Introduction
Different perioperative strategies have been recently developed in an effort to reduce the impact of surgery on hospitalisation. In particular, multimodal approaches to perioperative care, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) programs, are now frequently implemented in the management of patients undergoing elective surgery. ERAS® protocols include different items, mostly evidence-based, designed to reduce the intra- and perioperative stress response and to support recovery of organ functions, ultimately aiming at helping patients to recover sooner and with less discomfort after surgery 1 – 4 .
In the last two decades, the benefits from enhanced recovery programs (ERP) have been well demonstrated in colorectal surgery, where ERAS® is associated with lower morbidity and shorter length of hospital stay 5 - 14 . New emerging evidence supports the possible advantage that could derive from the implementation of ERPs in other surgical areas. Examples of ERP application can be found in a great number of specialties, such as vascular, gastric, pancreatic, orthopaedic and uro-gynaecological surgery 15 - 23 . It has recently been suggested that the introduction of ERP could benefit patients undergoing major head and neck surgery 24 .
In the present work, we generated an ERP for major laryngeal surgery and prospectively tested its feasibility in a series of patients.
Materials and methods
Protocol design
In a preliminary phase of the study, we developed an ERP for laryngeal surgery. An expert panel (MB, LB, MG) reviewed the items and the general principles of the ERAS® colorectal surgery protocols 25 with the purpose of adapting them to laryngeal surgery. Some items could be directly applied to laryngeal surgery, and were kept unchanged with respect to colon surgery protocols. Other items needed some adaptation due to the relevant differences between colorectal and laryngeal surgery. At the end of this phase we obtained an expert opinion based ERP that could be implemented in the perioperative management of patients undergoing laryngeal surgery.
The 11 items constituting the protocol were:
1. Psychological counseling
Preoperative and postoperative meetings with professional psychologists.
2. Nutritional assessment
Evaluation of the nutritional status using the MUST (Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool) score system.
3. Preoperative high carbohydrate drink
Carbohydrate enteral loading administration on the evening before and 2-3 hours before surgery.
4. Temperature control
Intraoperative measurement of patients' temperature and maintenance of normothermia by air blanket and warm intravenous fluid infusions.
5. Antibiotic prophylaxis
Administration of iv cefoxitin (2 g if body weight > 50 kg; 1 g if body weight < 50 kg) and clindamycin (600 mg) 0-30 minutes before surgery, to be repeated every 3 hours for cefoxitin and every 6 hours for clindamycin.
6. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis
Intraoperative administration of iv ondansetron (4 mg) and dexamethasone (4 mg) 2 hours before the end of surgery.
7. Intraoperative iv infusions
Targeting 6 ml/kg/h mean intraoperative fluids infusion by the end of surgery.
8. Postoperative pain control
Administration of iv paracetamol (1 g every 6 hours) and morphine by Patient Controlled Infusion (PCA - 1 mg/10 min, max 4 mg/h).
9. Early enteral nutrition
Start of enteral nutrition on the first postoperative day.
10. Early mobilisation
Start of patient mobilisation (sitting position and ambulation) on the first postoperative day.
11. Postoperative speech therapy
Postoperative meetings with speech therapists, including speech and breathing exercises.
Protocol evaluation
In a second phase of the study consecutive patients undergoing elective major laryngeal surgery (total and partial laryngectomies or surgical removal of oropharyngeal tumour with muscle flap reconstruction) between October 2011 and May 2014 in our hospital were considered. Exclusion criteria were: refusal to sign the informed consent form, pregnancy and age less than 18 years. Moreover, patients living outside the area of Milan, where our hospital is located, were not considered, since in this phase preoperative and postoperative protocol items could be difficult to implement.
Patient adherence to each protocol item was recorded in a dedicated database as a no/yes variable, except for the intraoperative iv infusions that were recorded as ml/kg/h. We also recorded the postoperative day (POD) of first liquid oral assumption, first solid food oral assumption, nasogastric tube removal, hospital discharge, daily hours of mobilization during postoperative day 1-4, postoperative need for vasopressor and transfusion and occurrence of medical complications. Medical complications were meant to include respiratory complications, cardiovascular events and urinary tract complications.
In order to sketch the differences between our ERP and our routine pre-ERP practice, we retrieved data from the 75 consecutive patients who underwent major laryngeal surgery before the ERP protocol implementation, from October 2008 to September 2011. For these cases, we could retrieve data about all of the 11 ERP items, nasogastric tube removal, hospital discharge, postoperative vasopressor and transfusion need and medical complications. Pre-ERP data are reported exclusively for documentary purposes in order to show that the ERP protocol represented a change from our previous practice. No formal comparison is attempted between pre-ERP and ERP data. Continuous data are reported as mean ± SD. Discrete variables were reported as number-percentage (95% CI). The statistical software Stata 11.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA) was used to analyse data.
Results
During the study period 76 patients underwent elective major laryngeal surgery in our Hospital. Thirty-nine (51%) lived outside the area of Milan, 10 (13%) refused to sign the informed consent form and 3 (4%) were less than 18 years old, so that 24 (32%) patients were enrolled.
