypoalbuminemia, along with an active smoking status and ASA ≥3. In NHPI patients, dependent functional status, CHF, renal failure, preoperative transfusion, open wounds, and sepsis were of higher incidence and significantly contributed to postoperative complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical outcome disparities exist particularly in AIAN patients. Identification of modifiable patient risk factors may benefit perioperative care for AIAN and NHPI patients, which are historically understudied racial groups.

Racial Disparities in General Surgery Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

While disparities in Black and Hispanic and Latino patients undergoing general surgeries are well described, most analyses leave out Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN), and native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients. This study identified general surgery outcomes for each racial group in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

METHODS

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was queried to identify all procedures conducted by a general surgeon from 2017 to 2020 (n = 2,664,197). Multivariable regression models were used to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on 30-day mortality, readmission, reoperation, major and minor medical complications, and non-home discharge destinations. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Compared to non-Hispanic White patients, Black patients had higher odds of readmission and reoperation, and Hispanic and Latino patients had higher odds of major and minor complications. AIAN patients had higher odds of mortality (AOR: 1.003 (1.002-1.005), P < 0.001), major complication (AOR: 1.013 (1.006-1.020), P < 0.001), reoperation (AOR: 1.009, (1.005-1.013), P < 0.001), and non-home discharge destination (AOR: 1.006 (1.001-1.012), P = 0.025), while native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander patients had lower odds of readmission (AOR: 0.991 (0.983-0.999), P = 0.035) and non-home discharge destination (AOR: 0.983 (0.975-0.990), P < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Asian patients had lower odds of each adverse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Black, Hispanic and Latino, and AIAN patients are at higher odds for poor postoperative results than non-Hispanic White patients. AIANs had some of the highest odds of mortality, major complications, reoperation, and non-home discharge. Social health determinants and policy adjustments must be targeted to ensure optimal operative results for all patients.

Surgeon Perspectives on Determinants of Same-Day Mastectomy: A Roadmap for Implementing Change

BACKGROUND

Same-day discharge after mastectomy without immediate reconstruction (MwoR) has been shown to be safe, with improved patient satisfaction when compared with patients discharged 1 or more days after surgery. Nevertheless, only 16% of patients undergoing MwoR in Michigan are discharged on the day of surgery, with significant variation between facilities (3-88%). Our objective was to explore determinants of same-day discharge and offer strategies for broader implementation of this practice.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with surgeons performing MwoR across the state of Michigan. Recruitment utilized purposeful and snowball sampling methods. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Disease (TICD) framework was used to inform the creation of the interview guide. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using directed content analysis guided by the TICD framework. Salient determinants were organized into patient, provider, and system-level factors.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 26) included general surgeons, breast surgeons, and surgical oncologists. Most surgeons (n = 18, 69%) reported that they discharged fewer than 60% of patients the same day after MwoR. The most common barriers included patient knowledge at the patient level; awareness of evidence, surgeon dogma, and peer influence at the provider level; and team processes and operating room logistics at the system level.

CONCLUSION

We identified surgeon-defined determinants of same-day discharge after MwoR. For the identified barriers, potential implementation strategies could include incorporation of preoperative drain teachings for patients, utilizing consensus statements and opinion leaders to disseminate evidence supporting same-day mastectomies, and conducting workshops with relevant stakeholders to establish consistent facility practice patterns among surgical teams.

Effectiveness of discharge education for patients undergoing general surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence to suggest that discharge education may reduce the risk of postoperative complications, however, a critical evaluation of the body of evidence is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of discharge education interventions versus standard education given to general surgery patients prior to, or up to 30-days of hospital discharge on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes were 30-day surgical site infection incidence and re-admission up to 28 days. Patient-reported outcomes included patient knowledge, self-confidence, satisfaction, and quality of life.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult general surgical patients.

METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), CINAHL (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier) and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2022. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of interventions published between 2010 and 2022, with adults undergoing general surgical procedures receiving discharge education on surgical recovery, including wound management, were eligible for inclusion. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomised Studies. The Grading of Assessment, Development, Recommendations, and Evaluation was used to assess the certainty of the body of evidence based on the outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Ten eligible studies (eight randomised control trials and two non-randomised studies of interventions) with 965 patients were included. Six randomised control trials assessed the effect of discharge education interventions on 28-day readmission (Odds ratio 0.88, 95 % confidence interval 0.56-1.38). Two randomised control trials assessed the effect of discharge education interventions on surgical site infection incidence (Odds ratio = 0.84, 95 % confidence interval 0.39-1.82). The results of the non-randomised studies of interventions were not pooled due to heterogeneity in outcome measures. The risk of bias was either moderate or high for all outcomes, and the body of evidence using GRADE was judged as very low for all outcomes studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of discharge education on the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of patients undergoing general surgery cannot be determined due to the uncertainty of the evidence base. Despite the increased use of web-based interventions to deliver discharge education to general surgery patients, larger samples in more rigorous multicentre randomised control trials with parallel process evaluations are needed to better understand the effect of discharge education on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021285392.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Discharge education may reduce the likelihood of surgical site infection and hospital readmission but the body of evidence is inconclusive.

Total Pelvic Exenteration surgery - Considerations for healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Associated with considerable risk of morbidity, Total Pelvic Exenteration (TPE) is a life-altering procedure involving a significant prolonged recovery. As a result, and with the view of achieving the best outcomes and lessen short and long-term morbidities, a well-thought-out and coordinated multidisciplinary team approach, is crucial to the provision of safe and high-quality care.

METHOD

Using a nominal group technique and qualitative methodology, this article explores the current practices in the care of oncology patients who undergo TPE surgery, in a tertiary cancer centre, by highlighting considerations of a collaboratively multi-disciplinary team.

RESULTS

This article provides guidance on the multi-disciplinary team approach, relating to TPE surgery, with discussion of clinical concerns, and with the goal of high patient satisfaction, provision of effective care and the lessening of short and long-term morbidities.

CONCLUSION

Oncology patients that undergo TPE surgery benefit from the contribution of a diversified multidisciplinary team as skilled and competent care that meets patient's health and social care needs is provided in a holistic, comprehensive, and timely care manner. Improving patient's care, pathway and postoperative outcomes, with the use of clinical expertise and support from professionals in the multidisciplinary team, can maximise care.

Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Impact of Preoperative Patient Education on Postoperative Recovery in Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient education is recommended as an essential component of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, there are many uncertainties regarding content and methodological criteria, which may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the intervention. The aim of this review is to assess the effect of preoperative patient education on postoperative recovery in abdominal surgery and to examine different patient education strategies for their effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from 2011 to 2022. All studies investigating the effect of preoperative patient education on postoperative recovery in abdominal surgery were included. A critical quality assessment of all included studies was performed.

RESULTS

We identified 826 potentially suitable articles via a database search and included 12 studies in this review. The majority of the included studies reported a reduction in the length of hospital stay (LOS) and even a reduction in postoperative complications and adverse events. Patients with preoperative education seemed to have lower psychological stress and experience less anxiety. However, the contents, delivery, and general conditions were implemented differently, making comparison difficult. Moreover, the majority of the included studies were weak in quality.

CONCLUSION

With this review, we report potential effects, current implementations, and frameworks of patient education. However, the results must be interpreted with caution and are not directly transferable to clinical practice. Further studies in this field are necessary to make concrete recommendations for clinical practice.

Comparing Analgesia on an As-Needed Basis to Traditional Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Within Fast-Track Orthopedic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim was to determine if the use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) in a fast-track joint replacement program is associated with increased use of perioperative opioid consumption and increased length of hospital stay.

DESIGN

A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Academic hospital.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

A total of 80 patients aged 18-85 years, with body mass index (BMI) 18-40, undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty were recruited.

METHODS

Pre-operatively, patients received gabapentin, celecoxib, and acetaminophen. Peri-operatively, patients received spinal anesthesia with morphine and fentanyl, and periarticular local anesthetic administration by the surgeon. Postoperatively, 80 patients were randomized by a computer-generated sequence into IVPCA group (group A, n = 40) and non-IVPCA group (group B, n = 40).

RESULTS

The primary outcome was 48-hour postoperative opioid consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included side effects of opioids, patient satisfaction, and pain scores. There was no significant difference within 48-hour postoperative opioid consumption (median 61.3 vs. 87.5, p = .181) and length of hospital stay (median 49.8 hours vs. 49.5 hours; p = .89) between the two groups. Also, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction (median 5 in both groups), pain scores, and opioid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

IVPCA was associated with nonsignificant reduction in opioid exposure in elective total knee arthroplasty surgery within 48 hours. Neither group was superior in terms of length of hospital stay, opioid related side-effects, pain scores, and patient satisfaction.

