The effect of epidural analgesia on postoperative outcome after colorectal surgery

Caffeine intake enhances bowel recovery after colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies

Postoperative ileus (POI) after colorectal surgery is a major problem that affects both patient recovery and hospital costs highlighting the importance of preventive strategies. Therefore, we aimed to perform a systematic analysis of the effects of postoperative caffeine consumption on bowel recovery and surgical morbidity after colorectal surgery. A comprehensive literature search was conducted through September 2023 for randomized and non-randomized trials comparing the effect of caffeinated versus non-caffeinated drinks on POI by evaluating bowel movement resumption, time to first flatus and solid food intake, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcome analysis included postoperative morbidity in both groups. After data extraction and inclusion in a meta-analysis, odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous variables and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed in cases of substantial heterogeneity. Six randomized and two non-randomized trials with a total of 610 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Caffeine intake significantly reduced time to first bowel movement [SMD -0.39, (95% CI -0.66 to -0.12), p = 0.005] and time to first solid food intake [SMD -0.41, (95% CI -0.79 to -0.04), p = 0.03] in elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery, while time to first flatus, LOS, and the secondary outcomes did not differ significantly. Postoperative caffeine consumption may be a reasonable strategy to prevent POI after elective colorectal surgery. However, larger randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with homogeneous study protocols, especially regarding the dosage form of caffeine and coffee, are needed.

Lower rate of delayed graft function is observed when epidural analgesia for living donor nephrectomy is administered

Background

The beneficial effects of epidural analgesia (EDA) in terms of pain control and postoperative convalescence are widely known and led to a frequent use for patients who underwent living donor kidney nephrectomy. The objective of this study was to determine whether general anesthesia (GA) plus EDA compared to GA only, administered for living donor nephrectomy has effects on postoperative graft function in recipients.

Methods

In this monocentric, retrospective cohort analysis we analyzed the closed files of all consecutive donor- recipient pairs who underwent living donor kidney transplantations from 2008 to 2017. The outcome variable was delayed graft function (DGF), defined as at least one hemodialysis within seven days postoperatively, once hyperacute rejection, vascular or urinary tract complications were ruled out. Statistical analyses of continuous variables were calculated using the two-tail Student’s t test and Fisher exact test for categorical variables with a significance level of p < 0.05, respectively.

Results

The study enclosed 291 consecutive living donor kidney transplantations. 99 kidney donors received epidural analgesia whereas 192 had no epidural analgesia. The groups showed balanced pretransplantational characteristics and comparable donors´ and recipients’ risk factors. 9 out of all 291 recipients needed renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the first 7 days due to delayed graft function; none of these donors received EDA. The observed rate of DGF in recipients whose kidney donors received epidural analgesia was significantly lower (0% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.031).

Conclusions

In our cohort we observed a significantly lower rate of DGF when epidural analgesia for donor nephrectomy was administered. Due to restrictions of the study design this observation needs further confirmation by prospective studies.

Risk factors for postoperative ileus following elective laparoscopic right colectomy: a retrospective multicentric study

PURPOSE

Postoperative ileus (POI) is associated with an elevated risk of other complications and increases the economic impact on healthcare services. The aim of this study was to identify pre-, intra- and postoperative risk factors associated with the development of POI following elective laparoscopic right colectomy.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2016, 637 laparoscopic right colectomies were performed. Data were analysed retrospectively thanks to the CLIHMET database. Potential contributing factors were analysed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients with POI (n = 113, 17.7%) were compared to those without postoperative ileus (WPOI) (n = 524, 82.3%). In the POI group, there were more men (62 vs 49%; p = 0.012), more use of epidural anaesthesia (19 vs 9%; p = 0.004), more intraoperative blood transfusion requirements (7 vs 3%; p = 0.018) and greater perioperative intravenous fluid administration (2000 vs 1750 mL; p < 0.001). POIs were more frequent when extracorporeal vascular section (20 vs 12%; p = 0.049) and transversal incision for extraction site (34 vs 23%; p = 0.044) were performed. Overall surgical complications in the POI group were significantly greater than in the control group WPOI (31.9 vs 12.0%; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis found the following independent POI risk factors: male gender (HR = 2.316, 1.102-4.866), epidural anaesthesia (HR = 2.958, 1.250-6.988) and postoperative blood transfusion requirement (HR = 6.994, 1.550-31.560).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the first to explore the CLIHMET database and the first to use it for investigating risk factors for POI development. Modifiable risk factors such as epidural anaesthesia and intraoperative blood transfusion should be used with caution in order to decrease POI rates.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Postoperative analgesia using fentanyl plus celecoxib versus epidural anesthesia after laparoscopic colon resection

