Nathalie Bakker1,2, Hiëronymus J Doodeman1, Michalda S Dunker1, Wilhelmina H Schreurs1, Alexander P J Houdijk3,4. 1. Northwest Clinics, Department of Surgery, NWZ Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, the Netherlands. 2. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Northwest Clinics, Department of Surgery, NWZ Alkmaar, Wilhelminalaan 12, 1815 JD, Alkmaar, the Netherlands. a.p.j.houdijk@nwz.nl. 4. Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. a.p.j.houdijk@nwz.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.
PURPOSE: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol reduces complications and length of stay (LOS) in colon cancer, but implementation in rectal cancer is different because of neo-adjuvant therapy and surgical differences. Laparoscopic resection may further improve outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of introducing ERAS on postoperative outcome after rectal cancer resection in an era of increasing laparoscopic resections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent elective rectal cancer surgery from 2009 till 2015 were included in this observational cohort study. In 2010, ERAS was introduced and adherence to the protocol was registered. Open and laparoscopic resections were compared. With regression analysis, predictive factors for postoperative outcome and LOS were identified. RESULTS: A total of 499 patients were included. The LOS decreased from 12.3 days in 2009 to 5.7 days in 2015 (p = 0.000). Surgical site infections were reduced from 24% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 (p = 0.013) and postoperative ileus from 39% in 2009 to 6% in 2015 (p = 0.000). Only postoperative ERAS items and laparoscopic surgery were associated with an improved postoperative outcome and shorter LOS. CONCLUSIONS: ERAS proved to be feasible, safe, and contributed to improving short-term outcome in rectal cancer resections. The benefits of laparoscopic surgery may in part be explained by reaching better ERAS adherence rates. However, the laparoscopic approach was also associated with anastomotic leakage. Despite the potential of bias, this study provides an insight in effects of ERAS and laparoscopic surgery in a non-randomized real-time setting.
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: C A M Marijnen; E Kapiteijn; C J H van de Velde; H Martijn; W H Steup; T Wiggers; E Klein Kranenbarg; J W H Leer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Catherine H Davis; Beverly A Shirkey; Linda W Moore; Tanmay Gaglani; Xianglin L Du; H Randolph Bailey; Marianne V Cusick Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 2.192
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: F Esteban; F J Cerdan; M Garcia-Alonso; R Sanz-Lopez; A Arroyo; J M Ramirez; C Moreno; R Morales; A Navarro; M Fuentes Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Nathalie Bakker; Jort D Deelder; Milan C Richir; Hamit Cakir; Hiëronymus J Doodeman; Wilhelmina H Schreurs; Alexander P J Houdijk Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.452