Literature DB >> 29101566

Impact of minimally invasive surgery on short-term outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm within the setting of an enhanced recovery program.

Allison N Martin1, Puja Shah Berry1, Charles M Friel1, Traci L Hedrick2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for rectal cancer has increased in recent years. Enhanced recovery (ER) protocols are associated with improved outcomes, such as decreased length of stay (LOS). We examined the impact of MIS and ER protocols on outcomes after rectal resection for neoplasm.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for patients undergoing elective open (OS) or MIS rectal resection for neoplasm from 2010 to 2015 at a single institution. MIS was defined as any laparoscopic or robotic procedure. An ER protocol was implemented in 8/2013. Regression models were used to estimate outcomes including LOS, 30-day morbidity, readmission, and hospital costs.
RESULTS: Among 325 patients, 252 (77.5%) underwent OS; 73 (22.5%) underwent MIS rectal resection. Prior to ER implementation, only 6.1% underwent MIS, compared to 23.1 and 54.4% in the 2 years following ER implementation (p < 0.001). Prior to ER implementation, median LOS was 7 days (n = 181) with 23.8% 30-day morbidity. Following ER implementation, median LOS was 4 days (n = 144); patients receiving OS had median LOS of 5.5 days (n = 82) and 30-day morbidity of 19.5%. ER patients receiving MIS had median LOS of 3 days (n = 62) and 30-day morbidity of 14.5%. Univariate regression demonstrated that MIS patients on ER protocol were more likely to have a shortened LOS (< 6 days) compared to OS patients on non-ER protocol (both p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of MIS and ER protocol is significantly associated with reduced LOS for patients undergoing rectal resection for neoplasm. Further research is needed to determine which patients are best suited to MIS from an oncologic standpoint.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Enhanced recovery; Minimally invasive; Rectal cancer; Surgical outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29101566     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5956-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  28 in total

1.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Sherry A Glied
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer: outcomes in 194 patients and review of the literature.

Authors:  E Bärlehner; T Benhidjeb; S Anders; B Schicke
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Standardization of care: impact of an enhanced recovery protocol on length of stay, complications, and direct costs after colorectal surgery.

Authors:  Robert H Thiele; Kathleen M Rea; Florence E Turrentine; Charles M Friel; Taryn E Hassinger; Timothy L McMurry; Bernadette J Goudreau; Bindu A Umapathi; Irving L Kron; Robert G Sawyer; Traci L Hedrick
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.113

4.  Reducing Readmissions While Shortening Length of Stay: The Positive Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol in Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Puja M Shah; Lily Johnston; Bethany Sarosiek; Amy Harrigan; Charles M Friel; Robert H Thiele; Traci L Hedrick
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.585

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.  Robotic-assisted laparoscopic transanal total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer: a prospective pilot study.

Authors:  Marcos Gómez Ruiz; Ignacio Martín Parra; Carlos Manuel Palazuelos; Joaquin Alonso Martín; Carmen Cagigas Fernández; Julio Castillo Diego; Manuel Gómez Fleitas
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision: a nonrandomized comparative prospective trial in a tertiary center in Mexico City.

Authors:  Quintín H González; Homero A Rodríguez-Zentner; J Manuel Moreno-Berber; Omar Vergara-Fernández; Héctor Tapia-Cid de León; Luis A Jonguitud; Roberto Ramos; J Andrés Moreno-López
Journal:  Am Surg       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 0.688

8.  Robotic versus laparoscopic coloanal anastomosis with or without intersphincteric resection for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Se Jin Baek; Sami Al-Asari; Duck Hyoun Jeong; Hyuk Hur; Byung Soh Min; Seung Hyuk Baik; Nam Kyu Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-05-25       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 9.  Laparoscopic versus open total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer.

Authors:  Sandra Vennix; Loeki Pelzers; Nicole Bouvy; Geerard L Beets; Jean-Pierre Pierie; Theo Wiggers; Stephanie Breukink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-04-15

10.  A method for estimating the risk of surgical site infection in patients with abdominal colorectal procedures.

Authors:  Traci L Hedrick; Robert G Sawyer; Charles M Friel; George J Stukenborg
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.585

View more
  1 in total

1.  Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Protocol Is Associated With On-Time Initiation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Taryn E Hassinger; J Hunter Mehaffey; Allison N Martin; Kristine Bauer-Nilsen; Florence E Turrentine; Robert H Thiele; Bethany M Sarosiek; Matthew J Reilley; Sook C Hoang; Charles M Friel; Traci L Hedrick
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 4.585

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.