Compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery program in gynecology: are all items of equal importance?

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines in gynecologic surgery are a set of multiple recommendations based on the best available evidence. However, according to previous studies, maintaining high compliance is challenging in daily clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of compliance to individual ERAS items on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of a prospectively maintained database of 446 consecutive women undergoing gynecologic oncology surgery (both open and minimally invasive) within an ERAS program from 1 October 2013 until 31 January 2017 in a tertiary academic center in Switzerland. Demographics, adherence, and outcomes were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Uni- and multivariate logistic regression was performed, with adjustment for confounding factors. Main outcomes were overall compliance, compliance to each individual ERAS item, and impact on post-operative complications according to Clavien classification. RESULTS: A total of 446 patients were included, 26.2 % (n=117) had at least one complication (Clavien I-V), and 11.4 % (n=51) had a prolonged length of hospital stay. The single independent risk factor for overall complications was intra-operative blood loss > 200 mL (OR 3.32; 95% CI 1.6 to 6.89, p=0.001). Overall compliance >70% with ERAS items (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.66, p=0.12) showed a protective effect on complications. Increased compliance was also associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.435 to 0.93, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance >70% with modifiable ERAS items was significantly associated with reduced overall complications. Best possible compliance with all ERAS items is the goal to achieve lower complication rates after gynecologic oncology surgery.

Respiratory Complications After Colorectal Surgery: Avoidable or Fate?

BACKGROUND: The prevention of post-operative pulmonary complications (PPC) is targeted by several enhanced recovery (ERAS) items including early mobilisation, prevention of fluid overload and omission of routine nasogastric tubes. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of ERAS on PPC. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of an institutional database including consecutive colorectal ERAS procedures from May 2011 until May 2017. Multiple logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for PPC among demographic, surgical characteristics and items related to the ERAS protocol. RESULTS: In total, 1298 patients were included; among them 120 (9.2%) had one or more PPC. Multivariable analysis retained minimally invasive surgery [odds ratio (OR) 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.46] and compliance to the ERAS protocol of ≥ 70% (OR 0.53; CI 0.30-0.94) as protective factors. Emergency surgery (OR 2.70; CI 1.20-6.01), blood loss of ≥ 200 mL (OR 2.06; CI 1.20-3.53) and ASA score of ≥ 3 (OR 2.00; CI 1.12-3.57) were independent risk factors. Median length of hospital stay was significantly longer in patients who experienced respiratory complications (21 [4-183] vs. 6 [1-95] days, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery and high compliance with the ERAS protocol can help to prevent PPC.

Minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery: The ideal combination?

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and minimally invasive surgery are both in the limelight due to their potential positive effects on surgical outcome. Large randomized trials and meta-analyses validated the use of both, laparoscopy and ERAS protocol, as individual measures. A synergistic effect of both entities might contribute to even better outcomes. This review hence assessed the literature upon up-to-date studies combining both methods.

Postoperative ileus in an enhanced recovery pathway-a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols advocate no nasogastric tubes after colorectal surgery, but postoperative ileus (POI) remains a challenging clinical reality. The aim of this study was to assess incidence and risk factors of POI. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included all consecutive colorectal surgical procedures since May 2011 until November 2014. Uni- and multivariate risk factors for POI were identified by multiple logistic regression and functional and surgical outcomes assessed. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 513 consecutive colorectal ERAS patients. One hundred twenty-eight patients (24.7%) needed postoperative reinsertion of nasogastric tube at the 3.9 ± 2.9 postoperative day. Multivariate analysis retained the American Society of Anesthesiologists group 3-4 (odds ratio (OR) 1.3; 95% CI 1-1.8, p = 0.043) and duration of surgery of >3 h (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1-1.7, p = 0.047) as independent risk factors for POI. Minimally invasive surgery (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5-0.8, p ≤ 0.001) and overall compliance of >70% to the ERAS protocol (OR 0.7; 95% CI 0.6-1, p = 0.031) represented independent protective factors. POI was associated with respiratory (23 vs. 5%, p ≤ 0.001) and cardiovascular (16 vs. 3%, p ≤ 0.001) complications. CONCLUSIONS: POI was frequent in the present study. Overall compliance to the ERAS protocol and minimally invasive surgery helped to prevent POI, which was significantly correlated with medical complications.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Can We Rely on the Key Factors or Do We Need the Bel Ensemble?

