[Implementation of a perioperative multimodal rehabilitation protocol in elective colorectal surgery. A prospective randomised controlled study]. / Implantación de un protocolo de rehabilitación multimodal perioperatoria en cirugía colorrectal electiva. Estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado y controlado.

INTRODUCTION: Multimodal rehabilitation (MMR) consists of a combination of several methods for management of the surgical patient, designed to reduce the response to surgical stress and a more comfortable and earlier recovery. OBJECTIVE: To assess the implementation of an MMR protocol in a Colorectal Surgery Unit, and to compare the results with the traditional model, as well as assessing its efficacy as regards recovery and hospital stay. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 119 patients who received elective surgery for colorectal diseases in a period during 2009-2010 were prospectively and randomly analysed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: 58 patients were assigned to the traditional group and 61 to the MMR group. The MMR group protocol consisted of, preoperative education, early feeding and mobilisation. RESULTS: Both groups were homogeneous as regards the preoperative variables evaluated, the type of disease and the procedures carried out. The nasogastric tube was kept in place for 4 (1-9) days compared to 1 day (0-2) in the MMR group, with no differences in the number of re-insertions. Significant differences were found in the introduction of a liquid diet (3 [1-5] days traditional versus 0 [0-2] MMR) (P<.001), and passing of first flatulence (3 [1-6] days traditional versus 1 [1-3] MMR) (P<.001). The MMR group had a postoperative stay of 4.15±2.18 versus 9.23±6.97 days in the traditional group (P<.001). No significant differences were found in complications or readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: MMR in colorectal surgery in the Spanish public health system is feasible and enables surgical patients to have a faster recovery without increasing complications, leading to an earlier hospital discharge.

Mild acute biliary pancreatitis vs cholelithiasis: are there differences in the rate of choledocholithiasis?

The rate of choledocholithiasis at the time of elective surgery after mild acute biliary pancreatitis is still unclear because it decreases rapidly after the onset. The aims of this study are as follows: (1) To investigate whether the incidence of choledocholithiasis in mild biliary pancreatitis is higher than in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis. (2) To evaluate the usefulness of intraoperative cholangiography in the diagnosis of unsuspected choledocholithiasis in mild pancreatitis. Prospective study including 130 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery and classified into two groups: mild biliary pancreatitis (n = 44) and symptomatic cholelithiasis (n = 86). Choledocholithiasis was evaluated by endoscopic cholangiopancreatography, magnetic resonance, and intraoperative cholangiography. Preoperatively, choledocholithiasis was identified in five patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and two with biliary pancreatitis (5.81 vs 4.54%; p = 0.472). In 117 cases (90%), intraoperative cholangiography was successfully performed, identifying unsuspected choledocholithiasis in five patients of the colelithiasis group and in three in the group of pancreatitis (5.81 vs 6.81%; p = 0.492). The total number of patients with choledocholithiasis in the whole series was 15 (11.5%); 11.6% in colelithiasis group vs 11.4% in biliary pancreatitis group; p = 0.605. The rate of choledocholithiasis was not significantly different between the groups of patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis and symptomatic cholelithiasis. Intraoperative cholangiography identified unsuspected choledocholithiasis in 6.81% of patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis.