Literature DB >> 28446926

Are we ready for the ERAS protocol in colorectal surgery?

Michał Kisielewski1, Mateusz Rubinkiewicz1, Michał Pędziwiatr1, Magdalena Pisarska1, Marcin Migaczewski1, Marcin Dembiński1, Piotr Major1, Kazimierz Rembiasz1, Andrzej Budzyński1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Modern perioperative care principles in elective colorectal surgery have already been established by international surgical authorities. Nevertheless, barriers to the introduction of routine evidence-based clinical care and changing dogmas still exist. One of the factors is the surgeon. AIM: To assess perioperative care trends in elective colorectal surgery among general surgery consultants in surgical departments in Malopolska Voivodeship, Poland.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous standardized 20-question questionnaire was developed based on ERAS principles and sent out to Malopolska Voivodeship general surgery departments. Answers of general surgery consultants showed the level of acceptance of elements of perioperative care.
RESULTS: The overall response rate was 66%. Several elements (antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis, postoperative oxygen therapy, no nasogastric tubes) had quite a high acceptance rate. On the other hand, most crucial surgical perioperative elements (lack of mechanical bowel preparation, preoperative oral carbohydrate loading, use of laparoscopy and lack of drains, early fluid and oral diet intake, early mobilization) were not followed according to evidence-based ERAS protocol recommendations. Surgeons were not willing to change their practice, but were supportive of changes in anesthesiologist-dependent elements of perioperative care, such as restrictive fluid therapy, use of transversus abdominis plane blocks, etc.
CONCLUSIONS: Many elements of perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery in Malopolska Voivodeship are still dictated by dogma and are not evidence-based. The level of acceptance of many important ERAS protocol elements is low. Surgeons are ready to accept only changes that do not interfere with their practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Polish survey; laparoscopic colorectal surgery; perioperative management; surgeons

Year:  2017        PMID: 28446926      PMCID: PMC5397552          DOI: 10.5114/wiitm.2017.66672

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne        ISSN: 1895-4588            Impact factor:   1.195


Introduction

Modern evidence-based perioperative care principles in elective colorectal surgery have already been established by international surgical authorities [1, 2]. The main ideas include optimization of the patient’s preoperative state, use of minimally invasive surgical techniques, balanced intravenous fluid therapy, multimodal non-opioid analgesia, and early mobilization and nutrition [3, 4]. These and other elements work in synergy and aim at reduction of surgically induced physiological and metabolic stress. Therefore patients experience fewer perioperative complications, and the length of hospital stay (LOS) is significantly shorter without a negative impact on the readmission rate [5, 6]. This can be applied in various branches of surgery [7-9]. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic/rectal surgery included in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations are widely available [1, 2]. Nevertheless, barriers to the introduction of routine evidence-based clinical care and changing dogmas still exist. Among potential factors that can impair implementation of the ERAS protocol are staff-related problems [10, 11].

Aim

The aim of the study was to assess perioperative care trends in elective colorectal surgery among general surgery consultants in surgical departments in Malopolska Voivodeship, Poland, where colorectal procedures are routinely performed.

Material and methods

A questionnaire study was conducted in the period between January and May 2016. An anonymous standardized questionnaire was developed based on ERAS principles and included 20 questions – 14 closed questions with two options to choose, and 6 open questions, where respondents could put in a number, representing for instance length of antibiotic administration (Table I). Questionnaires were approved and supported by Malopolska Voivodeship Chief Consultant in General Surgery, and distributed by mail among all surgical departments in Malopolska Voivodeship in Poland. Only general surgery consultants were asked to participate in the study. Filled out questionnaires were sent back to the authors and then analyzed. To maximize the response to the postal questionnaire a reminder letter was sent to the surgical departments that had a poor feedback rate.
Table I

Elements of perioperative care covered in standardized questionnaire

1. Preoperative patient educationY/N^11. Routine use of drainsY/N
2. Mechanical bowel preparation in colon surgeryY/N12. Length of peritoneal drainage
3. Mechanical bowel preparation in rectal surgeryY/N13. Opioid drug useY/N
4. Preoperative oral carbohydrate loadingY/N14. Use of locoregional analgesia techniques (TAP block, epidural analgesia)Y/N
5. Antithrombotic prophylaxisY/N15. Postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis useY/N
6. Antibiotic prophylaxisY/N16. Postoperative oxygenationY/N
7. Length of perioperative antibiotics administration 17. Day of oral fluids introduction
8. Open or laparoscopic surgical approach preferred18. Day of oral solid diet introduction
9. Restrictive intravenous fluid therapyY/N19. Day of urinary catheter removal
10. Use of nasogastric tubeY/N20. Day of mobilization

Y/N – stands for YES/NO answer. Open questions written in Italics.