Table I reports on the implementation of our 11 ERP items. Adherence to ERP items was high. Nutritional assessment, antibiotic prophylaxis, PONV prophylaxis and postoperative speech therapy targets were applied as required in 100% of cases. Early mobilisation was the item with the lowest adherence to protocol target (70.8% (51.2- 90.4) of cases).
Table I.
ERP items implementation.
ERP = Enhanced Recovery Program; PO = postoperative; PONV = postoperative nausea and vomiting.; PCA = patient controlled analgesia * Number and percentage (95% CI) of patients satisfying the ERP target. For 100% values no CI is reported. § Mean ± SD.
| ERP protocol | ERP | Pre-ERP | |
| Item | Target | (n = 24) | (n = 75) |
| 1. Psychological counseling * | 100% | 23 95.8% (87.2-1.0) | 31 41.3% (29.9-52.7) |
| 2. Nutritional assessment * | 100% | 24 100% | 0 0% (0-0) |
| 3. Preoperative glucose drink * | 100% | 20 83.3% (67.3-99.4) | 0 0% (0-0) |
| 4. Temperature control * | 100% | 23 95.8% (87.2-100) | 47 62.7% (51.5-73.9) |
| 5. Antibiotic prophylaxis * | 100% | 24 100% | 73 97.3% (93.6-100) |
| 6. PONV prophylaxis * | 100% | 24 100% | 41 54.7% (43.1-66.2) |
| 7. Intraoperative iv infusions (ml/kg/h) § | 6 | 7.2 ± 3.0 | 7.8 ± 3.1 |
| 8. PO Morphine PCA * | 100% | 23 95.8% (87.2-100) | 48 65.3% (52.9-75.2) |
| 9. Early enteral nutrition * | 100% | 19 79.2% (61.7-96.7) | 68 90.7% (82.1-98.7) |
| 10. Early mobilisation * | 100% | 17 70.8% (51.2-90.4) | 26 34.7% (23.6-45.7) |
| 11. Postoperative logopaedia * | 100% | 24 100% | 68 90.7% (82.1-98.7) |
In ERP patients, oral intake of fluids started on POD 11 ± 5.7 and oral intake of solid food on POD 12 ± 5.3. These patients were mobilised 1.8 ± 2.1 hours on POD 1, 3.8 ± 2.9 hours on POD 2, 5.8 ± 3.2 hours on POD 3 and 6.2 ± 3.1 hours on POD 4.
Postoperative nasogastric tube removal occurred on the 16 ± 5 POD. Vasopressors were needed in 8.3% of ERP patients and postoperative transfusions were necessary in 12.5% of cases. Hospital discharge occurred on the 21 ± 8 postoperative day.
Postoperative medical complications occurred in 8.3% of cases. The majority of our ERP items were infrequently or never implemented before the adoption of the ERP protocol, except antibiotic prophylaxis, intraoperative infusion rate and postoperative speech therapy, which were already implemented in a high percentage of cases before the adoption of the ERP protocol.
Discussion
ERP principles, epitomised in ERAS® protocols, are increasingly adopted in many surgical settings, but no ERP has been yet proposed in otolaryngology, although its usefulness has been strongly suggested 24 .
It is conceivable that the favourable results of ERP implementation in several surgical settings 5 - 23 fostered a positive attitude towards ERP principles in physicians and nurses involved in the perioperative care of major surgery patients. This possibly accounts for the high adherence to protocol items that we easily obtained in our series. Some items were even satisfied in 100% of cases (namely nutritional assessment, antibiotic prophylaxis, PONV prophylaxis and postoperative speech therapy), exhibiting the highest degree of feasibility. As an example, it is noteworthy that some items were already implemented in our pre- ERP patients, plainly reflecting good common clinical practice. This holds true for both antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative speech therapy.
The mean intraoperative infusion rate in ERP patients was only slightly lower than in pre-ERP patients and approached the 6 ml/kg/h target without meeting it. We believe that this reflects a tendency to administer less intraoperative fluids independently from ERP protocols, but this certainly also points at some difficulty in coping with intraoperative fluid restriction by anaesthesiologists.
Our study did not address the issue of ERP outcomes and was not adequately powered for this.
Moreover, the best choice of consistent ERP outcome variables in laryngeal surgery may be challenging. We reported the timing of postoperative nasogastric tube removal and hospital discharge in our series. With respect to these issues, although the reduction of both postoperative fasting and hospital length of stay is a cornerstone of ERAS® programs, the optimal timing for nasogastric tube removal after major laryngeal surgery is clearly dictated by anatomical reasons and its evaluation as a possible ERP outcome is questionable. Similar considerations may be appropriate for hospital discharge, as surgical postoperative evaluation may require specific timing.
A further limitation of our study is that we did not register the POD in which patients were "fit to discharge", but rather the actual discharge POD, which is subject to bias due to administrative and organisational variables.
In building our ERP protocol we adapted a series of ERP items to the laryngeal surgery setting. This process was expert-opinion based and entails some degree of subjectivity. Although other approaches could yield different ERP protocols, our 11 items seem to adequately epitomise ERP philosophy.
