PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to see whether the application of the enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection improves the results and, in turn, the influence of complexity and size of the hospitals in applying this and its results. METHODS: A multi-centric prospective study was controlled with a retrospective group. The prospective operation group included 300 patients with elective colorectal resection due to cancer. The centres were divided depending on size and complexity in large reference centres (group 1) and area and basic general hospitals (group 2). The retrospective control group included 201 patients with the same characteristics attended before the application of the programme. Completion of categories of the protocol, complications, perioperative mortality and stay in hospital were recorded. RESULTS: The introduction of the programme achieved a reduction in mortality (1 vs. 4 %), morbidity (26 vs. 39 %) and preoperative (<24 h vs. 3 days) and postoperative (7 vs. 11 days) stays (p < 0.01). There was greater fulfilment of protocol in group 2 with the mean number of items completed at 8.46 and 60 % completed compared with the hospitals in group 1 (7.70 completed items and 55 % completion). The size of the hospital had no relation to the rate of complications (21.3 vs. 26.5 %). In smaller sized and less complex hospitals, the average length of stay was 1.88 days less than in those of greater size (6.45 vs. 8.33 days). CONCLUSION: Patients treated according to an enhanced recovery programme develop significantly fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay. The carrying out of protocol is greater in smaller and less complex hospitals and is directly related to a shorter stay in hospital.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to see whether the application of the enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection improves the results and, in turn, the influence of complexity and size of the hospitals in applying this and its results. METHODS: A multi-centric prospective study was controlled with a retrospective group. The prospective operation group included 300 patients with elective colorectal resection due to cancer. The centres were divided depending on size and complexity in large reference centres (group 1) and area and basic general hospitals (group 2). The retrospective control group included 201 patients with the same characteristics attended before the application of the programme. Completion of categories of the protocol, complications, perioperative mortality and stay in hospital were recorded. RESULTS: The introduction of the programme achieved a reduction in mortality (1 vs. 4 %), morbidity (26 vs. 39 %) and preoperative (<24 h vs. 3 days) and postoperative (7 vs. 11 days) stays (p < 0.01). There was greater fulfilment of protocol in group 2 with the mean number of items completed at 8.46 and 60 % completed compared with the hospitals in group 1 (7.70 completed items and 55 % completion). The size of the hospital had no relation to the rate of complications (21.3 vs. 26.5 %). In smaller sized and less complex hospitals, the average length of stay was 1.88 days less than in those of greater size (6.45 vs. 8.33 days). CONCLUSION:Patients treated according to an enhanced recovery programme develop significantly fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay. The carrying out of protocol is greater in smaller and less complex hospitals and is directly related to a shorter stay in hospital.
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: José V Roig; Rodolfo Rodríguez-Carrillo; Juan García-Armengol; Francisco L Villalba; Antonio Salvador; Cristina Sancho; Pilar Albors; Francisco Puchades; Carlos Fuster Journal: Cir Esp Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 1.653
Authors: W Schwenk; N Günther; P Wendling; M Schmid; W Probst; K Kipfmüller; B Rumstadt; M K Walz; R Engemann; T Junghans Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2007-08-18 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Catherine J Walter; Jane T Watson; Rupert D Pullan; Nicholas J Kenefick; Stephen J Mitchell; David J Defriend Journal: Surgeon Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 2.392
Authors: G Mowatt; G Houston; R Hernández; R de Verteuil; C Fraser; B Cuthbertson; L Vale Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Robert E Mitchell; Byron T Lee; Michael S Cookson; Daniel A Barocas; S Duke Herrell; Peter E Clark; Joseph A Smith; Sam S Chang Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-08-13 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Pedro Moya; Elena Miranda; Leticia Soriano-Irigaray; Antonio Arroyo; Maria-Del-Mar Aguilar; Marta Bellón; Jose-Luis Muñoz; Fernando Candela; Rafael Calpena Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-03-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: José Luis Muñoz; María Oliva Alvarez; Vicent Cuquerella; Elena Miranda; Carlos Picó; Raquel Flores; Marta Resalt-Pereira; Pedro Moya; Ana Pérez; Antonio Arroyo Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Pedro Moya; Leticia Soriano-Irigaray; Jose Manuel Ramirez; Alessandro Garcea; Olga Blasco; Francisco Javier Blanco; Carlo Brugiotti; Elena Miranda; Antonio Arroyo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 1.889