Comparison of short-term surgical outcomes between complete mesenteric resection and traditional transhiatal laparoscopic surgery for Siewert type II/III esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE

To explore the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic transhiatal complete mesenteric resection (CME) surgery compared with those of the traditional laparoscopic transhiatal approach in the treatment of Siewert II/III adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-nine patients with Siewert type II/III AEG were enrolled and divided into two groups: the laparoscopic CME transhiatal approach (CEM-TH, n = 61) group and traditional laparoscopic transhiatal (TH, n = 38) group. Intraoperative and postoperative clinical data of both groups were analyzed.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic trasihiatal surgery was technically successful in all patients. The surgical time, intraoperative bleeding, and hospital stay were all significantly (P < 0.05) reduced in the CME-TH group compared with those in the TH group. The levels of white blood cells on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 5, postoperative CRP on POD 3 and 5, and postoperative PCT were significantly (P < 0.05) lower while lymph nodes were harvested significantly (P < 0.05) more in the CME-TH group than in the TH group. Complications were not significantly (P > 0.05) different between two groups. No death occurred within 90 days.

CONCLUSION

The CME theory could be safely and effectively applied laparoscopically to treat patients with Siewert II/III AEG. Mesogastrium and lower mesoesophagus can be completely resected together with the tumor, lymph nodes, adipose tissue, and blood vessels as an "intact package," leading to better short-term outcomes.

Preoperative Patient Education Programs for Orthopaedic Surgery: What Do the Programs Include? How Are They Delivered? What Are the Knowledge Gaps? A Scoping Review of 46 Studies

OBJECTIVES

To (1) describe the nature and content of the current literature on preoperative education programs for patients preparing for orthopaedic surgery, (2) assess the completeness of reporting program descriptions, and (3) report gaps within the literature.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

We searched the CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for studies that (1) addressed preoperative education in elective orthopaedic surgery or (2) provided descriptions or evaluations of a preoperative program, including the content or outcomes of the program.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

Articles were included if they addressed preoperative patient education focused on an elective orthopaedic surgery and any of the (1) descriptions of an education program including any theoretical frameworks, content, or delivery, or (2) evaluations of the process of a preoperative educational program. Studies were excluded if they were treatment programs with the goal of resolving the problem occurring prior to surgery (eg, rehabilitation or pain management prior to surgery).

DATA SYNTHESIS

We used the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide to assess the completeness of reporting of the content of educational programs. Content was synthesized descriptively and by intervention mapping. The results informed of a draft operational definition of preoperative education that we refined based on expert consultation.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles were included. There was variation in study designs, target populations, and intervention content. Preoperative education was defined in 1 out of 5 studies. Thirteen studies used a platform of video-based modules to deliver their program; 3 studies implemented virtual platforms. Results from the TIDieR checklist indicated that 30% of studies tracked adherence to and fidelity of their programs. A definition and conceptual map indicated that the length of stay, functional abilities, patient knowledge, and satisfaction were expected benefits.

CONCLUSION

Poor reporting of content, rationale, and frameworks for preoperative programs in orthopedics may explain why systematic reviews have not found support for their value. Future trials must improve rigor in design and reporting. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(9):572-585. Epub: 9 July 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10614.

Implementing Patient Falls Education in Hospitals: A Mixed-Methods Trial

Patient education is key to preventing hospital falls yet is inconsistently implemented by health professionals. A mixed methods study was conducted involving a ward-based evaluation of patients receiving education from health professionals using a scripted conversation guide with a falls prevention brochure, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of health professionals involved in delivering the intervention. Over five weeks, 37 patients consented to surveys (intervention n = 27; control n = 10). The quantitative evaluation showed that falls prevention education was not systematically implemented in the trial ward. Seven individual interviews were conducted with health professionals to understand the reasons why implementation failed. Perceived barriers included time constraints, limited interprofessional collaboration, and a lack of staff input into designing the research project and patient interventions. Perceived enablers included support from senior staff, consistent reinforcement of falls education by health professionals, and fostering patient empowerment and engagement. Recommended strategies to enhance implementation included ensuring processes were in place supporting health professional accountability, the inclusion of stakeholder input in designing the falls intervention and implementation processes, as well as leadership engagement in falls prevention education. Although health professionals play a key role in delivering evidence-based falls prevention education in hospitals, implementation can be compromised by staff capacity, capability, and opportunities for co-design with patients and researchers. Organisational buy-in to practice change facilitates the implementation of evidence-based falls prevention activities.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for Cranial Tumor Resection: A Review