Conclusions
Our expert-opinion-based ERP protocol for major laryngeal surgery proved feasible. The degree of benefit deriving from its implementation has yet to be assessed.
References
1. Calder PC Immunonutrition BMJ 2003 327 117 118 12869428 10.1136/bmj.327.7407.117 PMC1126497
2. Stableforth WD Thomas S Lewi SJ A systematic review of the role of immunonutrition in patients undergoing surgery for head and neck cancer Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009 38 103 110 19144498 10.1016/j.ijom.2008.12.008
3. Moskovitz DN Kim YI Does perioperative immunonutrition reduce postoperative complications in patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing operations? Nutr Rev 2004 62 443 447 15622717 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2004.tb00016.x
4. Bianchini C Ciorba A Stomeo F Immunonutrition in head and neck cancer: have a look before surgery! Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012 269 5 8 21833564 10.1007/s00405-011-1725-5
5. Melnyk M Casey RG Black P Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: time to change practice? Can Urol Assoc J 2011 5 342 348 22031616 10.5489/cuaj.11002 PMC3202008
6. Wind J Polle SW Fung Kon Jin Systematic review of enhanced recovery programmes in colonic surgery Br J Surg 2006 93 800 809 16775831 10.1002/bjs.5384
7. Kehlet H Mogensen T Hospital stay of 2 days after open sigmoidectomy with a multimodal rehabilitation programme Br J Surg 1999 86 227 230 10100792 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01023.x
8. Eskicioglu C Forbes SS Aarts MA Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for patients having colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials J Gastrointest Surg 2009 13 2321 2329 19459015 10.1007/s11605-009-0927-2
9. Lassen K Soop M Nygren J Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group recommendations Arch Surg 2009 144 961 969 19841366 10.1001/archsurg.2009.170
10. Abraham N Albayati S Enhanced recovery after surgery programs hasten recovery after colorectal resections World J Gastrointest Surg 2011 3 1 6 21286218 10.4240/wjgs.v3.i1.1 PMC3030737
11. Sammour T Zargar-Shoshtari K Bhatet A A programme of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a cost-effective intervention in elective colonic surgery N Z Med J 2010 123 61 70 20717178
12. Teeuwen PH Bleichrodt RP Jong PJ de Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional perioperative care in rectal surgery Dis Colon Rectum 2011 54 833 839 21654250 10.1007/DCR.0b013e318216067d
13. Varadhan KK Neal KR Dejong CHC The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Clin Nutr 2010 29 434 440 20116145 10.1016/j.clnu.2010.01.004
14. Srinivasa S Sammour T Kahokehret A Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols must be considered when determining optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery Ann Surg 2010 252 409 409 20647918 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181e9d947
15. Sjetne IS Krogstad U Ødegård S Improving quality by introducing enhanced recovery after surgery in a gynaecological department: consequences for ward nursing practice Qual Saf Health Care 2009 18 236 240 19468009 10.1136/qshc.2007.023382
16. Minig L Biffi R Zanagnolo V Early oral versus "traditional" postoperative feeding in gynecologic oncology patients undergoing intestinal resection: a randomized controlled trial Ann Surg Oncol 2009 16 1660 1668 19330379 10.1245/s10434-009-0444-2
17. Pruthi RS Chun J Richman M Reducing time to oral diet and hospital discharge in patients undergoing radical cystectomy using a perioperative care plan Urology 2003 62 661 665 14550438 10.1016/s0090-4295(03)00651-4
18. Lee J Jeon H The Clinical indication and feasibility of the enhanced recovery protocol for curative gastric cancer surgery: analysis of 147 consecutive experiences Dig Surg 2014 31 318 323 25402215 10.1159/000368091
19. Braga M Pecorelli N Ariotti R Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy World J Surg 2014 38 2960 2966 24870390 10.1007/s00268-014-2653-5
20. Savaridas T Serrano-Pedraza I Khan SK Reduced medium-term mortality following primary total hip and knee arthroplasty with an enhanced recovery program. A study of 4,500 consecutive procedures Acta Orthop 2013 84 40 43 23368747 10.3109/17453674.2013.771298 PMC3584601
21. Melnyk M Casey RG Black P Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: time to change practice? Can Urol Assoc J 2011 5 342 348 22031616 10.5489/cuaj.11002 PMC3202008
22. Podore PC Throop EB Infrarenal aortic surgery with a 3-day hospital stay: a report on success with a clinical pathway J Vasc Surg 1999 29 787 792 10231628 10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70204-1
23. Feo CV Romanini B Sortini D Early oral feeding after colorectal resection: a randomized controlled study ANZ J Surg 2004 74 298 301 15144242 10.1111/j.1445-1433.2004.02985.x
24. Bianchini C Pelucchi S Pastore A Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies: possible advantages also for head and neck surgery patients? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2014 271 439 443 23616139 10.1007/s00405-013-2502-4
25. Gustafsson UO Scott MJ Schwenket W Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations World J Surg 2013 37 259 284 23052794 10.1007/s00268-012-1772-0