BACKGROUND: Due to potentially superior short-term outcomes compared with open colorectal surgery, laparoscopic surgery is currently being implemented in clinical practice worldwide. In parallel, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are shown to improve postoperative recovery in open colorectal surgery. This study reports outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery in conjunction with compliance to the ERAS protocol. METHODS: The association between surgical approach (laparoscopic or open surgery), compliance to the ERAS protocol, postoperative symptoms, complications, and length of stay after surgery was studied. Between January 2007 to December 2010, 114 consecutive patients underwent elective high anterior resection with laparoscopic-assisted (n = 55) or open resection (n = 59). All clinical data (114 variables) were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: The overall preoperative ERAS-protocol compliance was 77% for both the laparoscopic and open group. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in shorter total length of stay (median 4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.04), earlier pain control (median 2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.008), shorter need for intravenous infusions, improved mobilization on the first postoperative day (POD1), and lower inflammatory response (CRP (POD1) 54 ± 24 vs. 67 ± 31 mg/l, p = 0.017) compared with open resection. The trends in fewer postoperative complications (9.1 vs. 16.9%; odds ratio (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-1.81) and overall postoperative symptoms delaying recovery (20 vs. 30.5%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22-1.34) in laparoscopic surgery were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol results in faster recovery compared with open resection.
BACKGROUND: Due to potentially superior short-term outcomes compared with open colorectal surgery, laparoscopic surgery is currently being implemented in clinical practice worldwide. In parallel, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs are shown to improve postoperative recovery in open colorectal surgery. This study reports outcomes in laparoscopic versus open surgery in conjunction with compliance to the ERAS protocol. METHODS: The association between surgical approach (laparoscopic or open surgery), compliance to the ERAS protocol, postoperative symptoms, complications, and length of stay after surgery was studied. Between January 2007 to December 2010, 114 consecutive patients underwent elective high anterior resection with laparoscopic-assisted (n = 55) or open resection (n = 59). All clinical data (114 variables) were prospectively recorded. RESULTS: The overall preoperative ERAS-protocol compliance was 77% for both the laparoscopic and open group. Laparoscopic surgery resulted in shorter total length of stay (median 4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.04), earlier pain control (median 2 vs. 3 days, p = 0.008), shorter need for intravenous infusions, improved mobilization on the first postoperative day (POD1), and lower inflammatory response (CRP (POD1) 54 ± 24 vs. 67 ± 31 mg/l, p = 0.017) compared with open resection. The trends in fewer postoperative complications (9.1 vs. 16.9%; odds ratio (OR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-1.81) and overall postoperative symptoms delaying recovery (20 vs. 30.5%; OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.22-1.34) in laparoscopic surgery were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol results in faster recovery compared with open resection.
Authors: P M King; J M Blazeby; P Ewings; P J Franks; R J Longman; A H Kendrick; R M Kipling; R H Kennedy Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: J Maessen; C H C Dejong; J Hausel; J Nygren; K Lassen; J Andersen; A G H Kessels; A Revhaug; H Kehlet; O Ljungqvist; K C H Fearon; M F von Meyenfeldt Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.939
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: G P Buzby; L S Knox; L O Crosby; J M Eisenberg; C M Haakenson; G E McNeal; C P Page; O L Peterson; G F Reinhardt; W O Williford Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1988-02 Impact factor: 7.045
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: Sebastiaan W Polle; Jan Wind; Jan W Fuhring; Jan Hofland; Dirk J Gouma; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Gregg Nelson; Lawrence N Kiyang; Ellen T Crumley; Anderson Chuck; Thanh Nguyen; Peter Faris; Tracy Wasylak; Carlota Basualdo-Hammond; Susan McKay; Olle Ljungqvist; Leah M Gramlich Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Michał Pędziwiatr; Magdalena Pisarska; Michał Kisielewski; Maciej Matłok; Piotr Major; Mateusz Wierdak; Andrzej Budzyński; Olle Ljungqvist Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.064