Feasibility of perioperative volatile organic compound breath testing for prediction of paralytic ileus following laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: Despite implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and laparoscopic techniques, postoperative ileus (POI) remains frequent after colorectal surgery, impacting the patient, their recovery and health-care resources. Presently there are no tests that reliably predict or enable early POI diagnosis. Volatile organic compounds (VC) are products of human and microbiota cellular metabolism and we hypothesised that a detectable alteration occurs in POI. METHOD: This was a prospective observational study of patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection within an established ERAS programme. Standardized end-expiratory breath sampling was performed on the morning of surgery and on the first three postoperative mornings. The concentrations of VCs commonly found in intestinal gas were analysed using selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry and GastroCH4 ECK®. Feasibility data, bowel preparation, postoperative oral intake, POI and 30-day morbidity were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 75 potentially eligible patients, 58 (77%) agreed to participate. Per-protocol breath sampling was successfully completed in 94%. There were no analytical failures. Baseline and postoperative concentrations of VCs were broadly comparable and were not altered by bowel preparation or postoperative oral intake. POI developed in 14 (29%) patients. Preoperative ammonia concentration was higher in patients who developed POI [830 parts per billion (ppb) vs 510 ppb, P = 0.027]. There was an increase in the concentration of acetic acid detected on day 2 in patients who developed POI (99 ppb vs 171 ppb, P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Repeated VC breath sampling and analysis is feasible in the perioperative setting. An elevated ammonia concentration on the morning of surgery may be a potential predictor of POI.

2D versus 3D laparoscopic total mesorectal excision: a developmental multicentre randomised controlled trial.

AIMS: The role of laparoscopy in rectal cancer has been questioned. 3D laparoscopic systems are suggested to aid optimal surgical performance but have not been evaluated in advanced procedures. We hypothesised that stereoscopic imaging could improve the performance of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME). METHODS: A multicentre developmental randomised controlled trial comparing 2D and 3D laparoscopic TME was performed (ISRCTN59485808). Trial surgeons were colorectal consultants that had completed their TME proficiency curve and underwent stereoscopic visual testing. Patients requiring elective laparoscopic TME with curative intent were centrally randomised (1:1) to 2D or 3D using Karl Storz IMAGE1 S D3-Link™ and 10-mm TIPCAM®1S 3D passive polarising laparoscopic systems. Outcomes were enacted adverse events as assessed by the observational clinical human reliability analysis technique, intraoperative data, 30-day patient outcomes, histopathological specimen assessment and surgeon cognitive load. RESULTS: 88 patients were included. There were no differences in patient or tumour demographics, surgeon stereopsis, case difficulty, cognitive load, operative time, blood loss or conversion between the trial arms. 1377 intraoperative adverse events were identified (median 18 per case, IQR 14-21, range 2-49) with no differences seen between the 2D and 3D arms (18 (95% CI 17-21) vs. 17 (95% CI 16-19), p = 0.437). 3D laparoscopy had non-significantly higher mesorectal fascial plane resections (94 vs. 77%, p = 0.059; OR 0.23 (95% CI 0.05-1.16)) but equal lymph node yield and circumferential margin distance and involvement. 30-day morbidity, anastomotic leak, re-operation, length of stay and readmission rates were equal between the 2D and 3D arms. CONCLUSION: Feasibility of performing multicentre 3D laparoscopic multicentre trials of specialist performed complex procedures is shown. 3D imaging did not alter the number of intraoperative adverse events; however, a potential improvement in mesorectal specimen quality was observed and should form the focus of future 3D laparoscopic TME trials.

Closure of the perineal defect after abdominoperineal excision for rectal adenocarcinoma - ACPGBI Position Statement.

