BACKGROUND: Although early rehabilitation programs have been reported to be effective after laparoscopic colectomy, there is no report of the efficacy of rehabilitation programs after rectal cancer surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an early rehabilitation program after laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid or low rectal cancer in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS:Ninety-eight patients who had undergone a laparoscopic low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy were randomized on a 1:1 basis to an early rehabilitation program (n = 52) or conventional care (n = 46). The primary endpoint was recovery rate at 4 days postoperatively. The secondary endpoints were recovery time, postoperative hospital stay, complications, readmission rates, pain on a visual analogue scale, and quality of life (QOL) according to Short Form 36. RESULTS: The recovery rates were not different in both groups (rehabilitation, 25 % vs. conventional, 13 %, p = 0.135). Recovery time and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the groups (rehabilitation, 137 h [107-188] vs. conventional, 146.5 h [115-183], p = 0.47; 7.5 days [7-11] vs. 8.0 days [7-10], p = 0.882). The complication rates did not differ between the two groups, but more complications were noted in the rehabilitation program group (42.3 vs. 24.0 %, p = 0.054), which was related to postoperative ileus (28.8 vs. 13.0 %, p = 0.057) and acute voiding difficulty (19.6 vs. 4.7 %, p = 0.032). There was no readmission within 1 month of surgery. Pain and QOL were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial did not show that an early rehabilitation program is beneficial after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Our results confirm that postoperative ileus and acute voiding difficulty are major obstacles to fast-track surgery for mid or low rectal cancer. This study was registered (registration number NCT00606944).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Although early rehabilitation programs have been reported to be effective after laparoscopic colectomy, there is no report of the efficacy of rehabilitation programs after rectal cancer surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an early rehabilitation program after laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid or low rectal cancer in a randomized, controlled trial. METHODS: Ninety-eight patients who had undergone a laparoscopic low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy were randomized on a 1:1 basis to an early rehabilitation program (n = 52) or conventional care (n = 46). The primary endpoint was recovery rate at 4 days postoperatively. The secondary endpoints were recovery time, postoperative hospital stay, complications, readmission rates, pain on a visual analogue scale, and quality of life (QOL) according to Short Form 36. RESULTS: The recovery rates were not different in both groups (rehabilitation, 25 % vs. conventional, 13 %, p = 0.135). Recovery time and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the groups (rehabilitation, 137 h [107-188] vs. conventional, 146.5 h [115-183], p = 0.47; 7.5 days [7-11] vs. 8.0 days [7-10], p = 0.882). The complication rates did not differ between the two groups, but more complications were noted in the rehabilitation program group (42.3 vs. 24.0 %, p = 0.054), which was related to postoperative ileus (28.8 vs. 13.0 %, p = 0.057) and acute voiding difficulty (19.6 vs. 4.7 %, p = 0.032). There was no readmission within 1 month of surgery. Pain and QOL were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial did not show that an early rehabilitation program is beneficial after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Our results confirm that postoperative ileus and acute voiding difficulty are major obstacles to fast-track surgery for mid or low rectal cancer. This study was registered (registration number NCT00606944).
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: 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: Malaika S Vlug; Jan Wind; Markus W Hollmann; Dirk T Ubbink; Huib A Cense; Alexander F Engel; Michael F Gerhards; Bart A van Wagensveld; Edwin S van der Zaag; Anna A W van Geloven; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Miguel A Cuesta; Willem A Bemelman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Norbert Hüser; Christoph W Michalski; Mert Erkan; Tibor Schuster; Robert Rosenberg; Jörg Kleeff; Helmut Friess Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Jinhua Feng; Ka Li; Li Li; Xiaodong Wang; Mingjun Huang; Jie Yang; Yanjie Hu Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 2.571
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