PURPOSE

Effective postoperative analgesia is essential to a patient's recovery after laparoscopic colon resection (LCR). We introduce a new analgesic protocol using fentanyl plus celecoxib following LCR.

METHODS

The subjects of this retrospective comparative study were 137 patients who underwent LCR, 63 of whom were treated with 72 h of epidural anesthesia (group E), and 74 of whom were treated with 24 h of fentanyl intravenous injection followed by 7 days of oral celecoxib (group FC). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of this new protocol.

RESULTS

The combination of fentanyl and celecoxib maintained a low postoperative pain score (<1.5, evaluated by the FACES Pain Scale) and reduced the need for rescue analgesic drugs for 7 days (groups E vs. FC: 5.39 ± 3.77 vs. 2.79 ± 2.92, p < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was almost equal for the two groups (E vs. FC: 11.1 ± 4.5 vs. 10.3 ± 4.8 days, p = 0.315). The operating room stay other than for surgery was significantly shorter for group FC (E vs. FC: 128.7 ± 30.5 vs. 107.2 ± 17.0 min, p < 0.001). Neither group experienced complications, apart from one group FC patient, who suffered transient nausea and vertigo.

CONCLUSIONS

The new analgesic protocol using fentanyl plus celecoxib is an effective and time-saving strategy for LCR.

Intravenous versus epidural analgesia to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications after elective pancreatoduodenectomy (the PAKMAN trial, DRKS 00007784): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Despite substantial improvements in surgical and anesthesiological practices leading to decreased mortality of less than 5 % at high-volume centers, pancreatic surgery is still associated with high morbidity rates of up to 50 %. Attention is increasingly directed toward the optimization of perioperative management to reduce complications and enhance postoperative recovery. Currently, two different strategies for postoperative pain management after pancreatoduodenectomy are being routinely used: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia and thoracic epidural analgesia. Evidence is lacking to assess which strategy entails fewer postoperative complications.

Methods/design

The PAKMAN trial is designed as an adaptive, pragmatic, randomized, controlled, multicenter, open-label, superiority trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 370 patients scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy will be randomized after giving written informed consent, and 278 patients are needed for analysis. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification ≥ IV, or chronic pain syndrome will be excluded. The group A intervention includes intraoperative general anesthesia and postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia; the group B intervention comprises combined intraoperative general anesthesia and epidural analgesia with postoperative epidural analgesia. The primary endpoint of this trial is a composite of the gastrointestinal complications (delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, biliary leak, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative ileus) up to postoperative day 30. The aim is to investigate whether the frequency of gastrointestinal complications following pancreatoduodenectomy can be reduced by 15 % using postoperative, patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with epidural analgesia.

Discussion

Several previous studies investigating the two different strategies for postoperative pain management have mainly focused on their effectiveness in pain control. However, the PAKMAN trial is the first to compare them with regard to their impact on the surgical endpoint “postoperative gastrointestinal complications” after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00007784

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1306-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recovery of gastric ileus following laparoscopic ventral rectopexy within an enhanced recovery protocol

PURPOSE

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has had limited adoption in laparoscopic ventral rectopexy (LVR), and the extent of gastric ileus shortly after LVR remains unknown. This study was designed to assess the degree of gastric emptying shortly after LVR within an ERAS protocol.

METHODS

From August 2012 to June 2014, 40 patients diagnosed with external or internal rectal prolapse were recruited. All patients underwent LVR within an ERAS protocol. Carbohydrate solution (CS) was administered before and 5 h after surgery on the same day. The pyloric area (PA) was measured using ultrasonography before and after each CS intake.

