Rol de los cuidados perioperatorios guiados por protocolo para mejorar la recuperación tras la cirugía de cáncer de cabeza y cuello: experiencia institucional / Role of protocol-guided perioperative care to enhance recovery after head and neck neoplasm surgery: An institutional experience

Antecedentes: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) mejora la recuperación tras la cirugía. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar si ERAS causa una reducción de la estancia hospitalaria y mejora la recuperación funcional global tras la cirugía de cáncer de cabeza y cuello. Métodos Realizamos un estudio prospectivo de control de casos histórico tras la aplicación de ERAS. La base de datos del hospital seleccionó 50 pacientes elegibles confirmados para el grupo control no ERAS, incluyéndose prospectivamente 54 pacientes en el grupo ERAS. El resultado primario fue el tiempo transcurrido hasta la disposición al alta (TRD), siendo los resultados secundarios la duración de la estancia hospitalaria (DEH), la tasa de reingreso de hasta 30 días y la puntuación QoR-15 (Quality of recovery). Los datos fueron comparados mediante pruebas paramétricas y no paramétricas adecuadas. Resultados Los datos demográficos basales de los pacientes fueron comparables entre ambos grupos. Los pacientes del grupo ERAS reflejaron un TRD significativamente más breve, en comparación con el grupo no ERAS: 8 (6-10) frente a 11 (8-16); p=0,002. La DEH fue también significativamente más corta en el grupo ERAS en comparación con el grupo no ERAS (8 [7-11] frente a 12 [9-17]; valor p=0,002). El reingreso en el plazo de 30 días no fue diferente, con una cifra de 6 pacientes en cada grupo. La puntuación QoR-15 fue estadísticamente mejor en el grupo ERAS (94,88±12,50) en comparación con el grupo no ERAS (85,44±12,68; p <0,001). Conclusión La implementación del programa ERAS redujo el TRD y la DEH, mejorando la puntuación QoR-15 sobre el resultado de la recuperación reportado por el paciente en las cirugías de cáncer de cabeza y cuello. (AU)

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improve recovery after surgery. This study aimed to determine whether ERAS leads to a decrease in stay in the hospital and improves global and functional recovery after head and neck neoplasms surgery. Methods We performed a prospective case and historical control study after the ERAS application. The hospital database selected 50 confirmed eligible patients in control non-ERAS group. Prospectively 54 patients were included in the ERAS group. The primary outcome was time to readiness for discharge (TRD); secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), readmission rate of up to 30 days and Quality of recovery score QoR-15. Data were compared with appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests. Results Baseline demographic data of patients were comparable between the two groups. Patients in ERAS group had significantly shorter TRD compared to the non-ERAS group 8 (6-10) versus 11 (8-16); P=.002. LOS was also significantly shorter in the ERAS group compared to the non-ERAS group (8 [7-11] versus 12 [9-17]; P=.002). Readmission at 30-days was no different, with six patients in each group. QoR-15 score was statistically better in ERAS group (94.88±12.50) compared to non-ERAS group (85.44±12.68; P<.001). Conclusion Implementing the ERAS programme decreased TRD and LOS and improved patient-reported recovery outcome QoR-15 in head and neck neoplasms surgery. (AU)

Role of protocol-guided perioperative care to enhance recovery after head and neck neoplasm surgery: An institutional experience.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) improve recovery after surgery. This study aimed to determine whether ERAS leads to a decrease in stay in the hospital and improves global and functional recovery after head and neck neoplasms surgery. METHODS: We performed a prospective case and historical control study after the ERAS application. The hospital database selected 50 confirmed eligible patients in control non-ERAS group. Prospectively 54 patients were included in the ERAS group. The primary outcome was time to readiness for discharge (TRD); secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS), readmission rate of up to 30 days and Quality of recovery score QoR-15. Data were compared with appropriate parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Baseline demographic data of patients were comparable between the two groups. Patients in ERAS group had significantly shorter TRD compared to the non-ERAS group 8 (6-10) vs 11 (8-16); p-value = 0.002. LOS was also significantly shorter in the ERAS group compared to the non-ERAS group [8 (7-11) vs 12 (9-17); p-value = 0.002]. Readmission at 30-days was no different, with six patients in each group. QoR-15 score was statistically better in ERAS group (94.88 ±â€¯12.50) compared to non-ERAS group (85.44 ±â€¯12.68) [p value < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Implementing the ERAS programme decreased TRD and LOS and improved patient-reported recovery outcome QoR-15 in head and neck neoplasms surgery.

Implication and utility of DAS-28 squeeze in rheumatoid arthritis: an Indian experience.

The purpose of this study was to compare and correlate disease activity score including 28 joints counts (DAS-28) Squeeze with DAS-28 and clinical disease activity index (CDAI) to assess disease activity (DA) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. A total of 100 RA patients were included in the study. All subjects were evaluated for disease activity using the DAS-28 Squeeze, DAS-28, and CDAI. Spearman's rho (ρ) was calculated to determine the correlation between DAS-28 Squeeze, DAS-28, and CDAI. Cross-tabulation was performed to compare and calculate the kappa coefficient for the link between two indices. For each scale, Cronbach's alpha was also calculated to test dependability. The average age of the study group was 43.9±11.3. The mean scores on the DAS-28 Squeeze, DAS-28, and CDAI were, respectively, 3.58±1.06, 5.06±1.56, and 22.81±14.92. p=0.001 indicated a significant correlation between DAS-28 Squeeze and DAS-28 (ρ=0.986) and CDAI (ρ=0.939) for DAS-28 Squeeze. There was a considerable correlation between all three measures at various DA levels. Cronbach's alpha for DAS-28 Squeeze, DAS-28, and CDAI were respectively 0.716, 0.663, and 0.734. DAS-28 Squeeze exhibited a substantial positive association with DAS-28 and CDAI for assessing disease activity and appears to be a more useful and reliable method than DAS-28 and CDAI for monitoring disease activity in RA patients.