Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2024
Current perioperative care in patients undergoing a beyond total mesorectal excision procedure for rectal cancer: What are the differences with the colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery protocol?
СтатьяОценочное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nordkamp Stefi, Ketelaers Stijn H J, Piqeur Floor, Scholten Harm J, van de Calseijde Silvie, Tolenaar Jip L, Nieuwenhuijzen Grard A P, Rutten Harm J T, Burger Jacobus W A, Bloemen Johanne G
Аннотация
AIM: Patients requiring a beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) procedure for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) will probably benefit from enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols. However, implementation of ERAS protocols in such groups of patients is considered challenging. The aims of this study were to evaluate ERAS-related outcomes of patients with LARC or LRRC undergoing bTME and to investigate the possibility of designing a tailored ERAS protocol.
METHOD: This study was divided into four phases. Phase one consisted of a literature study to compare functional recovery and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. In phase two, outcomes on ERAS care elements in bTME were retrospectively evaluated. In phase three, differences in ERAS-related outcomes and compliance of the colorectal ERAS protocol in patients who had undergone bTME were studied. In phase four, multidisciplinary team meetings were held to develop an ERAS protocol for bTME patients.
RESULTS: Seven studies reported on ERAS-related outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. Median length of hospital stay was 9-19 days, median stay in the intensive care unit was 2-4 days and 30-day postoperative major complication rates were 22.6%-61.3%. Seventy-five bTME patients were included for retrospective analysis. In these patients, length of stay was 9.0 days and major postoperative complications were observed in 40.0%. The overall ERAS compliance was 44.4%. Compared with the colorectal ERAS protocol, the largest differences in management were observed in the use of epidural anaesthesia, the postoperative use of urethral catheters, oral intake and mobilization.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC are substantially different from patients treated with the colorectal ERAS protocol, regarding ERAS-related outcomes. A tailored, multimodal ERAS protocol with specific modifications was developed by an expert multidisciplinary team for patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC.
METHOD: This study was divided into four phases. Phase one consisted of a literature study to compare functional recovery and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. In phase two, outcomes on ERAS care elements in bTME were retrospectively evaluated. In phase three, differences in ERAS-related outcomes and compliance of the colorectal ERAS protocol in patients who had undergone bTME were studied. In phase four, multidisciplinary team meetings were held to develop an ERAS protocol for bTME patients.
RESULTS: Seven studies reported on ERAS-related outcomes in patients undergoing bTME. Median length of hospital stay was 9-19 days, median stay in the intensive care unit was 2-4 days and 30-day postoperative major complication rates were 22.6%-61.3%. Seventy-five bTME patients were included for retrospective analysis. In these patients, length of stay was 9.0 days and major postoperative complications were observed in 40.0%. The overall ERAS compliance was 44.4%. Compared with the colorectal ERAS protocol, the largest differences in management were observed in the use of epidural anaesthesia, the postoperative use of urethral catheters, oral intake and mobilization.
CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC are substantially different from patients treated with the colorectal ERAS protocol, regarding ERAS-related outcomes. A tailored, multimodal ERAS protocol with specific modifications was developed by an expert multidisciplinary team for patients undergoing bTME for LARC or LRRC.