Elements of perioperative care covered in standardized questionnaire Y/N – stands for YES/NO answer. Open questions written in Italics. During analysis of acceptance of perioperative care elements, > 75% was chosen as a level of high acceptance.

Results

Two hundred and forty-eight questionnaires were sent out; 164 filled in versions from 25 out of 32 surgical departments from Malopolska Voivodeship were received back and then analyzed (overall response rate 66%). Depending on level of acceptance, all perioperative elements from questionnaire were divided into two groups – group 1 consisted of elements with a high level of acceptance and group 2 included poorly accepted elements (Table II).
Table II

Acceptance of elements of perioperative care according to the questionnaire

Group 1. Highly accepted elements of perioperative careGroup 2. Weakly accepted elements of perioperative care
Element% of acceptanceElement% of acceptance
Preoperative patient education87No bowel preparation, colon30
Antithrombotic prophylaxis96No bowel preparation, rectum20
Antibiotic prophylaxis96Preoperative oral carbohydrate loading20
Restrictive intravenous fluid therapy80Use of laparoscopic techniques16
No use of nasogastric tubes84No routine use of drains13
Use of locoregional techniques for analgesia78Non-opioid analgesia27
Postoperative oxygenation79Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting42
Early oral fluid intake11
Early oral food intake2
Early urinary catheter removal3
Early mobilization16
Acceptance of elements of perioperative care according to the questionnaire Nearly 87% of surgeons do discuss individually with their patients what the reconvalescence period will be like. Ninety-six percent of patients will receive antithrombotic and antibiotic prophylaxis, and antibiotics would not be continued postoperatively in 28% of cases (mean length of antibiotic administration 2.06 days, range: 0–7 days). In 80% of patients restricted perioperative intravenous fluid therapy will be used. In 84% of cases the nasogastric tube will be removed shortly after surgery. Postoperative pain management is based on opioid drugs in 73% of patients, and in 78% of cases additional locoregional anesthetic techniques would be used. Seventy-nine percent of patients would receive postoperative oxygen therapy. Thirty percent of surgeons do not use mechanical bowel preparation in colonic surgery, and 20% do not prepare the patient’s large bowel in case of rectal surgery. Only 20% of patients would receive preoperative oral carbohydrate loading. Sixteen percent of respondents from 5 surgical departments prefer the laparoscopic approach. Thirty percent of patients will have no drains left routinely in peritoneal cavity, and when drains are used the average length is 2.5 days (range: 0–6 days). Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) would be initiated in 42% of patients. Early oral fluids and diet would be introduced in 11% and 2% of patients subsequently. The urinary catheter would be removed during 24 h postoperatively in 3% of patients. Early mobilization would be encouraged in 16% of patients. Table III presents answers to open questions.
Table III

Open question results

Parameter assessed in open question< 24 h1st day2nd day3rd day≥ 4th day
Length of antibiotic prophylaxis28%21%9%22%20%
Length of peritoneal drainage10%5%32%25%28%
Introduction of oral fluids11%50%26%9%4%
Introduction of oral diet2%10%32%36%20%
Removal of urinary catheter3%33%24%26%14%
Mobilization of patient16%65%14%4%1%
Open question results

Discussion

In the analyzed material several elements of perioperative care have quite a high level of acceptance among general surgery consultants (e.g. patient education, antibiotic and antithrombotic prophylaxis, postoperative oxygenation). Nevertheless, a number of crucial elements of modern evidence-based clinical practice are not routinely followed (no bowel preparation, use of laparoscopy, no drains, early oral intake and early mobilization). It was remarkable that when certain elements were dependent on the surgeon (laparoscopy, no drains, etc) they were very poorly accepted. On the other hand, surgeons were ready to accept elements managed by anesthesiologists (e.g. restrictive intravenous fluid therapy, multimodal analgesia). Interestingly, an ERAS survey among anesthesiologists from 27 countries by Greco et al. showed low acceptance of most anesthesiological elements (avoidance of premedication and opioids, targeted intravenous fluid policy, preoperative fasting and early nasogastric tube removal) [12].