RESULTS

The PA was measured in 34 patients. The PA measured prior to CS intake, before surgery, was not significantly different from that after surgery. The rate of increase in the PA, which was calculated by the PA measured 1 h after CS intake divided by the PA measured prior to CS intake before surgery, was not significantly different from that after surgery. The postoperative hospital stay was 1 (1-2) day, and 36 patients (90 %) were discharged on the first postoperative afternoon.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative gastric ileus was resolved in most cases within 5 h after LVR under an ERAS protocol.

Pain control for laparoscopic colectomy: an analysis of the incidence and utility of epidural analgesia compared to conventional analgesia

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare short-term outcomes between epidural analgesia and conventional intravenous analgesia for patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy. This paper uses a large national database to add a current perspective on trends in analgesia and the outcomes associated with two analgesia options. Our evidence augments the opinions of recent randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The University HealthSystem Consortium, an alliance of more than 300 academic and affiliate institutions, was reviewed for the time period of October 2008 through September 2014. International Classification of Disease 9th Clinical Modification codes for laparoscopic colectomy and epidural catheter placement were used.

RESULTS

A total of 29,429 patients met our criteria and underwent laparoscopic colectomy during the study period. One hundred and ten (0.374%) patients had an epidural catheter placed for analgesia. Baseline patient demographics were similar for the epidural and conventional analgesia groups. Total charges were significantly higher in the epidural group ($52,998 vs. $39,277; p < 0.001). Median length of stay was longer in the epidural group (6 vs. 5 days; p < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between the epidural and conventional analgesia groups in death (0 vs. 0.03%; p = 0.999), urinary tract infection (0 vs. 0.1%; p = 0.999), ileus (11.8 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.582), or readmission rate (9.1 vs. 9.3%; p = 0.942).

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional analgesic techniques, epidural analgesia does not reduce the rate of postoperative ileus, and it is associated with increased cost and increased length of stay. Based on our data, routine use of epidural analgesia for laparoscopic colectomy cannot be justified.

"Fast track" rehabilitation after gastric cancer resection: experience with 80 consecutive cases

Background

To evaluate the safety, efficacy and outcomes of fast-track rehabilitation applied to gastric cancer proximal, distal and total gastrectomy.

Methods

Eighty consecutive patients undergoing gastric cancer resection performed by a single surgeon, received perioperative multimodal rehabilitation. Demographic and operative data, gastrointestinal function, postoperative hospital stays, surgical and general complications and mortality were assessed prospectively.

Results

Of the 80 patients (mean age 56.3 years), 10 (12.5%) received proximal subtotal gastrectomy (Billroth I), 38 (47.5%) received distal (Billroth II), and 32 (40%) received total gastrectomy (Roux-en-Y). Mean operative time was 104.9 minutes and intraoperative blood loss was 281.9 ml. Time to first flatus was 2.8 ± 0.5 postoperative days. Patients were discharged at a mean of 5.3 ± 2.2 postoperative days; 30-day readmission rate was 3.8%. In-hospital mortality was 0%; general and surgical complications were both 5%.

Conclusions

Fast-track multimodal rehabilitation is feasible and safe in patients undergoing gastric cancer resection and may reduce time to first flatus and postoperative hospital stays.

Effectiveness of epidural versus alternate analgesia for pain relief after radical prostatectomy and correlation with biochemical recurrence in men with prostate cancer

OBJECTIVES

Our objectives were to analyze the effectiveness of epidural anesthesia in patients who underwent open retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) at our institution over the past decade, and to examine subsequent oncologic outcomes, comparing those receiving with those not receiving epidural anesthesia.