BACKGROUND: Perineal wound morbidity is common following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APE). There is no consensus on the optimum perineal reconstruction method after APE, and in particular 'extra-levator APE' (ELAPE). METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases was performed. This position statement formulated clinical questions and graded the evidence to make recommendations. RESULTS: Perineal wound complications may be higher following ELAPE compared to 'conventional APE (cAPE)' however there is insufficient evidence to recommend cAPE over ELAPE with regards to the impact upon perineal wound healing. The majority of cAPE studies have used primary closure with varying complication rates reported. Where concerns regarding perineal wound healing exist, myocutaneous flap closure may be considered as an alternative method. There is minimal available evidence on perineal mesh reconstruction following cAPE. Primary closure, mesh use and myocutaneous flap reconstruction following ELAPE has been reported although variations in definitions and low-quality of available evidence limit comparison. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one particular method of perineal closure after ELAPE. Primary perineal closure is likely to have a higher risk of perineal herniation. Myocutaneous flaps and biological mesh have been effectively used in ELAPE closure. There is insufficient evidence to support one particular type of flap or mesh. Perineal wound complication rates are significantly increased when neo-adjuvant radiotherapy is delivered, regardless of surgical technique. There is no evidence that laparoscopy reduces APE perineal wound complications. CONCLUSION: This position statement updates clinicians on current evidence around perineal closure after APE surgery.

Developing a national colorectal educational agenda: a survey of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

AIM: In order to develop its education agenda, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) sought the opinion of its members on current coloproctology training needs. The aims of this study were to canvass multidisciplinary needs and explore the perceived gaps and barriers to meeting them. METHOD: A learner-needs analysis was performed between July 2015 and October 2016. A bespoke electronic survey was sent to 1453 colorectal healthcare professionals [ACPGBI membership (1173), colorectal nurse specialists and allied health professionals (NAHPs) (261) and regional chapter-leads (19)] seeking their needs, experiences and barriers to training across the coloproctology disciplines. RESULTS: In all, 390 responses were received [26.8% overall; 180 consultants/trainees (15%); 196 NAHPs (75%); 14 (74%) chapter-leads]. Lack of funding and difficulties in obtaining study leave were the most frequently reported barriers to course and conference attendance. Transanal total mesorectal excision and laparoscopic training were the top educational needs for consultants and trainees respectively. 79% of NAHP respondents reported education gaps on a broad range of clinical and non-clinical topics. NAHPs lacked information on relevant training opportunities and 27% felt available courses were insufficient to meet their educational needs. Wide heterogeneity in ACPGBI chapter composition and activity was reported. All groups felt the ACPGBI should increase the number of courses offered with coloproctology knowledge updates commonly requested. CONCLUSION: A series of training needs across the coloproctology disciplines have been identified. These will underpin the development of the educational agenda for the ACPGBI.

EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes are traditionally evaluated by post-operative data such as histopathology and morbidity. Although these outcomes are reported using accepted systems, their ability to influence operative performance is limited by their retrospective application. Interest in direct measurement of intraoperative events is growing but no available systems applicable to routine practice exist. We aimed to develop a structured, practical method to report intraoperative adverse events enacted during minimal access surgical procedures. METHODS: A structured mixed methodology approach was adopted. Current intraoperative adverse event reporting practices and desirable system characteristics were sought through a survey of the EAES executive. The observational clinical human reliability analysis method was applied to a series of laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (TME) case videos to identify intraoperative adverse events. In keeping with survey results, observed events were further categorised into non-consequential and consequential, which were further subdivided into four levels based upon the principle of therapy required to correct the event. A second survey phase explored usability, acceptability, face and content validity of the novel classification. RESULTS: 217 h of TME surgery were analysed to develop and continually refine the five-point hierarchical structure. 34 EAES expert surgeons (69%) responded. The lack of an accepted system was the main barrier to routine reporting. Simplicity, reproducibility and clinical utility were identified as essential requirements. The observed distribution of intraoperative adverse events was 60.1% grade I (non-consequential), 37.1% grade II (minor corrective action), 2.4% grade III (major correction or change in post-operative care) and 0.1% grade IV (life threatening). 84% agreed with the proposed classification (Likert scale 4.04) and 92% felt it was applicable to their practice and incorporated all desirable characteristics. CONCLUSION: A clinically applicable intraoperative adverse event classification, which is acceptable to expert surgeons, is reported and complements the objective assessment of minimal access surgical performance.

Does hospital readmission following colorectal cancer resection and enhanced recovery after surgery affect long term survival?

