Feasibility and effects of enhanced recovery vs. conventional care after emergency colon surgery for patients with left colon perforation.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 04 2020
30 04 2020
Historique:
received:
09
10
2018
accepted:
05
03
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme in emergency colorectal surgery has not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and the results of patients included in an ERAS protocol following emergency colon surgery for left colon perforation. For this purpose, patients with a low to moderate risk of mortality, according to a Peritonitis Severity Score (PSS), and treated with an ERAS protocol (ERAS group) after emergency surgery for left colon perforation were compared for a period of 40 months (March 2014-June 2017) with a control group of patients treated with conventional care (CC group) during the 38 months prior to implementation of the new ERAS protocol (January 2011-February 2014). The main endpoint was 90-day postoperative morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Secondary endpoints included length of postoperative hospital stay, 90-day readmission rate, protocol compliance and mortality. Fifty patients were included in the study, 29 in the ERAS group and 21 in the CC group. There were no significant differences between the groups in the demographic data or in the operative characteristics. A reduction in the incidence of postoperative complications (20.7% vs. 38%; p > 0.05) and in the postoperative hospital stay (7.7 + /- 3.85 vs. 10.9 + /- 5.6 days; p = 0.009) were observed in the ERAS group. The 90-day readmission rate did not differ significantly between the two groups (2 vs. 1). No 90-day mortality was observed in either group. The ERAS group showed better results than the CC group in protocol compliance. We conclude that ERAS protocols are feasible and help to reduce morbidity and length of hospital stay without adversely affecting the rate of readmission or mortality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32355193
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64242-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-64242-7
pmc: PMC7193622
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7346Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Ramirez, J. M. et al. Enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery: a multicentric study. BMC Surg 11, 9 (2011).
doi: 10.1186/1471-2482-11-9
Esteban, F. et al. A multicenter comparison of a fast-track or conventional postoperative protocol following laparoscopic or open elective surgery for colorectal cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 16, 134–140 (2014).
doi: 10.1111/codi.12472
Vlug, M. S. et al. Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg 254, 868–875 (2011). LAFA study group.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821fd1ce
Zhuang, C. L., Ye, X. Z., Zhang, X. D., Chen, B. C. & Yu, Z. Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 56, 667–678 (2013).
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e3182812842
Nicholson, A. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients. Br J Surg 101, 172–188 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/bjs.9394
Calvo JM, et al Vía clínica de recuperación intensificada (RICA). Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad e Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud. 2015. NIPO: 680-15-085-5.
Verheijen, P. M., Vd Ven, A. W., Davids, P. H., Vd Wall, B. J. & Pronk, A. Feasibility of enhanced recovery programme in various patient groups. Int J Colorectal Dis 27, 507–511 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s00384-011-1336-z
Loshiriwat, V. Enhanced recovery after surgery vs conventional care in emergency colorectal surgery. World J Surg 20, 13950–13955 (2014).
Roulin, D. et al. Enhanced recovery pathway for urgent colectomy. Worl J Surg 38, 2153–2159 (2014).
doi: 10.1007/s00268-014-2518-y
Shida, D. et al. Modified enhanced recovery surgery (ERAS) protocols for patients with obstructive colorectal cancer. BMC Surgery 17, 18 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0213-2
Wiseley, J. C. & Barclay, K. L. Effects of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgey programme on emergency surgical patients. ANZ J Surg 86, 883–888 (2016).
doi: 10.1111/ans.13465
Hultén, L., Haboubi, N. Y. & Schofield, P. F. Diverticular disease. Colorectal Disease 1, 128–136 (1999).
doi: 10.1046/j.1463-1318.1999.00023.x
Biondo, S. et al. Comparative study of left colonic Peritonitis Severity Score and Mannheim Peritonitis Index. Br J Surg 93, 616–622 (2006).
doi: 10.1002/bjs.5326
Dindo, D., Demartines, N. & Clavien, P. A. Classification of Surgical Complications: A New Proposal With Evaluation in a Cohort of 6336 Patients and Results of a Survey. Ann Surg 240, 205–213 (2004).
doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae
Padararu, M., Ponchietti, L., Martinez Casas, I., Svennigsen, P. & Zago, M. Enhanced Recovery after Emergency Surgery: A Systematic Review. Bull Emerg Trauma 5, 70–78 (2017).
Gonenc, M. et al. Enhanced postoperative recovery pathways in emergency surgery: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Am J Surg 207, 807–814 (2014).
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.07.025
Yuanyuan, S., Chumbao, G. & Dianliang, Z. Modified enhanced recovery after surgery protocols are beneficial for postoperative recovery for patients undergoing emergency surgery for obstructive colorectal cancer. A propensity score matching analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 97, e12348 (2018).
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012348
Lohsiwat, V. & Jitmungngan, R. Enhanced recovery after surgery in emergency colorectal surgery: Review of literature and current practices. World J Surg 27, 41–52 (2019).
Gustafsson, U. O. et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37, 259–284 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0
Gustafsson, U. O. et al. Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146, 571–577 (2011).
doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.309
Rea, J. D., Hergiz, D. O., Diggs, B. S., Cone, M. M. & Lu, K. C. Use and outcomes of emergent laparoscopic resection for acute diverticulitis. Am J Surg 203, 639–643 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.01.004
Thornell, A. et al. Treatment of acute diverticulitis laparoscopic lavage vs resection (DILALA): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 12, 186 (2011).
doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-186
Schultz, J. K. et al. SCANDIV Study Group. Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis: The SCANDIV Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 314, 1364–1375 (2015).
doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.12076
Sartelli M, et al. Management of intrabdominal infections: recommendations by the WSES 2016 consensus conference World Journal of Emergency (2017)12:22.
Rosado, R. et al. Complicated diverticular disease: Position statement on outpatient management, Hartmann’s procedure, laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and laparoscopic approach. Consensus document of the Spanish Association of Coloproctology and the Coloproctology Section of the Spanish Association of Surgeons. Cir Esp 95, 369–377 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ciresp.2017.03.008
Arroyo, A. et al. Influenze of Size and complexity of the hospitals in an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 27, 1637–1644 (2012).
doi: 10.1007/s00384-012-1497-4