METHODS

A comprehensive database of all patients undergoing RRP from November 1996 to December 2006 was analyzed; 354 patients underwent RRP at our institution and were divided into those receiving or not receiving an epidural. An independent pain management team scoring technical success found epidural technique to be consistent. Oncological outcome was an endpoint of our study, comparing both analysis groups. We classed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence after RRP as a serum PSA ≥ 0.2 ng/mL at any stage of postoperative follow-up. Complications were recorded to 30 days using the modified Clavien system, and full statistical analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

Records were available for 239 men; we observed a decreased trend in the use of epidural for pain management, along with a decrease in average hospital stay and an overall epidural success rate of 64%. When dividing data into RRP with and without epidural, we found a median hospital stay of 7 days for patients receiving an epidural compared with 6 days for those not receiving an epidural. The differences were statistically significant (P < 0.048) and remained so after adjusting for complications (P < 0.0001). Regarding oncological outcome, PSA recurrence was further analyzed in this cohort. Percentage of recurrence was higher (14.8%) for patients receiving an epidural than for the non-epidural group (4.8%). The differences were statistically significant (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Epidural analgesia increased length of hospital stay and technical problems related to the epidural. Furthermore, men receiving an epidural showed an increased recurrence of PSA. In light of our findings, epidurals are probably not indicated for men undergoing RRP. However, as minimally invasive techniques are becoming more widespread, and epidural analgesia is being used less frequently, large randomized controlled trials to definitively support our hypotheses are unlikely to be undertaken.

A nationwide analysis of the use and outcomes of epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery

INTRODUCTION

Epidural analgesia has demonstrated superiority over conventional analgesia in controlling pain following open colorectal resections. Controversy exists regarding cost-effectiveness and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002-2010) was retrospectively reviewed for elective open colorectal surgeries performed for benign and malignant conditions with or without the use of epidural analgesia. Multivariate regression analysis was used to compare outcomes between epidural and conventional analgesia.

RESULTS

A total 888,135 patients underwent open colorectal resections. Epidural analgesia was only used in 39,345 (4.4 %) cases. Epidurals were more likely to be used in teaching hospitals and rectal cancer cases. On multivariate analysis, in colonic cases, epidural analgesia lowered hospital charges by US$4,450 (p < 0.001) but was associated with longer length of stay by 0.16 day (p < 0.05) and a higher incidence of ileus (OR = 1.17; p < 0.01). In rectal cases, epidural analgesia was again associated with lower hospital charges by US$4,340 (p < 0.001) but had no effect on ileus and length of stay. The remaining outcomes such as mortality, respiratory failure, pneumonia, anastomotic leak, urinary tract infection, and retention were unaffected by the use of epidurals.

CONCLUSION

Epidural analgesia in open colorectal surgery is safe but does not add major clinical benefits over conventional analgesia. It appears however to lower hospital charges.

Effect of epidural analgesia on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Use of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) with local anesthetic and adjuncts, such as opioids, are cornerstones of ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) and are considered to play a key role in recovery after colorectal surgery. However, its effect on bowel function may lead to prolong hospital stay and is still a matter of debate. The purpose of this systemic review was to assess whether epidural analgesia could have a detrimental effect on bowel function in laparoscopic colorectal surgery with a subsequent effect on hospital stay duration, leading to failure of ERAS in colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials for the effect of epidural analgesia on laparoscopic colorectal surgery was performed. The effect on postoperative recovery was evaluated in terms of return of bowel function as the primary outcome, whereas length of stay (LOS), pain score on visual analogue scale, operative time, and incidence of postoperative complications and side-effects of analgesia were recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Six trials published between 1999 and 2011 were included in the final analysis. TEA significantly improves return of bowel function assessed by time to first bowel motion [WMD -0.62 (-1.11, -0.12) with Z = 2.43; P = 0.02, 95 % confidence interval (CI)], and pain scores [WMD -1.23 (-2.4, -0.07)] with Z = 2.07; P = 0.04, 95 % CI]. TEA did not influence duration of hospital stay [WMD -0.47 (-1.55, 0.61)] with Z = 0.85 (P = 0.39, 95 % CI). No significant increase in operative time or side effects was associated with TEA.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite of some beneficial effect of epidural analgesia on return of bowel function and pain in laparoscopic surgery, it does not affect LOS, which is multifactorial.