AIM: Hospital readmission is undesirable for patients and care providers as this can affect short-term recovery and carries financial consequences. It is unknown if readmission has long-term implications. We aimed to investigate the impact of 30-day readmission on long-term overall survival (OS) following colorectal cancer resection within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) care and explore the reasons for and the severity and details of readmission episodes. METHOD: A dedicated, prospectively populated database was reviewed. All patients were managed within an established ERAS programme. Five-year OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The number, reason for and severity of 30-day readmissions were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) system, along with total (initial and readmission) length of stay (LoS). Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors predicting readmission. RESULTS: A total of 1023 consecutive patients underwent colorectal cancer resection between 2002 and 2015. Of these, 166 (16%) were readmitted. Readmission alone did not have a significant impact on 5-year OS (59% vs 70%, P = 0.092), but OS was worse in patients with longer total LoS (20 vs 14 days, P = 0.04). Of the readmissions, 121 (73%) were minor (CD I-II) and 27 (16%) required an intervention of which 16 (10%) were returned to theatre. Gut dysfunction 32 (19%) and wound complications 23 (14%) were the most frequent reasons for readmission. Prolonged initial LoS, rectal cancer and younger age predicted for hospital readmission. CONCLUSION: Readmission does not have a significant impact on 5-year OS. A broad range of conditions led to readmission, with the majority representing minor complications.

Objective assessment of minimally invasive total mesorectal excision performance: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy is widely used in colorectal practice, but recent trial results have questioned its use in rectal cancer resections. Patient outcomes are directly linked to the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) specimen. Objective assessment of intraoperative performance could help ensure competence and delivery of optimal outcomes. Objective tools may also contribute to TME intervention trials, but their nature, structure and utilisation is unknown. AIM: To systemically review the available literature to report on the available tools for the objective assessment of minimally invasive TME operative performance and their use within multicentre laparoscopic TME randomised controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify tools used in the objective intraoperative assessment of minimally invasive TME performance in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, independently by two authors. The identified tools were then evaluated within reported TME RCTs. RESULTS: A total of 8642 abstracts were screened of which 12 papers met the inclusion criteria; ten prospective observational studies, one randomised trial and one educational consensus. Eight assessment methods were described, which include formative and summative tools. The tools were mostly adaptations of colonic surgery tools based on either operative video review or post-operative trainer rating. All studies reported objective assessment of intraoperative performance was feasible, but only 126 (7%) of the 1762 included laparoscopic cases were TME. No multicentre laparoscopic TME trial reported using any objective surgical performance assessment tool. CONCLUSION: Objective intraoperative laparoscopic TME performance assessment is feasible, but most of the current tools are adaptation of colonic surgery. There is a need to develop dedicated assessment tools for minimal access rectal surgery. No multicentre minimally invasive TME RCT reported using any objective assessment tool.

Application of objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) in assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic rectal resection is technically challenging, with outcomes dependent upon technical performance. No robust objective assessment tool exists for laparoscopic rectal resection surgery. This study aimed to investigate the application of the objective clinical human reliability analysis (OCHRA) technique for assessing technical performance of laparoscopic rectal surgery and explore the validity and reliability of this technique. METHODS: Laparoscopic rectal cancer resection operations were described in the format of a hierarchical task analysis. Potential technical errors were defined. The OCHRA technique was used to identify technical errors enacted in videos of twenty consecutive laparoscopic rectal cancer resection operations from a single site. The procedural task, spatial location, and circumstances of all identified errors were logged. Clinical validity was assessed through correlation with clinical outcomes; reliability was assessed by test-retest. RESULTS: A total of 335 execution errors identified, with a median 15 per operation. More errors were observed during pelvic tasks compared with abdominal tasks (p < 0.001). Within the pelvis, more errors were observed during dissection on the right side than the left (p = 0.03). Test-retest confirmed reliability (r = 0.97, p < 0.001). A significant correlation was observed between error frequency and mesorectal specimen quality (r s = 0.52, p = 0.02) and with blood loss (r s = 0.609, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: OCHRA offers a valid and reliable method for evaluating technical performance of laparoscopic rectal surgery.

Surgical timing after chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer, analysis of technique (STARRCAT): results of a feasibility multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal time of rectal resection after long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. A feasibility study was undertaken for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of the interval after chemoradiotherapy on the technical complexity of surgery. METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer were randomized to either a 6- or 12-week interval between CRT and surgery between June 2012 and May 2014 (ISRCTN registration number: 88843062). For blinded technical complexity assessment, the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis technique was used to quantify technical errors enacted within video recordings of operations. Other measured outcomes included resection completeness, specimen quality, radiological down-staging, tumour cell density down-staging and surgeon-reported technical complexity. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled: 15 were randomized to 6 and 16-12 weeks across 7 centres. Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been predicted. Of 23 patients who underwent resection, mean 12.3 errors were observed per case at 6 weeks vs. 10.7 at 12 weeks (p = 0.401). Other measured outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of measurement of operative performance of rectal cancer surgery as an endpoint was confirmed in this exploratory study. Recruitment of sufficient numbers of patients represented a challenge, and a proportion of patients did not proceed to resection surgery. These results suggest that interval after CRT may not substantially impact upon surgical technical performance.

Outreach training model for accredited colorectal specialists in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: feasibility and evaluation of challenges.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of an outreach model of laparoscopic colorectal training of accredited specialists in advanced laparoscopic techniques and to explore the challenges of this model from the perspective of a National Training Programme (NTP) trainer. METHOD: Prospective data were collected for unselected laparoscopic colorectal training procedures performed by five laparoscopic colorectal NTP trainees supervised by a single NTP trainer with an outreach model between 2009 and 2012. The operative and postoperative outcomes were compared with standard laparoscopic colorectal training procedures performed by six senior colorectal trainees under the supervision of the same NTP trainer within the same study period. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare continuous variables and the Chi squared or Fisher's exact tests were applied for the analysis of categorical variables. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: During the study period 179 elective laparoscopic colorectal procedures were performed. This included 54 cases performed by NTP trainees and 125 cases performed by the supervised trainees. There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, pathology and procedure type between both groups. Seventy-eight per cent of the patients operated on by the NTP trainees had had no previous abdominal surgery, compared with 50% in the supervised trainees' group (P = 0.0005). There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality or the operative and postoperative outcome between both groups. There were, however, difficulties in training an already established consultant in his or her own hospital and these were overcome by certain adjustments to the programme. CONCLUSION: Outreach laparoscopic training of colorectal surgeons is a feasible and safe model of training accredited specialists and does not compromise patient care. The challenges encountered can be overcome with optimum training and preparation.

Factors predicting 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery programme.

AIM: Hospital readmission within 30 days of surgery has become a marker of poor quality patient care. This study aimed to investigate factors predictive of 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. METHOD: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an ERAS programme between 2002 and 2009 were included. Data were collected relating to patient demographics, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, ERAS compliance, and operative and postoperative outcomes. A logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with readmissions after adjusting for the potential effect of covariables simultaneously. RESULTS: In all, 268 cancer patients underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery (108 rectal resections), of whom 34 (12.7%) were readmitted due most commonly to bowel obstruction (29%) and surgical site infection (18%). The use of neoadjuvant therapy (odds ratio 4.49, 95% CI 1.41-14.35; P = 0.011) and ERAS compliance above 93% (odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.18-0.84; P = 0.016) were independent predictors of readmission. CONCLUSION: Poor ERAS compliance and preoperative chemoradiotherapy were significant predictors of readmission following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. Further research is required to expand the scope of ERAS beyond hospital discharge.

Objective assessment of technique in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: what are the existing tools?

Assessment can improve the effectiveness of surgical training and enable valid judgments of competence. Laparoscopic colon resection surgery is now taught within surgical residency programs, and assessment tools are increasingly used to stimulate formative feedback and enhance learning. Formal assessment of technical performance in laparoscopic colon resection has been successfully applied at the specialist level in the English "LAPCO" National Training Program. Objective assessment tools need to be developed for training and assessment in laparoscopic rectal cancer resection surgery. Simulation may have a future role in assessment and accreditation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery; however, existing virtual reality models are not ready to be used for assessment of this advanced surgery.