BACKGROUND: The success of enhanced recovery (ERAS) pathways depends on the actual application of the intended protocol (adherence), but its full implementation remains challenging. In order to potentially streamline the pathway, it is indispensable to know the impact of individual items and the entire protocol on clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective analysis including all consecutive colorectal ERAS patients since implementation (May 2011) until February 2014; demographics, adherence and outcomes were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Primary outcome was the impact of individual item and of the entire protocol on complications (overall and major) and length of hospital stay. Statistical analysis included logistic multivariate regression and adjustment for confounding factors. RESULTS: There were 328 patients with complete data sets analyzed. A minimally invasive approach [odd ratio (OR) 0.62; confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.9] was significantly associated with less overall complications. In contrast, the use of prophylactic nasogastric tubes (OR 3.18; CI 1.4-7.4), prophylactic abdominal and pelvic drains (OR 1.96; 1.2-3.2) and intraoperative thoracic epidural analgesia (OR 1.76; CI 1.3-2.4) were associated with more overall complications. Minimal invasive approach was further associated with reduced hospital stay (OR 0.5; CI 0.4-0.7) and less major complications (OR 0.58; CI 0.4-0.8). Higher adherence to the entire ERAS protocol was associated with significantly less complications (P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery was the single most important component of the ERAS pathway while nasogastric tubes, drains and epidurals should be avoided. Overall, increasing adherence with the protocol was associated with better outcomes and should be the goal.

Perioperative Fluid Management in Colorectal Surgery: Institutional Approach to Standardized Practice.

The present review discusses restrictive perioperative fluid protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Standardized definitions of a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen are lacking since they depend on conflicting evidence, institutional protocols, and personal preferences. Challenges related to restrictive fluid protocols are related to proper patient selection within standardized ERAS protocols. On the other hand, invasive goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is reserved for more challenging disease presentations and polymorbid and frail patients. While the perfusion rate (mL/kg/h) appears less predictive for postoperative outcomes, the authors identified critical thresholds related to total intravenous fluids and weight gain. These thresholds are discussed within the available evidence. The authors aim to introduce their institutional approach to standardized practice.

Implementing a surgical site infection prevention bundle for emergency appendectomy: Worth the effort or waste of time?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility and impact of an intraoperative surgical site infection prevention bundle for emergency appendectomy. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing emergency appendectomy were prospectively included during a 10-year study period (2011-2020). The care bundle was implemented as of November 1, 2018, and focused on 4 intraoperative items (disinfection, antibiotic prophylaxis, induction temperature control >36.5°C, and intracavity lavage). The primary outcome was the compliance to bundle items. Thirty-day surgical site infections were assessed by the independent Swiss National SSI Surveillance Program (2011 to October 2018) and by an institutional audit (November 2018-2020). Independent risk factors for surgical site infection were identified through multinominal logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 1,901 patients, 449 (23.6%) were included after bundle implementation. Overall surgical site infection rate was 111 (5.8%). In 42 patients with surgical site infection (37.8%), antibiotic treatment alone was done, and additional surgical management was necessary in 31 patients (27.9%), computed tomography-guided drainage in 30 patients (27%), and bedside wound opening in 9 cases (8.1%). Overall compliance to the bundle was 79.9%. Overall surgical site infection rates were decreased after bundle implementation (17/449 [3.8%] vs 94/1,452 [6.5%], P = .038), mainly due to a decrease in superficial incisional infections (P = .014). Independent risk factors for surgical site infection were surgical duration ≥60 minutes (odds ratio: 1.66, P = .018), contamination class IV (odds ratio: 2.64, P < .001), and open or converted approach (odds ratio: 4.0, P < .001), and the bundle was an independent protective factor (odds ratio: 0.58, P = .048). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an intraoperative surgical site infection prevention bundle was feasible and might have a beneficial impact on surgical site infection rates after emergency appendectomy.

Challenges Related to Surgical Site Infection Prevention-Results after Standardized Bundle Implementation.

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. METHODS: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012-2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. FINDINGS: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77-88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures.