RESUMEN
Objectives: Patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer typically have several comorbidities, and the procedures are often followed by complications and prolonged hospitalization. Consequently, the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for these patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction has gained attention in recent years. ERAS is a peri- and postoperative care concept that has repeatedly shown beneficial results for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including microvascular reconstruction. This study presents the results after the introduction of our ERAS protocol for head and neck cancer reconstruction. Methods: We prospectively treated 30 consecutive patients according to our ERAS protocol from June 2019 to December 2020 and compared the results of the treated patients with those of patients treated with our traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) protocol. We are based on our ERAS protocol on the following core elements of recovery: improved patient information, goal-directed fluid therapy, minimally invasive surgery, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, early ambulation, and pre-defined functional discharge criteria. Results: The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay (13.1 vs. 20.3 days, p < 0.001), significantly shorter time to ambulation (3.0 days vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to removal of nasogastric tube (13.3 days vs. 22.7 days, p = 0.05), and fewer tracheostomies performed (10% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications, flap survival, or 30-day re-admissions between the two groups. Conclusion: The introduction of ERAS in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction seems safe and results in improved recovery. Level of evidence: 3.
RESUMEN
Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly used in the intensive care unit (ICU), and is recommended in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines 2012. The present guideline from the Danish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine sums up current evidence and gives clinical recommendations for SUP in the ICU. The GRADE approach was used for grading the evidence (www.gradeworkinggroup.org). In conclusion, existing meta-analyses have been underpowered to reach firm conclusions. We recommend not using SUP routinely for adult critically ill patients in the ICU outside the context of randomized controlled trials (GRADE 1C). No robust evidence supports recommendations for subpopulations in the ICU such as septic, burn, trauma, cardiothoracic or enterally fed patients. However, if SUP is considered clinically indicated in individual patients, we suggest using proton pump inhibitors over histamine-2-receptor antagonists (GRADE 2C).