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols describe a standardized method of preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative care to enhance outcomes and minimize complication risks surrounding elective surgical intervention. A growing body of evidence is being generated as we learn to apply principles of ERAS standardization to neurosurgical patients. First applied in spinal surgery, ERAS protocols have been extended to cranial neuro-oncological procedures. This review synthesizes recent findings to generate evidence-based guidelines to manage neurosurgical oncology patients with standardized systems and assess ability of these systems to coordinate multidisciplinary, patient-centric care efforts. Furthermore, we highlight the potential utility of multimedia, app-based communication platforms to facilitate patient education, autonomy, and team communication within each of the three settings.

From clinical guidelines to practice: The nutrition elements for enhancing recovery after colorectal surgery

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Care System improves patient outcomes. The ERAS Protocol describes multimodal, evidence-based processes that are bundled into >20 care elements, and the ERAS Implementation Program provides strategies to guide the successful adoption of the care elements. Although formal training is essential to implement ERAS correctly, with this article we aim to bridge the gap between the nutritionally relevant care elements of the protocol and their implementation for colorectal surgery. This article also describes how dietitians can support optimal patient outcomes by playing an active role in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating ERAS practices.

The Utility of Preoperative Phone Calls for Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Procedures

OBJECTIVE

Perioperative patient education improves patient satisfaction, surgical outcomes, and can reduce postoperative call volume. Here, we investigate whether the use of standardized preoperative phone calls elicits similar results in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).

METHODS

Patients undergoing ESS at a tertiary rhinology center were identified prospectively through the electronic medical record (EMR). In the intervention cohort, a standardized preoperative educational phone call was performed. A postoperative survey was utilized to collect self-assessment of satisfaction and understanding in all patients. Postoperative call rates were obtained from the EMR. Wilcoxon rank sum and chi-squared analyses were conducted to compare results. Demographics of the otology and rhinology cohorts were compared with a Mann Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

Data from 43 cases and 58 controls were collected. Patients receiving the intervention were similar to controls with regard to patient-reported understanding (case:9.1 ± 1.1 vs control:9.0 ± 1.4, p = 0.801) and satisfaction (case:9.4 ± 1.1 vs 8.9 ± 1.4, p = 0.155). Both cases and controls called the clinic regarding surgical outcomes more often than for postoperative medications or administrative concerns. Independent of receiving the intervention, patients that did not call clinic postoperatively had significantly better understanding of their procedures (call:8.6 ± 1.6 vs no-call:9.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.015) and satisfaction with their experience (call:8.8 ± 1.4 vs no-call:9.5 ± 1.1, p < 0.028). Patient age may contribute to lack of impact in the rhinology cohort, as compared to the otology group, but socioeconomic status does not seem to differentiate the two samples.

CONCLUSION

Though shown in other settings, a significant impact of educational phone calls prior to surgery was not observed in this sample. Patient education calls prior to endoscopic sinus surgery were not associated with changes in postoperative call volume to the clinic. Patient understanding and satisfaction may be related to other factors, such as patient selection or demographics. Future studies may target such patients prior to ESS.

Patient education about recovery after colorectal surgery: systematic scoping review

AIM

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to optimize recovery through a series of evidence-based recommendations. A key component of ERAS is the provision of patient education. Whilst the recommendation for this is strong, the evidence to inform its format, timing and delivery is unclear. The aim of this review was to describe previous educational interventions used to improve recovery after colorectal surgery and to explore opportunities for future research.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched between 1 January 1990 and 12 February 2020. Studies which described or assessed the effectiveness of a patient education or information resource to improve recovery after colorectal surgery were eligible. Outcomes of interest included the format, timing and delivery of interventions, as well as key features of intervention and study design. A narrative synthesis of data was produced through a process of charting and summarizing key results.

RESULTS

A total of 1298 papers were inspected, and 11 were eligible for inclusion. Five papers were reports of randomized controlled trials, and others reported a mix of non-randomized and qualitative studies. The design of educational interventions included audio-visual resources (n = 3), smartphone device applications (n = 3) and approaches to facilitate person-to-person counselling (n = 5). Most of the counselling interventions reported positive outcomes (mainly in length of hospital stay), whereas the other types reported mixed results. Patients and the public were seldom involved as collaborators in the design of interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education is generally advantageous, but there is insufficient evidence to optimize its design and delivery in the setting of colorectal surgery.

Pain Management in Breast Surgery: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel-The American Society of Breast Surgeons

Opioid overdose accounted for more than 47,000 deaths in the United States in 2018. The risk of new persistent opioid use following breast cancer surgery is significant, with up to 10% of patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions one year after surgery. Over prescription of opioids is far too common. A recent study suggested that up to 80% of patients receiving a prescription for opioids post-operatively do not need them (either do not fill the prescription or do not use the medication). In order to address this important issue, The American Society of Breast Surgeons empaneled an inter-disciplinary committee to develop a consensus statement on pain control for patients undergoing breast surgery. Representatives were nominated by the American College of Surgeons, the Society of Surgical Oncology, The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and The American Society of Anesthesiologists. A broad literature review followed by a more focused review was performed by the inter-disciplinary panel which was comprised of 14 experts in the fields of breast surgery, anesthesiology, plastic surgery, rehabilitation medicine, and addiction medicine. Through a process of multiple revisions, a consensus was developed, resulting in the outline for decreased opioid use in patients undergoing breast surgery presented in this manuscript. The final document was reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Postoperative narcotic use in patients with ovarian cancer on an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of an ERAS pathway on post-discharge narcotic use for patients with ovarian cancer undergoing open surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of women who underwent open ovarian cancer surgeries in 2014 prior to ERAS ("pre-ERAS") and in 2016/2018 after ERAS was instituted ("ERAS"). Patients taking chronic narcotics were excluded. A statewide prescription monitoring program was used to identify narcotic prescriptions filled in the three months after surgery. Quantity of narcotic medication is referenced in morphine milligram equivalents (MME).

RESULTS

42 pre-ERAS and 94 ERAS patients were included. The groups were similar in age, BMI, diabetes, tobacco use, mean number of prior abdominal/pelvic surgeries, and advanced stage disease. ERAS patients had a shorter hospital stay (6.7 days pre-ERAS vs 4.2 days ERAS, p = 0.003), used less narcotic in the 24 h prior to discharge (74.0 MME pre-ERAS vs 25.8 MME ERAS, p = 0.002), and filled prescriptions at time of discharge for less narcotic (519.9 MME pre-ERAS vs 339.7 MME ERAS, p = 0.011). After hospital discharge, ERAS patients filled fewer additional prescriptions (52.4% pre-ERAS, vs 29.4% ERAS, p = 0.012). In total, ERAS patients filled prescriptions for 55% fewer narcotics in the three months after surgery than the pre-ERAS group (1101.4 MME pre-ERAS vs 492.1 MME ERAS, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Institution of an ERAS protocol appears to decrease the narcotic needs of patients in the three months after ovarian cancer surgery.

Enhanced Recovery Protocol for Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: Are Narcotics Necessary?

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have improved patient experience and outcomes in a variety of fields, including bariatric surgery. Given the increasing opioid epidemic in the USA, we sought to determine the impact of our own ERAS protocol on narcotic usage following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing primary laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for 6 months before and after implementation of an ERAS protocol. Our protocol strongly discouraged the use of narcotics in the postoperative period. Specific outcomes of interest were postoperative narcotic usage, length of stay, complications, and readmissions.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. ERAS implementation did not correlate with changes in length of stay, complications, or readmissions. However, ERAS implementation was associated with dramatic reductions in the use of intravenous narcotics (100% vs 47%, p < 0.01) and oral schedule 2 narcotics (56% vs 6%, p < 0.01), with an increase in the usage of tramadol (0% vs 36%, p < 0.01). After ERAS implementation, 52% of patients were managed without the use of schedule 2 narcotics (0% pre-ERAS, p < 0.01) and 33% received no narcotics of any kind (0% pre-ERAS, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy is associated with a dramatic reduction in the use of narcotics in the postoperative period. This has implementation for the usage of narcotics for laparoscopic surgery and potential elimination of narcotics for certain patients and procedures.

Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations-2019 update

BACKGROUND

This is the first updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery.

METHODS

A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed. Studies on each item within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology protocol were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated evidence base and recommendation for items within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.