Prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery fails to confer reduction in overall morbidity: results of a single-center, blinded, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are solely weak recommendations in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol regarding the role of preoperative physical activity and prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Studies in heterogenous groups showed contradictory results regarding the impact of prehabilitation on the reduction of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol. METHODS: Between July 2016 and June 2019, a single-center, blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to test whether physiotherapeutic prehabilitation vs. normal physical activities prior to colorectal surgery may decrease morbidity within a stringent ERAS protocol was carried out. The primary endpoint was postoperative complications assessed by Comprehensive Complications Index (CCI®). Primary and secondary endpoints for both groups were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients (54 in the prehabilitation enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery [pERACS] group and 53 in the control group) were included in the study and randomized. Dropout rate was 4.5% (n = 5). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the pERACS and control groups. The percentage of colorectal adenocarcinoma was low in both groups (pERACS 32% vs. control 23%, p = 0.384). Almost all patients underwent minimally invasive surgery in both groups (96% vs. 98%, p = 1.000). There was no between-group difference in the primary outcome, as the mean CCI at 30-day postoperative in the pERACS group was 18 (SD 0-43) compared to 15 (SD 0-49) in the control group (p = 0.059). Secondary outcome as complications assessed according to Clavien-Dindo, length of hospital stay, reoperation rate, and mortality showed no difference between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Routine physiotherapeutic prehabilitation has no additional benefit for patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: ID: NCT02746731; Institution Ethical Board Approval: KEK-ZH Nr. 2016-00,229.

Perioperative Dietary Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is rising worldwide and no cure is available. Many patients require surgery and they often present with nutritional deficiencies. Although randomised controlled trials of dietary therapy are lacking, expert IBD centres have long-established interdisciplinary care, including tailored nutritional therapy, to optimise clinical outcomes and resource utilisation. This topical review aims to share expertise and offers current practice recommendations to optimise outcomes of IBD patients who undergo surgery. METHODS: A consensus expert panel consisting of dietitians, surgeons, and gastroenterologists, convened by the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation, performed a systematic literature review. Nutritional evaluation and dietary needs, perioperative optimis ation, surgical complications, long-term needs, and special situations were critically appraised. Statements were developed using a Delphi methodology incorporating three successive rounds. Current practice positions were set when ≥80% of participants agreed on a recommendation. RESULTS: A total of 26 current practice positions were formulated which address the needs of IBD patients perioperatively and in the long term following surgery. Routine screening, perioperative optimisation by oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition, dietary fibre, and supplements were reviewed. IBD-specific situations, including management of patients with a restorative proctocolectomy, an ostomy, strictures, or short-bowel syndrome, were addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative dietary therapy improves the outcomes of IBD patients who undergo a surgical procedure. This topical review shares interdisciplinary expertise and provides guidance to optimise the outcomes of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. taking advantage of contemporary nutrition science.

Should nurses be allowed to perform the pre-operative surgical site marking instead of surgeons? A prospective feasibility study at a Swiss primary care teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site marking is one important cornerstone for the principles of safe surgery suggested by the WHO. Generally it is recommended that the attending surgeon performs the surgical site marking. Particularly in the case of same day surgery, this recommendation is almost not feasible. Therefore we systematically monitored, whether surgical site marking can be performed by trained nursing staff. The aim of the study was to find out whether surgical site marking can be carried out reliably and correctly by nurses. METHODS: The prospective non-controlled interventional study took place in a single primary care hospital of Uster in Switzerland. During a pilot phase of 3 months (starting October 2012) the nursing staff of a single ward was trained and applied the surgical site marking on behalf of the responsible surgeon. After this initial phase the new concept was introduced in the entire surgical department. 12 months after the introduction of the new concept an interim evaluation was performed asking whether the new process facilitates daily routine and surgical site marking was performed correctly. 22 months after the introduction a prospective data collection monitored for one month whether the nursing staff carried out surgical site marking independently and correctly. Data were collected by a patient-accompanying checklist that was completed by the nursing staff, the staff in the operating room and the responsible surgeons. RESULTS: The stepwise implementation of the new concept of surgical site marking was well accepted by the entire staff. 150 patient-accompanying checklists were analyzed. 22 data sheets were excluded from the analysis. 90% (n = 115/128) of the surgical site markings were correctly performed. For the remaining 10% either a surgical site marking was not necessary or the nursing staff asked a surgeon to mark the correct surgical site. During the whole study time of almost 3 years, no wrong-site surgery occurred. CONCLUSION: Surgical site marking can be performed by trained nurses. However, the attending surgeon remains fully responsible of the correct operation on the correct patient.