Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer Patients after beyond Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery: A Feasibility Study.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has been deemed unfeasible until now because of the heterogeneity of this disease and low caseloads. Since evidence and experience with ERAS principles in colorectal cancer care are increasing, a modified ERAS protocol for this specific group has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a tailored ERAS protocol for patients with LARC or LRRC, requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent a bTME for LARC or LRRC between October 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively studied. All patients were treated in accordance with the ERAS LARRC protocol, which consisted of 39 ERAS care elements specifically developed for patients with LARC and LRRC. One of the most important adaptations of this protocol was the anaesthesia procedure, which involved the use of total intravenous anaesthesia with intravenous (iv) lidocaine, iv methadone, and iv ketamine instead of epidural anaesthesia. The outcomes showed compliance with ERAS care elements, complications, length of stay, and functional recovery. A follow-up was performed at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were selected, all of whom underwent bTME for either LARC (54.2%) or LRRC (45.8%). Total compliance with the adjusted ERAS protocol was 73.6%. Major complications were present in 12 patients (16.7%), and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR 6.0-14.0). Patients who received multimodal anaesthesia (75.0%) stayed in the hospital for a median of 7.0 days (IQR 6.8-15.5). These patients received fewer opioids on the first three postoperative days than patients who received epidural analgesia (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the ERAS LARRC protocol seemed successful according to its compliance rate of >70%. Its complication rate was substantially reduced in comparison with the literature. Multimodal anaesthesia is feasible in beyond TME surgery with promising effects on recovery after surgery.

Biplanar versus conventional two-dimensional ultrasound guidance for radial artery catheterisation.

Background: Ultrasound guidance increases first-pass success rates and decreases the number of cannulation attempts and complications during radial artery catheterisation but it is debatable whether short-, long-, or oblique-axis imaging is superior for obtaining access. Three-dimensional (3D) biplanar ultrasound combines both short- and long-axis views with their respective benefits. This study aimed to determine whether biplanar imaging would improve the accuracy of radial artery catheterisation compared with conventional 2D imaging. Methods: This before-and-after trial included adult patients who required radial artery catheterisation for elective cardiothoracic surgery. The participating anaesthesiologists were experienced in 2D and biplanar ultrasound-guided vascular access. The primary endpoint was successful catheterisation in one skin break without withdrawals. Secondary endpoints were the numbers of punctures and withdrawals, scanning and procedure times, needle visibility, perceived mental effort of the operator, and posterior wall puncture or other mechanical complications. Results: From November 2021 until April 2022, 158 patients were included and analysed (2D=75, biplanar=83), with two failures to catheterise in each group. First-pass success without needle redirections was 58.7% in the 2D group and 60.2% in the biplanar group (difference=1.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -14.0%-17.1%; P=0.84), and first-pass success within one skin break was 77.3% in the 2D group vs 81.9% in the biplanar group (difference=4.6%; 95% CI, 8.1%-17.3%; P=0.473). None of the secondary endpoints differed significantly. Conclusions: Biplanar ultrasound guidance did not improve success rates nor other performance measures of radial artery catheterisation. The additional visual information acquired with biplanar imaging did not offer any benefit. Clinical trial registration: N9687 (Dutch Trial Register).

A Multidisciplinary Approach for the Personalised Non-Operative Management of Elderly and Frail Rectal Cancer Patients Unable to Undergo TME Surgery.

Despite it being the optimal curative approach, elderly and frail rectal cancer patients may not be able to undergo a total mesorectal excision. Frequently, no treatment is offered at all and the natural course of the disease is allowed to unfold. These patients are at risk for developing debilitating symptoms that impair quality of life and require palliative treatment. Recent advancements in non-operative treatment modalities have enhanced the toolbox of alternative treatment strategies in patients unable to undergo surgery. Therefore, a proposed strategy is to aim for the maximal non-operative treatment, in an effort to avoid the onset of debilitating symptoms, improve quality of life, and prolong survival. The complexity of treating elderly and frail patients requires a patient-centred approach to personalise treatment. The main challenge is to optimise the balance between local control of disease, patient preferences, and the burden of treatment. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is a crucial element within the multidisciplinary dialogue. Since limited knowledge is available on the optimal non-operative treatment strategy, these patients should be treated by dedicated multidisciplinary rectal cancer experts with special interest in the elderly and frail. The aim of this narrative review was to discuss a multidisciplinary patient-centred treatment approach and provide a practical suggestion of a successfully implemented clinical care pathway.

A prospective cohort study to evaluate continuous wound infusion with local analgesics within an enhanced recovery protocol after colorectal cancer surgery.

AIM: To reduce detrimental opioid-related side effects, minimising the postoperative opioid consumption is needed, especially in older patients. Continuous wound infusion (CWI) with local analgesics appears to be an effective opioid-sparing alternative. However, the added value of CWI to an enhanced recovery protocol after colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of CWI after CRC surgery within a strictly adhered to enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, patients who underwent CRC surgery between May 2019 and January 2021 were included. Patients were treated with CWI as adjunct to multimodal pain management within an enhanced recovery protocol. Postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores and outcomes regarding functional recovery were evaluated. RESULTS: A cohort of 130 consecutive patients were included, of whom 36.2% were ≥75 years. Postoperative opioids were consumed by 80 (61.5%) patients on postoperative day 0, and by 28 (21.5%), 27 (20.8%), and 18 (13.8%) patients on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Median pain scores were <4 on all days. The median time until first passage of stool was 1.0 (IQR: 1.0-2.0) day. Postoperative delirium occurred in 0.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 3.0 days (IQR: 2.0-5.0). CONCLUSION: In patients treated with CWI, low amounts of postoperative opioid consumption, adequate postoperative pain control, and enhanced recovery were observed. CWI seems a beneficial opioid-sparing alternative and may further improve the outcomes of an enhanced recovery protocol after CRC surgery, which seems especially valuable for older patients.

Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (ePIPAC) with oxaliplatin as a palliative monotherapy for isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a Dutch, multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study (CRC-PIPAC).

INTRODUCTION: Repetitive electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX) is offered as a palliative treatment option for patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in several centres worldwide. However, little is known about its feasibility, safety, tolerability, efficacy, costs and pharmacokinetics in this setting. This study aims to explore these parameters in patients with isolated unresectable colorectal PM who receive repetitive ePIPAC-OX as a palliative monotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase II study is performed in two Dutch tertiary referral hospitals for the surgical treatment of colorectal PM. Eligible patients are adults who have histologically or cytologically proven isolated unresectable PM of a colorectal or appendiceal carcinoma, a good performance status, adequate organ functions and no symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Instead of standard palliative treatment, enrolled patients receive laparoscopy-controlled ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA)) with intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2 BSA) and bolus 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 BSA) every 6 weeks. Four weeks after each procedure, patients undergo clinical, radiological and biochemical evaluation. ePIPAC-OX is repeated until disease progression, after which standard palliative treatment is (re)considered. The primary outcome is the number of patients with major toxicity (grade ≥3 according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0) up to 4 weeks after the last ePIPAC-OX. Secondary outcomes are the environmental safety of ePIPAC-OX, procedure-related characteristics, minor toxicity, postoperative complications, hospital stay, readmissions, quality of life, costs, pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, progression-free survival, overall survival, and the radiological, histopathological, cytological, biochemical and macroscopic tumour response. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by an ethics committee, the Dutch competent authority and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results are intended for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and for presentation to patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03246321, Pre-results; ISRCTN89947480, Pre-results; NTR6603, Pre-results; EudraCT: 2017-000927-29, Pre-results.