The use of artificial neural networks to predict delayed discharge and readmission in enhanced recovery following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Artificial neural networks (ANNs) can be used to develop predictive tools to enable the clinical decision-making process. This study aimed to investigate the use of an ANN in predicting the outcomes from enhanced recovery after colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Data were obtained from consecutive colorectal cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery within the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program between 2002 and 2009 in a single center. The primary outcomes assessed were delayed discharge and readmission within a 30-day period. The data were analyzed using a multilayered perceptron neural network (MLPNN), and a prediction tools were created for each outcome. The results were compared with a conventional statistical method using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 275 cancer patients were included in the study. The median length of stay was 6 days (range 2-49 days) with 67 patients (24.4 %) staying longer than 7 days. Thirty-four patients (12.5 %) were readmitted within 30 days. Important factors predicting delayed discharge were related to failure in compliance with ERAS, particularly with the postoperative elements in the first 48 h. The MLPNN for delayed discharge had an area under a receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.817, compared with an AUROC of 0.807 for the predictive tool developed from logistic regression analysis. Factors predicting 30-day readmission included overall compliance with the ERAS pathway and receiving neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer. The MLPNN for readmission had an AUROC of 0.68. CONCLUSIONS: These results may plausibly suggest that ANN can be used to develop reliable outcome predictive tools in multifactorial intervention such as ERAS. Compliance with ERAS can reliably predict both delayed discharge and 30-day readmission following laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Impact of analgesic modality on stress response following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia is perceived to modulate the stress response after open surgery. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and impact of measuring the stress response attenuation by post-operative analgesic modalities following laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a double-blinded randomised controlled pilot trial at two UK sites. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection were randomised to receive either thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) or continuous local anaesthetic infusion to the extraction site via wound infusion catheter (WIC) post-operatively. The aim of this study was to measure the stress response to the analgesic modality by measuring peripheral venous blood samples analysed for serum concentrations of insulin, cortisol, epinephrine and interleukin-6 at induction of anaesthesia, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 h after the start of operation. Secondary endpoints included mean pain score in the first 48 h, length of hospital stay, post-operative complications and 30-day re-admission rates. RESULTS: There was a difference between the TEA and WIC groups that varies across time. In the TEA group, there was significant but transient reduced level of serum epinephrine and a higher level of insulin at 3 and 6 h. In the WIC, there was a significant reduction of interleukin-6 values, especially at 12 h. There was no significant difference observed in the other endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant transient attenuating effect of TEA on stress response following laparoscopic colorectal surgery and within ERAS as expressed by serum epinephrine and insulin levels. Continuous wound infusion with local anaesthetic, however, attenuates cytokine response as expressed by interleukin-6.

Development and evaluation of a cadaveric training curriculum for low rectal cancer surgery in the English LOREC National Development Programme.

AIM: The National Development Programme for Low Rectal Cancer in England (LOREC) was commissioned in response to wide variation in the outcome of patients with low rectal cancer. One of the aims of LOREC was to enhance surgical techniques in managing low rectal cancer. This study reports on the development and evaluation of a novel national technical skills cadaveric training curriculum in extralevator abdominoperineal excision. METHOD: Three sites were commissioned for the cadaveric workshops, each delivering the same training curriculum. Training was undertaken in pairs using a fresh-frozen cadaveric model under the supervision of expert mentors. Global assessment score (GAS) forms were developed to promote reflective learning. Feedback on the impact of the workshop was obtained from a sample of delegates at the end of the course, and also after 3-23 months via an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall 112 consultant colorectal surgeons attended one of 15 cadaveric technical skills training workshops. Seventy-six per cent of delegates reported easy identification of anatomy in the cadaveric model; 67% found tissue planes easy to interpret. Ninety-six per cent of delegates felt the workshop would influence their future practice; 96% reported increased awareness of important anatomy. Only 2% of delegates wished to pursue supplementary formal training from LOREC. CONCLUSION: Fresh-frozen cadavers could provide an effective training model for low rectal surgery. A structured 1-day cadaveric workshop has facilitated the dissemination of technical skills for management of low rectal cancer. Attending the cadaveric workshop enhanced delegates' confidence in performing this procedure.

Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision of the rectum: short-term outcomes of a prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic approaches for the resection of low rectal cancer and the extralevator technique for abdominoperineal excision are both becoming increasingly popular. There are little published data regarding the combined application of these techniques to the resection of low rectal tumours. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of such an approach and to appraise short-term outcomes in a consecutive series of patients undergoing laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE). METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic ELAPE at our institution between 2008 and 2011 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. The abdominal phase of the operation was performed laparoscopically, and following extralevator resection, the perineum was reconstructed using a biologic mesh. All patients were enrolled in an enhanced recovery programme. RESULTS: Of 166 patients undergoing radical resection of rectal cancer at our institution between 2008 and 2011, 28 underwent laparoscopic ELAPE. Median age was 70 years, median body mass index was 27.5 kg/m(2), and 71% were male. The conversion rate to laparotomy was 18%. Three patients (10.8%) had circumferential resection margins <1 mm; no intraoperative tumour perforation occurred. The median length of stay was 7 days, with a 30-day readmission rate of 21% and no 30-day mortality. Post-operative perineal wound complications occurred in 25%. At median 38-month follow-up (range 23-66 months), overall survival was 75%, disease-free survival was 71%, and there were three local recurrences (11%). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic extralevator abdominoperineal excision can be safely performed without compromising short-term outcomes.

