Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Is an enhanced recovery program (ERP) after rectal surgery as feasible as after colonic surgery? A multicentre Francophone study of 870 rectal resections.
Veziant, J; Poirot, K; Mulliez, A; Pereira, B; Slim, K.
Afiliação
  • Veziant J; Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France. jveziant@chu-clermontferrand.fr.
  • Poirot K; Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
  • Mulliez A; Biostatistics Unit, Department of Clinical Research and Innovation (DRCI), University Hospital, Clermont Ferrand, France.
  • Pereira B; Biostatistics Unit, Department of Clinical Research and Innovation (DRCI), University Hospital, Clermont Ferrand, France.
  • Slim K; Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospital, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Langenbecks Arch Surg ; 405(8): 1155-1162, 2020 Dec.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33057822
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Enhanced recovery program (ERP) is well-established in colorectal surgery. Rectal surgery (RS) is known to be associated with high morbidity and prolonged hospital stay, which might explain why ERPs are less applied in this specific group of patients. The aim of this large-scale study was to assess the feasibility of an ERP in RS compared with colonic surgery.

METHODS:

This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database including 3740 patients eligible for colorectal resection from February 2014 to January 2017 in 75 European Francophone centres. Patients were divided into two groups (colon group C vs. rectum group R). The main endpoint was compliance with ERP components. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients for whom a defunctioning stoma (DS) was required after RS.

RESULTS:

A total of 3740 patients were included. There were 2870 patients in group C and 870 patients in group R. The overall compliance rate for ERPs was 81.71% in group C and 79.09% in group R. Patients were significantly less mobilized within 24 h in group R. Specific recommendations for RS concerning bowel preparation and abdominal drainage were significantly less implemented. Overall morbidity was significantly higher in group R. Mean length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in group C. In the sub-group analysis, a DS was significantly associated with fewer compliance with early mobilization and early feeding, leading to significantly longer LOS (group R).

CONCLUSION:

ERP is safe and effective in RS, despite the well-known higher morbidity and LOS compared with colonic surgery. DS could be a limiting factor in ERP implementation after RS.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Procedimentos Cirúrgicos do Sistema Digestório Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article