M P Haverkamp1, M A J de Roos, K H Ong. 1. Department of Surgery, Rivierenland Hospital Tiel, President Kennedylaan 1, 4002 WP, Tiel, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, which is developed to enhance postoperative recovery of patients treated with open colorectal surgery, has been widely adopted. The ERAS protocol has also been introduced in patients treated with laparoscopic colectomy, without data to support its additional value. We investigated whether laparoscopic colectomy in combination with the use of the ERAS protocol leads to a reduction of postoperative length of stay compared to laparoscopic colectomy with conventional care. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive medical record review. Inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone a laparoscopic colectomy at a single center between April 2004 and September 2009 (n = 186). The ERAS protocol had been introduced at the end of 2006. We divided the patients in a pre-ERAS group (n = 77), and an ERAS group (n = 109). We compared the baseline characteristics of both groups. The primary outcome was postoperative length of stay. RESULTS: We did not find significant differences in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus (DM), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and diagnosis and type of surgery between the two groups. Median postoperative length of stay was 6 days (range = 2-28) in the pre-ERAS group and 4 days (range = 2-55) in the ERAS group (P = 0.007). Median return of bowel function was 3 days (range = 1-6) in the pre-ERAS group and 2 days (range = 1-5) in the ERAS group (P < 0.001). We did not find significant differences in postoperative procedure-related complications (wound infection, anastomotic leakage, abscesses), postoperative morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative length of stay was significantly reduced in the ERAS group without differences in patient outcome. It is suggested that these results are the effect of a combination of the ERAS protocol with laparoscopic colectomy.
BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, which is developed to enhance postoperative recovery of patients treated with open colorectal surgery, has been widely adopted. The ERAS protocol has also been introduced in patients treated with laparoscopic colectomy, without data to support its additional value. We investigated whether laparoscopic colectomy in combination with the use of the ERAS protocol leads to a reduction of postoperative length of stay compared to laparoscopic colectomy with conventional care. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive medical record review. Inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone a laparoscopic colectomy at a single center between April 2004 and September 2009 (n = 186). The ERAS protocol had been introduced at the end of 2006. We divided the patients in a pre-ERAS group (n = 77), and an ERAS group (n = 109). We compared the baseline characteristics of both groups. The primary outcome was postoperative length of stay. RESULTS: We did not find significant differences in gender, age, body mass index (BMI), diabetes mellitus (DM), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, and diagnosis and type of surgery between the two groups. Median postoperative length of stay was 6 days (range = 2-28) in the pre-ERAS group and 4 days (range = 2-55) in the ERAS group (P = 0.007). Median return of bowel function was 3 days (range = 1-6) in the pre-ERAS group and 2 days (range = 1-5) in the ERAS group (P < 0.001). We did not find significant differences in postoperative procedure-related complications (wound infection, anastomotic leakage, abscesses), postoperative morbidity, 30-day readmission, 30-day reoperation, and 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The postoperative length of stay was significantly reduced in the ERAS group without differences in patient outcome. It is suggested that these results are the effect of a combination of the ERAS protocol with laparoscopic colectomy.
Authors: Vassiliki L Tsikitis; Stefan D Holubar; Eric J Dozois; Robert R Cima; John H Pemberton; David W Larson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mark Buunen; Ruben Veldkamp; Wim C J Hop; Esther Kuhry; Johannes Jeekel; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio Lacy; Hendrik J Bonjer Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony J Senagore; Conor P Delaney; Khaled Madboulay; Karen M Brady; Victor W Fazio; C Victor W Fazio Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Jan Wind; Jan Hofland; Benedikt Preckel; Markus W Hollmann; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Dirk J Gouma; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Jan Willem Fuhring; Cornelis H C Dejong; Ronald M van Dam; Miguel A Cuesta; Astrid Noordhuis; Dick de Jong; Edith van Zalingen; Alexander F Engel; T Hauwy Goei; I Erica de Stoppelaar; Willem F van Tets; Bart A van Wagensveld; Annemiek Swart; Maarten J L J van den Elsen; Michael F Gerhards; Laurens Th de Wit; Muriel A M Siepel; Anna A W van Geloven; Jan-Willem Juttmann; Wilfred Clevers; Willem A Bemelman Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Mafalda Borges Teixeira; Yu-Ting van Loon; Dareczka K Wasowicz; Barbara S Langenhoff; Roland P van Ieperen; David D E Zimmerman Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Vijaya Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia; Ryan W Day; Sharon Fielder; John Calhoun; Henrik Kehlet Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Mauro Podda; Patricia Sylla; Gianluca Baiocchi; Michel Adamina; Vanni Agnoletti; Ferdinando Agresta; Luca Ansaloni; Alberto Arezzo; Nicola Avenia; Walter Biffl; Antonio Biondi; Simona Bui; Fabio C Campanile; Paolo Carcoforo; Claudia Commisso; Antonio Crucitti; Nicola De'Angelis; Gian Luigi De'Angelis; Massimo De Filippo; Belinda De Simone; Salomone Di Saverio; Giorgio Ercolani; Gustavo P Fraga; Francesco Gabrielli; Federica Gaiani; Mario Guerrieri; Angelo Guttadauro; Yoram Kluger; Ari K Leppaniemi; Andrea Loffredo; Tiziana Meschi; Ernest E Moore; Monica Ortenzi; Francesco Pata; Dario Parini; Adolfo Pisanu; Gilberto Poggioli; Andrea Polistena; Alessandro Puzziello; Fabio Rondelli; Massimo Sartelli; Neil Smart; Michael E Sugrue; Patricia Tejedor; Marco Vacante; Federico Coccolini; Justin Davies; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Mandy Rickard; Michael Chua; Jin Kyu Kim; Daniel T Keefe; Karen Milford; Jessica H Hannick; Joana Dos Santos; Martin A Koyle; Armando J Lorenzo Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marek Zawadzki; Roman Czarnecki; Marek Rzaca; Zbigniew Obuszko; Vamsi Ramana Velchuru; Wojciech Witkiewicz Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 1.195
Authors: M J Scott; G Baldini; K C H Fearon; A Feldheiser; L S Feldman; T J Gan; O Ljungqvist; D N Lobo; T A Rockall; T Schricker; F Carli Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 2.105