Feasibility study of analgesia via epidural versus continuous wound infusion after laparoscopic colorectal resection.

BACKGROUND: With the adoption of enhanced recovery and emerging new modalities of analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCR), the role of epidural analgesia has been questioned. This pilot trial assessed the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing epidural analgesia and use of a local anaesthetic wound infusion catheter (WIC) following LCR. METHODS: Between April 2010 and May 2011, patients undergoing elective LCR in two centres were randomized to analgesia via epidural or WIC. Sham procedures were used to blind surgeons, patients and outcome assessors. The primary outcome was the feasibility of a large RCT, and all outcomes for a definitive trial were tested. The success of blinding was assessed using a mixed-methods approach. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were eligible, of whom 34 were randomized (mean(s.d.) age 70(11·8) years). Patients were followed up per-protocol; there were no deaths, and five patients had a total of six complications. Challenges with capturing pain data were identified and resolved. Mean(s.d.) pain scores on the day of discharge were 1·9(3·1) in the epidural group and 0·7(0·7) in the WIC group. Median length of stay was 4 (range 2-35, interquartile range 3-5) days. Mean use of additional analgesia (intravenous morphine equivalents) was 12 mg in the WIC arm and 9 mg in the epidural arm. Patient blinding was successful in both arms. Qualitative interviews suggested that patients found participation in the trial acceptable and that they would consider participating in a future trial. CONCLUSION: A blinded RCT investigating the role of epidural and WIC administration for postoperative analgesia following LCR is feasible. Rigorous standard operating procedures for data collection are required.

Deviation and failure of enhanced recovery after surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model.

AIM: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programmes are well established, but deviation from the postoperative elements may result in delayed discharge. Early identification of such patients may allow remedial action to be taken. The aims of this study were to investigate factors associated with delayed discharge and to produce a predictive scoring system for ERAS failure. METHOD: A retrospective review was carried out of case notes of patients who underwent elective laparoscopic colorectal resection and ERAS at Yeovil District Hospital between 2002 and 2009. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and binary logistic regression was used to model a predictive scoring system. RESULTS: In all, 385 patient records were reviewed with a median length of stay of 6 days; 122 (31%) patients stayed longer than 1 week (delayed discharge) and 159 (41%) deviated in up to two postoperative ERAS factors. Patient demographic factors were not predictive of delayed discharge. Deviation from ERAS factors at the end of the first postoperative day, including continued intravenous fluid infusion, lack of functioning epidural, inability to mobilize, vomiting requiring nasogastric tube insertion and re-insertion of urinary catheter, were strongly associated with delayed discharge. A five-element predictive scoring system for ERAS failure and delayed discharge was formulated. CONCLUSION: Enhanced recovery failure and delayed discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery can be predicted by the early deviation from postoperative factors of an ERAS programme.

Factors predicting deviation from an enhanced recovery programme and delayed discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

AIM: The study aimed to identify factors that predict postoperative deviation from an enhanced recovery programme (ERP) and/or delayed discharge following colorectal surgery. METHOD: Data were prospectively collected from all patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resection between January 2006 and December 2009. They included Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (POSSUM) variables, body mass index (BMI), sex, preoperative serum albumin, pathology, conversion from a laparoscopic to an open approach and postoperative length of hospital stay. RESULTS: There were 176 patients (90 women) of mean age 68 years. Fifteen (9%) operations were converted from laparoscopic to open. The remainder were completed laparoscopically. Fifty-five (31%) deviated from the ERP, with most failing multiple elements. The most common reason was failure to mobilize, which often occurred in conjunction with paralytic ileus or analgesic failure. Factors independently predicting ERP deviation on multivariate analysis were pathology and intra-operative complications. The median length of stay was 5 days. Sixty-four (36%) patients had a prolonged length of stay that was predicted by age, number of procedures and ERP deviation. CONCLUSION: Pathology and intra-operative complications are independent predictors of ERP deviation. Prolonged length of stay can be predicted by age, multiple procedures and ERP deviation. Failure to mobilize should be considered as a red flag sign prompting further investigation following colorectal resection.