John Richardson1, Francesco Di Fabio2, Hannah Clarke1, Mohammed Bajalan1, Joe Davids1, Mohammed Abu Hilal3. 1. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 2. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: difabiof@hotmail.it. 3. University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: Mohammed.AbuHilal@uhs.nhs.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.
BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVES: The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups. RESULTS:Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.
Authors: Thijs de Rooij; Sjors Klompmaker; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Michael L Kendrick; Olivier R Busch; Marc G Besselink Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Christopher B Nahm; Philip R de Reuver; Thomas J Hugh; Andrew Pearson; Anthony J Gill; Jaswinder S Samra; Anubhav Mittal Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Bjørn Edwin; Mushegh A Sahakyan; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Marc G Besselink; Marco Braga; Jean-Michel Fabre; Laureano Fernández-Cruz; Brice Gayet; Song Cheol Kim; Igor E Khatkov Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: A Balduzzi; N van der Heijde; A Alseidi; S Dokmak; M L Kendrick; P M Polanco; D E Sandford; S V Shrikhande; C M Vollmer; S E Wang; H J Zeh; M Abu Hilal; H J Asbun; M G Besselink Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Yang Cao; Hui-Yun Gu; Zhen-Dong Huang; Ya-Peng Wu; Qiong Zhang; Jie Luo; Chao Zhang; Yan Fu Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: A Balduzzi; J van Hilst; M Korrel; S Lof; B Al-Sarireh; A Alseidi; F Berrevoet; B Björnsson; P van den Boezem; U Boggi; O R Busch; G Butturini; R Casadei; R van Dam; S Dokmak; B Edwin; M A Sahakyan; G Ercolani; J M Fabre; M Falconi; A Forgione; B Gayet; D Gomez; B Groot Koerkamp; T Hackert; T Keck; I Khatkov; C Krautz; R Marudanayagam; K Menon; A Pietrabissa; I Poves; A Sa Cunha; R Salvia; S Sánchez-Cabús; Z Soonawalla; M Abu Hilal; M G Besselink Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 4.584