J Slieker1, M Hübner1, V Addor1, C Duvoisin1, N Demartines2, D Hahnloser1. 1. Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. demartines@chuv.ch.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely validated in colorectal surgery; however, few data exist on loop ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes before and after introduction of ERAS for loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: Data on outcomes after loop ileostomy closure were retrospectively collected before ERAS was applied at our department (control group). These results were compared to results of patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure within the original colorectal ERAS pathway (ERAS 1 group); after analysis of these results, adaptations were made to the ERAS pathway regarding the postoperative diet, and this second category of patients was analyzed (ERAS 2 group). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients in the control group were compared to 46 ERAS 1 and 69 ERAS 2 patients. First stool was significantly faster in ERAS 2 group versus control and ERAS 1 group [median 1 (range 1-2) days vs 2 (2-3) days p value 0.01]. The incidence of vomiting increased from 26% in the control group to 45% in ERAS 1 group, and then decreased to 29% in the ERAS 2 group (p value 0.41). Length of stay was significantly shorter during the ERAS 2 protocol: median 4 (range 3-6) days versus 5 (4-8) days in the control group (p value < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: After application of the 'colorectal' ERAS pathway to loop ileostomy closure, results were initially not improved. Minor corrections were sufficient to avoid increased incidence of vomiting and to allow for reduced hospital stay. Uncritical extrapolation of an ERAS colorectal protocol to other types of surgery should be monitored and needs audit for corrections.
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely validated in colorectal surgery; however, few data exist on loop ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes before and after introduction of ERAS for loop ileostomy closure. METHODS: Data on outcomes after loop ileostomy closure were retrospectively collected before ERAS was applied at our department (control group). These results were compared to results of patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure within the original colorectal ERAS pathway (ERAS 1 group); after analysis of these results, adaptations were made to the ERAS pathway regarding the postoperative diet, and this second category of patients was analyzed (ERAS 2 group). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients in the control group were compared to 46 ERAS 1 and 69 ERAS 2 patients. First stool was significantly faster in ERAS 2 group versus control and ERAS 1 group [median 1 (range 1-2) days vs 2 (2-3) days p value 0.01]. The incidence of vomiting increased from 26% in the control group to 45% in ERAS 1 group, and then decreased to 29% in the ERAS 2 group (p value 0.41). Length of stay was significantly shorter during the ERAS 2 protocol: median 4 (range 3-6) days versus 5 (4-8) days in the control group (p value < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: After application of the 'colorectal' ERAS pathway to loop ileostomy closure, results were initially not improved. Minor corrections were sufficient to avoid increased incidence of vomiting and to allow for reduced hospital stay. Uncritical extrapolation of an ERAS colorectal protocol to other types of surgery should be monitored and needs audit for corrections.
Entities:
Keywords:
Enhanced recovery after surgery; Ileostomy; Postoperative ileus
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; David C Miller; David Taub; Rodney L Dunn; Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; James E Montie; Willie Underwood; John T Wei Journal: J Urol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Massimiliano Greco; Giovanni Capretti; Luigi Beretta; Marco Gemma; Nicolò Pecorelli; Marco Braga Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 3.352
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: World J Surg Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Nicholas G Berger; Raymond Chou; Elliot S Toy; Kirk A Ludwig; Timothy J Ridolfi; Carrie Y Peterson Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Zhobin Moghadamyeghaneh; Grace S Hwang; Mark H Hanna; Michael Phelan; Joseph C Carmichael; Steven Mills; Alessio Pigazzi; Michael J Stamos Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Dipen J Parekh; Travis Clark; Jeffrey O'Connor; Charlie Jung; Sam S Chang; Michael Cookson; Joseph A Smith Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard Garfinkle; Marie Demian; Sarah Sabboobeh; Jeongyoon Moon; Michael Hulme-Moir; A Sender Liberman; Stan Feinberg; Dana M Hayden; Sami A Chadi; Sebastian Demyttenaere; Louise Samuel; Nevart Hotakorzian; Laurence Quintin; Nancy Morin; Julio Faria; Gabriela Ghitulescu; Carol-Ann Vasilevsky; Marylise Boutros Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 3.453