Anesthesia and perioperative management of colorectal surgical patients - A clinical review (Part 1)

Colorectal surgery is commonly performed for colorectal cancer and other pathology such as diverticular and inflammatory bowel disease. Despite significant advances, such as laparoscopic techniques and multidisciplinary recovery programs, morbidity and mortality remain high and vary among surgical centers. The use of scoring systems and assessment of functional capacity may help in identifying high-risk patients and predicting complications. An understanding of perioperative factors affecting colon blood flow and oxygenation, suppression of stress response, optimal fluid therapy, and multimodal pain management are essential. These fundamental principles are more important than any specific choice of anesthetic agents. Anesthesiologists can significantly contribute to enhance recovery and improve the quality of perioperative care.

Short-term and medium-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted and open surgery for colorectal cancer: a single center retrospective case-control study

Background

Laparoscopic procedure is a rapid developed technique in colorectal surgery. In this investigation we aim at assessing the diversities of short-term and medium-term clinical outcomes of laparoscopic-assisted versus open surgery for colorectal cancer.

Methods

A total number of 519 patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled for this study. The patients underwent either laparoscopic-assisted surgery (LAP) (n = 254) or open surgery (OP) (n = 265). Surgical techniques, perioperative managements and clinical follow-ups were standardized. Short-term perioperative data and medium-term recurrence and survival were compared and analyzed between the two groups.

Results

There were no differences in perioperative parameters between the two groups except in regards to a trend of faster recovery in laparoscopic procedures. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complications, reoperation rate, or perioperative mortality. Statistically significant differences in a faster return of gastrointestinal function and shorter hospital stay were identified in favor of laparoscopic-assisted resection. In colon and rectal cancer cases separately, the overall survival, cancer-free survival and recurrence rate were similar in two groups. There was also no tendency of significant differences in overall survival, cancer-free survival and recurrence in stage I-II and stage III patients in two cancer categories between the two groups, respectively. pT, lymph node metastasis, and clinical stage were independent predictors of overall death risk, while pT, pN, lymph node metastasis and clinical stage were found to be the independent predictors of recurrence risk in enrolled patients database.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic-assisted procedure has more benefits on postoperative recovery, while has the same effects on medium-term recurrence and survival compared with open surgery in the treatment of non-metastatic colorectal cancer.

Current perioperative practice in rectal surgery in Austria and Germany

OBJECTIVE

'Fast-track' rehabilitation is able to accelerate recovery, reduce general morbidity, and decrease hospital stay. This is widely accepted for colonic resections. Despite recent evidence that fast track concepts are safe and feasible in rectal resection, there is no information on the acceptance and utilization of these concepts among Austrian and German surgeons.

METHOD

A questionnaire concerning perioperative routines in elective, open rectal resection was sent to the chief surgeons of 1,270 German and 120 Austrian surgical centers.

RESULTS

The response rate was 63% in Austria (76 centers) and 30% in Germany (385 centers). Mechanical bowel preparation is only abandoned by 2% of the Germany and 7% of the Austrian surgeons. Nasogastric decompression tubes are rarely used; four of five of the questioned surgeons in both countries use intra-abdominal drains. Half of the surgical centers allow the intake of clear fluids on the day of surgery. Mobilization starts in half of the centers on the day of surgery. Epidural analgesia is used in three-fourths of the institutions. Institutions which have implemented fast track rehabilitation for rectal resections discharge the patients earlier then hospitals that adhere to traditional care.

CONCLUSION

In many perioperative procedures, Austrian and German Surgeons rely on their traditional approaches. Recent evidence-based adaptations of perioperative routines in rectal resections are only slowly introduced into daily routine; therefore, further efforts have to be done to optimizing patients' care.

Perioperative fluid retention and clinical outcome in elective, high-risk colorectal surgery

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

There is some controversy regarding concepts currently propagated for an optimal perioperative fluid management in colorectal surgery. We wanted to analyze the association of net intraoperative and postoperative fluid balances with postoperative morbidity and length of stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively from March 1993 through February 2005. A subgroup from 4,658 patients was studied who had undergone major elective colorectal surgery during that time. This subgroup included 198 patients with a particularly high preoperative risk profile requiring immediate postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Fluid therapy was guided by established clinical end points. Results were adjusted for various confounding variables (extent of the operative trauma, individual response to the injury, type of analgesia, underlying disease, treatment era).

