Digestive surgery · 2012
Implementation of fast-track protocols in open and laparoscopic sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery: a multicenter, comparative, prospective, non-randomized study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое 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.
Gouvas Nikolaos, Gogos-Pappas George, Tsimogiannis Konstantinos, Tsimoyiannis Evaghelos, Dervenis Christos, Xynos Evaghelos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Data on the role of laparoscopy within an enhanced recovery protocol for rectal cancer patients is rather limited. The aim of the study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy within a 'fast-track' protocol in patients who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery for rectal cancer.
PATIENTS/METHODS: 156 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer from three centers were assigned in four groups: the open fast track (OPEN-FT), the laparoscopic fast track (LAP-FT), the open (OPEN), and the laparoscopic (LAP). The fast-track protocol was applied in one center and traditional care in the other two. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery and were followed-up for 30 days.
RESULTS: Overall morbidity was less in the fast-track groups (p = 0.007). On the other hand, no statistical significance could be identified in mortality, readmission or reoperations rates among the groups (p = 0.562, p = 0.896, p = 0.238). Fast-track patients required significantly less intramuscular opioids for postoperative analgesia (p < 0.001). Primary (p < 0.001) and total hospital stays (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the fast-track groups.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of a fast-track protocol is feasible and safe in low rectal cancer patients. Laparoscopy seems to be a basic element of such protocol as it further enhances recovery and reduces morbidity.
PATIENTS/METHODS: 156 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer from three centers were assigned in four groups: the open fast track (OPEN-FT), the laparoscopic fast track (LAP-FT), the open (OPEN), and the laparoscopic (LAP). The fast-track protocol was applied in one center and traditional care in the other two. All patients underwent sphincter-preserving surgery and were followed-up for 30 days.
RESULTS: Overall morbidity was less in the fast-track groups (p = 0.007). On the other hand, no statistical significance could be identified in mortality, readmission or reoperations rates among the groups (p = 0.562, p = 0.896, p = 0.238). Fast-track patients required significantly less intramuscular opioids for postoperative analgesia (p < 0.001). Primary (p < 0.001) and total hospital stays (p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the fast-track groups.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of a fast-track protocol is feasible and safe in low rectal cancer patients. Laparoscopy seems to be a basic element of such protocol as it further enhances recovery and reduces morbidity.