Lack of mechanical bowel preparation

Compared to results from Malopolska Voivodeship, even a smaller percentage of Spanish (14%) and Swedish (3%) colorectal surgeons do not prepare the bowel for elective resections [13, 14]. According to an available Cochrane meta-analysis there is absolutely no benefit from bowel preparation in every available context (amount of anastomotic leakage, wound infections, reoperations, mortality, etc.), and it should be reserved for selected cases [15].

Preoperative oral carbohydrate loading

An element that is not accepted by surgeons not only in southern Poland but also in western surgical centers is preoperative oral carbohydrate loading [16]. In Spain only 3% of surgeons use it. Traditional preoperative fasting results in increased insulin resistance, causes longer postoperative ileus and prolongs LOS [13]. The preoperative oral carbohydrate loading can decrease these negative outcomes prior to elective colorectal surgery in a safe manner [17, 18].

Laparoscopy

There is plentiful evidence that laparoscopy short- and long-term outcomes are very good [19-21]. When combined with the ERAS protocol, laparoscopy shows the best treatment outcomes and therefore should be strongly promoted among surgeons around the globe [22]. Nevertheless, barriers to laparoscopy in colorectal surgery are still numerous [23]. Among the most common are lack of skills and adequate training. Moreover, some believe that laparoscopy is associated with higher costs and can be oncologically inferior to open surgery [21, 24]. This requires actions from health education managers directed at widespread application of laparoscopic techniques. Interestingly, a survey from the UK showed that laparoscopy enthusiasts are good at implementing other elements of the ERAS protocol [25].

Drains

In uncomplicated elective colorectal surgery they do not offer lower morbidity and mortality, and do not influence the number of anastomotic leakages, and hence should be discouraged [26-28]. Still, as seen in an Austrian and Germany survey, too many surgeons still leave drains [29].

Early catheter removal

Very low acceptance is also seen with early urinary catheter removal – only 3% of respondents would remove it within the first 24 h, despite the fact that it is safe and does not increase the risk of urinary retention [1, 2].

Early mobilization

This is known to be one of the key elements of perioperative care allowing faster recovery [30]. A problem with early mobilization could result from low compliance with other elements, such as prolonged catheterization and routine drain use. Therefore change of perioperative care of the majority of respondents should be encouraged, since the acceptance rate of early mobilization was only 16%.

Postoperative nil per os diet

This also has no scientific basis. Lewis et al. after a meta-analysis of 13 trials concluded that early enteral nutrition is associated with reduced mortality and may be of significant benefit [31]. In a British survey 88% and 80% of patients were allowed fluids and solid food intake on the first postoperative day, respectively [25].

Limitations of the study

This study shows the view of the general surgery consultants rather than colorectal surgeons as in other similar studies. Data were collected from only one region of Poland. The response rate was average, but comparable to other questionnaire studies on the topic. Acceptance of certain elements of perioperative care does not mean they are routinely practiced by the respondent.

Conclusions

Many elements of perioperative care in elective colorectal surgery in Malopolska Voivodeship are still dictated by dogma and are not evidence-based. The level of acceptance of many important ERAS protocol elements is low. Surgeons are ready to accept only changes that do not interfere with their practice. A barrier resulting from unwillingness to change surgeon-dependent elements still exists. Workshops, seminars and constant internal and/or external audits may increase the acceptance of modern evidence-based perioperative care. Moreover, laparoscopic colorectal resections should become more available, even though ERAS protocol elements can also be used in open surgery.
  31 in total

1.  Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery within fast-track perioperative care.

Authors:  Ming-zhe Li; Long-bin Xiao; Wen-hui Wu; Shi-bin Yang; Shou-zhi Li
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.585

Review 2.  Prophylactic anastomotic drainage for colorectal surgery.

Authors:  E C Jesus; A Karliczek; D Matos; A A Castro; A N Atallah
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004-10-18

3.  Current pattern of perioperative practice in elective colorectal surgery; a questionnaire survey of ACPGBI members.

Authors:  Reza Arsalani-Zadeh; Sana Ullah; Shakeeb Khan; John Macfie
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2010-03-20       Impact factor: 6.071

Review 4.  Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations.

Authors:  U O Gustafsson; M J Scott; W Schwenk; N Demartines; D Roulin; N Francis; C E McNaught; J MacFie; A S Liberman; M Soop; A Hill; R H Kennedy; D N Lobo; K Fearon; O Ljungqvist
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 7.324

5.  Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 May 14-20       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Perioperative care: a survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons.