RESULTS/FINDINGS

After adjustment for relevant covariates, the magnitude of fluid balance was unimportant for morbidity and postoperative hospital length of stay. A high Apache II score after ICU admission, an increased perioperative blood loss, and palliative surgical procedures were associated with a significantly higher complication rate, whereas use of epidural analgesia improved morbidity and shortened hospital stay.

INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSION

If guided by established standards, even large perioperative fluid retentions do not appear to be associated with a worse outcome after extended colorectal surgery. Epidural analgesia may provide a significant benefit in those high-risk patients.

Continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following colorectal surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To provide a specific review and meta-analysis of the available evidence for continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following midline laparotomy for major colorectal surgery.

METHODS: Medline, Embase, trial registries, conference proceedings and article reference lists were searched to identify randomised, controlled trials of continuous wound infusion of local anaesthetic agents following colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were opioid consumption, pain visual analogue scores (VASs), return to bowel function and length of hospital stay. Weighted mean difference were calculated for continuous outcomes.

RESULTS: Five trials containing 542 laparotomy wounds were eligible for inclusion. There was a significant decrease in post-operative pain VAS at rest on day 3 (weighted mean difference: -0.43; 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.04; P = 0.03) but not on post-operative day 1 and 2. Local anaesthetic infusion was associated with a significant reduction in pain VAS on movement on all three post-operative days (day 1 weighted mean difference: -1.14; 95% CI: -2.24 to -0.041; P = 0.04, day 2 weighted mean difference: -0.97, 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.029; P = 0.04, day 3 weighted mean difference: -0.61; 95% CI: 1.01 to -0.20; P = 0.0038). Local anaesthetic wound infusion was associated with a significant decrease in total opioid consumption (weighted mean difference: -40.13; 95% CI: -76.74 to -3.53; P = 0.03). There was no significant decrease in length of stay (weighted mean difference: -20.87; 95% CI: -46.96 to 5.21; P = 0.12) or return of bowel function (weighted mean difference: -9.40; 95% CI: -33.98 to 15.17; P = 0.45).

CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that local anaesthetic wound infusion following laparotomy for major colorectal surgery is a promising technique but do not provide conclusive evidence of benefit. Further research is required including cost-effectiveness analysis.

Influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative pain relief and ileus after laparoscopic colorectal resection : Benefit with epidural analgesia

BACKGROUND

Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) provides superior analgesia with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus when compared with systemic opiate analgesia in open colorectal surgery. However, in laparoscopic colorectal surgery the role of TEA is not well defined. This prospective observational study investigates the influence of TEA in laparoscopic colorectal resections.

METHODS

All patients undergoing colorectal resection between November 2004 and February 2007 were assessed for inclusion into a prospective randomized trial investigating the influence of bisacodyl on postoperative ileus. All patients treated by laparoscopic resection from this collective were eligible for the present study. Primary endpoints were use of analgesics and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores. Secondary endpoint concerned full gastrointestinal recovery, defined as the mean time to the occurrence of the following three events (GI-3): first flatus passed, first defecation, and first solid food tolerated.

RESULTS

75 patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal resection, 39 in the TEA group and 36 in the non-TEA group. Patients with TEA required significantly less analgesics (metamizol median 3.0 g [0-32 g] versus 13.8 g [0-28 g] (p < 0.001); opioids mean 12 mg [+/-2.8 mg standard error of mean, SEM] versus 103 mg [+/-18.2 mg SEM] (p < 0.001). VAS scores were significantly lower in the TEA group (overall mean 1.67 [+/- 0.2 SEM] versus 2.58 [+/-0.2 SEM]; p = 0.004). Mean time to gastrointestinal recovery (GI-3) was significantly shorter (2.96 [+/-0.2 SEM] days versus 3.81 [+/-0.3 SEM] days; p = 0.025). Analysis of the subgroup of patients with laparoscopically completed resections showed corresponding results.

CONCLUSION

TEA provides a significant benefit in terms of less analgesic consumption, better postoperative pain relief, and faster recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection.