BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies investigating fast track care involve selected patients. This study evaluates the implementation of fast track care in unselected bariatric patients in a high volume teaching hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a primary laparoscopic gastric bypass in our center were reviewed in the years before (n = 104) and after implementation of fast track care (n = 360). Fast track involved the banning of tubes/catheters, anesthetic management and early ambulation. Primary outcome was the length of stay. Perioperative times, complications (<30 days), readmissions and prolonged length of stay were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median length decreased after implementation of fast track (3 days versus 1 day, p < 0.001). Overall complication rate remained stable after implementation of fast track care (17.3 % versus 18.3 %, not significant). Readmission rate did not differ between groups (4.8 % conventional care versus 8.1 % fast track, not significant). More grades I-IVa complications occurred outside the hospital after the implementation of fast track care (24.8 % versus 51.5 %). Lower age (b = 0.118, 95 % CI: 0.002-0.049, p < 0.05) and the implementation of fast track (b = -0.270, 95 % CI: -1.969 to -0.832, p < 0.001) were the only factors that significantly shortened the length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Patients that received fast track care had a decreased length of stay. Although more complications occurred after discharge in the fast track care group, this did not lead to adverse outcomes. Fast track does enhance recovery and is suitable for unselected patients. Care providers should select their patients for early discharge and pursue a low threshold for readmission.
BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies investigating fast track care involve selected patients. This study evaluates the implementation of fast track care in unselected bariatric patients in a high volume teaching hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a primary laparoscopic gastric bypass in our center were reviewed in the years before (n = 104) and after implementation of fast track care (n = 360). Fast track involved the banning of tubes/catheters, anesthetic management and early ambulation. Primary outcome was the length of stay. Perioperative times, complications (<30 days), readmissions and prolonged length of stay were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median length decreased after implementation of fast track (3 days versus 1 day, p < 0.001). Overall complication rate remained stable after implementation of fast track care (17.3 % versus 18.3 %, not significant). Readmission rate did not differ between groups (4.8 % conventional care versus 8.1 % fast track, not significant). More grades I-IVa complications occurred outside the hospital after the implementation of fast track care (24.8 % versus 51.5 %). Lower age (b = 0.118, 95 % CI: 0.002-0.049, p < 0.05) and the implementation of fast track (b = -0.270, 95 % CI: -1.969 to -0.832, p < 0.001) were the only factors that significantly shortened the length of stay. CONCLUSIONS:Patients that received fast track care had a decreased length of stay. Although more complications occurred after discharge in the fast track care group, this did not lead to adverse outcomes. Fast track does enhance recovery and is suitable for unselected patients. Care providers should select their patients for early discharge and pursue a low threshold for readmission.
Authors: Melinda A Maggard; Lisa R Shugarman; Marika Suttorp; Margaret Maglione; Harvey J Sugerman; Harvey J Sugarman; Edward H Livingston; Ninh T Nguyen; Zhaoping Li; Walter A Mojica; Lara Hilton; Shannon Rhodes; Sally C Morton; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 25.391
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: Timothy M Farrell; Stephen P Haggerty; D Wayne Overby; Geoffrey P Kohn; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-06 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bennet I Omalu; Diane G Ives; Alhaji M Buhari; Jennifer L Lindner; Philip R Schauer; Cyril H Wecht; Lewis H Kuller Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2007-10
Authors: Noëlle Geubbels; L Maurits de Brauw; Yair I Z Acherman; Arnold W J M van de Laar; Sjoerd C Bruin Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Caroline M J Theunissen; John K Maring; Natascha J C Raeijmaekers; Ingrid S Martijnse; Barbara S Langenhoff Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Guido H H Mannaerts; Stefanie R van Mil; Pieter S Stepaniak; Martin Dunkelgrün; Marcel de Quelerij; Serge J Verbrugge; Hans F Zengerink; L Ulas Biter Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Alex W Lois; Matthew J Frelich; Natasha A Sahr; Samuel F Hohmann; Tao Wang; Jon C Gould Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Anne-Sophie van Rijswijk; Daan E Moes; Noëlle Geubbels; Barbara A Hutten; Yair I Z Acherman; Arnold W van de Laar; Maurits de Brauw; Sjoerd C Bruin Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ola S Ahmed; Ailín C Rogers; Jarlath C Bolger; Achille Mastrosimone; William B Robb Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: L Ulas Biter; Michiel M A van Buuren; Guido H H Mannaerts; Jan A Apers; Martin Dunkelgrün; Guy H E J Vijgen Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Sjaak Pouwels; Pieter S Stepaniak; Marc P Buise; R Arthur Bouwman; Simon W Nienhuijs Journal: Indian J Surg Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 0.656