Authors:  A Kahokehr; P Robertson; T Sammour; M Soop; A G Hill
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.788

7.  Enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery in elderly patients.

Authors:  Mikhail Kisialeuski; Michał Pędziwiatr; Maciej Matłok; Piotr Major; Marcin Migaczewski; Damian Kołodziej; Anna Zub-Pokrowiecka; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Budzyński; Andrzej Budzyński
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 1.195

8.  Cost minimization analysis of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol: a single-centre, case-matched study.

Authors:  Michał Pędziwiatr; Mateusz Wierdak; Michał Nowakowski; Magdalena Pisarska; Maciej Stanek; Michał Kisielewski; Maciej Matłok; Piotr Major; Stanisław Kłęk; Andrzej Budzyński
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 1.195

9.  Is ERAS in laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer changing risk factors for delayed recovery?

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

10.  Enhanced recovery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing laparoscopic total gastrectomy.

Authors:  Michał Pędziwiatr; Maciej Matłok; Mikhail Kisialeuski; Piotr Major; Marcin Migaczewski; Piotr Budzyński; Sebastian Ochenduszko; Kazimierz Rembiasz; Andrzej Budzyński
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 1.195

View more
  12 in total

1.  Application of ERAS protocol in esophagectomy: a national survey among Italian centers performing esophageal surgery.

Authors:  Paolo Parise; Stefano Turi; Eider Talavera-Urquijo; Agnese Carresi; Lavinia Barbieri; Andrea Cossu; Ugo Elmore; Francesco Puccetti; Riccardo Rosati
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2021-01-13

2.  Adoption of enhanced recovery after laparotomy in gynecologic oncology.

Authors:  Ana Sofia Ore; Matthew A Shear; Fong W Liu; John L Dalrymple; Christopher S Awtrey; Leslie Garrett; Hannah Stack-Dunnbier; Michele R Hacker; Katharine McKinley Esselen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 3.437

3.  Transanal total mesorectal excision for low rectal cancer: a case-matched study comparing TaTME versus standard laparoscopic TME.

Authors:  Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Michał Nowakowski; Mateusz Wierdak; Magdalena Mizera; Marcin Dembiński; Magdalena Pisarska; Piotr Major; Piotr Małczak; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.989

4.  A quest for sphincter-saving surgery in ultralow rectal tumours-a single-centre cohort study.

Authors:  Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Piotr Zarzycki; Agata Czerwińska; Michał Wysocki; Natalia Gajewska; Grzegorz Torbicz; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 2.754

5.  Patients' opinions on enhanced recovery after surgery perioperative care principles: a questionnaire study.

Authors:  Anna Zychowicz; Magdalena Pisarska; Anna Łaskawska; Monika Czyż; Jan Witowski; Michał Kisielewski; Jan Kulawik; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 1.195

Review 6.  Current status of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gastrointestinal surgery.

Authors:  Michał Pędziwiatr; Judene Mavrikis; Jan Witowski; Alexandros Adamos; Piotr Major; Michał Nowakowski; Andrzej Budzyński
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 3.064

7.  Use of inflammatory markers in the early detection of infectious complications after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery with the ERAS protocol.

Authors:  Mateusz Wierdak; Magdalena Pisarska; Beata Kuśnierz-Cabala; Michał Kisielewski; Piotr Major; Jan S Witowski; Piotr Ceranowicz; Marcin Strzałka; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 1.195

8.  Is the laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer superior to open surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis on short-term surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Piotr Małczak; Magdalena Mizera; Grzegorz Torbicz; Jan Witowski; Piotr Major; Magdalena Pisarska; Michał Wysocki; Marcin Strzałka; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 1.195

9.  Evaluation of the learning curve of transanal total mesorectal excision: single-centre experience.

Authors:  Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Katarzyna Truszkiewicz; Michał Wysocki; Jan Witowski; Grzegorz Torbicz; Michal M Nowakowski; Andrzej Budzynski; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 1.195

10.  Investigating Risk Factors for Complications after Ileostomy Reversal in Low Anterior Rectal Resection Patients: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Mateusz Rubinkiewicz; Jan Witowski; Michał Wysocki; Magdalena Pisarska; Stanisław Kłęk; Andrzej Budzyński; Michał Pędziwiatr
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.