Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 7/2020

01.09.2020 | Original Article

The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery

verfasst von: Jian-Sheng Chen, Si-Da Sun, Zhi-Sheng Wang, Tian-Hong Cai, Long-Kai Huang, Wen-Xing Sun, Chang-Qing Lin, Jun-Feng Zhou, Jia-Xing Wang, Qing-Liang He

Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Ausgabe 7/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery has been proven effective for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. But radical enhanced recovery could also lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Compared with reports on the estimation of successful implementation of enhanced recovery, studies on risk factors of enhanced recovery failure are still lacking.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 102 patients in ERAS who underwent elective colon cancer surgery. This study included 102 patients with colon cancer between 2015 and 2019, defining enhanced recovery failure as postoperative length of stay over 10 days, stay in ICU over 24 h after surgery, reoperation, death, or unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore potential risk factors of failure.

Results

Aged ≥ 75, open operation, number of drainage tube over 1, re-urethral catheterization, and Clavien-Dindo grade over 2 were associated with ERAS failure, according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 75 [OR 7.231; P = 0.009]; open operation (OR 3.599; P = 0.021); and number of drainage tube over 1 (OR 3.202; P = 0.020) were independent risk factors for ERAS failure.

Conclusions

We found age ≥ 75, open operation, and number of drainage tube over 1 are independent risk factors associated with ERAS failure after colon cancer surgery.
Literatur
1.
Wilmore DW, Kehlet H (2001) Management of patients in fast track surgery. BMJ 322:473–476CrossRef
2.
Chestovich PJ, Lin AY, Yoo J (2003) Fast-track pathways in colorectal surgery. Surg Clin N Am 93:21–32CrossRef
3.
Bosio RM, Smith BM, Aybar PS, Senagore AJ (2007) Implementation of laparoscopic colectomy with fast-track care in an academic medical center: benefits of a fully ascended learning curve and specialty expertise. Am J Surg 193:413–415CrossRef
4.
Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248:189–198CrossRef
5.
Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z (2013) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 56:667–678CrossRef
6.
Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJHM (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD007635
7.
Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt M, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Arch Surg 144:961–969CrossRef
8.
Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M, Garzi A, Vannucchi A, Cantafio S, Scatizzi M (2013) Fast-track surgery in real life: how patient factors influence outcomes and compliance with an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 23:259–265CrossRef
9.
Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis NK (2012) Deviation and failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Color Dis 14:727–734CrossRef
10.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRef
11.
Lewis DR, Chen HS, Cockburn MG, Wu XC, Stroup AM, Midthune DN, Zou Z, Krapcho MF, Miller DG, Feuer EJ (2017) Early estimates of SEER cancer incidence, 2014. Cancer 123:2524–2534CrossRef
12.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ (2008) Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 58:71–96CrossRef
13.
Alley PG (2000) Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. Lancet 356:956CrossRef
14.
Temple LK, Hsieh L, Wong WD et al (2004) Use of surgery among elderly patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3475–3484CrossRef
15.
Papamichael D, Audisio R, Horiot JC, Glimelius B, Sastre J, Mitry E, van Cutsem E, Gosney M, Köhne CH, Aapro M, SIOG (2009) Treatment of the elderly colorectal cancer patient: SIOG expert recommendations. Ann Oncol 20:5–16CrossRef
16.
Yamamoto S, Hinoi T, Niitsu H et al (2017) Influence of previous abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: subanalysis of a large multicenter study in Japan. J Gastroenterol 52:695–704CrossRef
17.
Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ, Nguyen VQ, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills SD, Stamos MJ (2014) Colorectal cancer resections in the aging US population a trend toward decreasing rates and improved outcomes. JAMA Surg 149:557–564CrossRef
18.
Wagman LD (2007) Laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer: reaching equipoise? J Clin Oncol 25:2996–2998CrossRef
19.
Greene FL (1999) Laparoscopic management of colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 49:221–228CrossRef
20.
Marcello PW (2000) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Gastroenterology 118:806CrossRef
21.
Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM, COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (COLOR) (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484CrossRef
22.
Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:321–328CrossRef
23.
Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059CrossRef
24.
Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52CrossRef
25.
Sun J, Qiu ZJ (2011) A non-randomized perspective investigation on long-term outcomes comparison between laparoscopic and open surgery in the treatment of colon cancer. Fudan Univ J Med Sci 03:211–215
26.
Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, Blazeby JM, Quirke P, West NP, Dutton SJ (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32:1804–1812CrossRef
27.
Robinson JO (1986) Surgical drainage: an historical perspective. Br J Surg 73:422–426CrossRef
28.
Sagar PM, Couse N, Kerin M, May J, Macfie J (1993) Randomized trial of drainage of colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 80:769–771CrossRef
29.
Tsujinaka S, Konishi F (2011) Drain vs no drain after colorectal surgery. Indian J Surg Oncol 2:3–8CrossRef
30.
Rondelli F, Bugiantella W, Vedovati MC et al (2014) To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 16:35–42CrossRef
31.
Urbach DR, Kennedy ED, Cohen MM et al (1999) Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage. Ann Surg 229:174–180CrossRef
32.
Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V, Clavien PA (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg 240:1074–1084CrossRef
33.
Foster ME (2017) To drain or not after colorectal surgery. Ann R CON Surg Engl 70:158–160
34.
Emile SH, Abd El-Hamed TM (2017) Routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses: an evidence-based review of the current literature. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:1–7CrossRef
35.
Schreiber A, Aydil E, Walschus U, Glitsch A, Patrzyk M, Heidecke C-D, Schulze T (2019) Early removal of urinary drainage in patients receiving epidural analgesia after colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol is feasible. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 404:853–863CrossRef
36.
Sun SD, Wu PP, Zhou JF, Wang JX, He QL (2020) Failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Int J Color Dis 35:1007–1014CrossRef
37.
Crouzet J, Bertrand X, Venier AG, Badoz M, Husson C, Talon D (2007) Control of the duration of urinary catheterization: impact on catheter-associated urinary tract infection. J Hosp Infect 67:253–257CrossRef
38.
Collard MK, Anyla M, Lefevre JH et al (2020) Patients’ refusal as major limitation of early discharge after colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery program. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 405:337–344CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery
verfasst von
Jian-Sheng Chen
Si-Da Sun
Zhi-Sheng Wang
Tian-Hong Cai
Long-Kai Huang
Wen-Xing Sun
Chang-Qing Lin
Jun-Feng Zhou
Jia-Xing Wang
Qing-Liang He
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2020
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Ausgabe 7/2020
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01975-z

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 7/2020

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 7/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

Systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary pancreas surgery with arterial resection

Original Article

Preventing chylous ascites after right hemicolectomy with D3 extended mesenterectomy

Original Article

Preoperative leukocytosis and the resection severity index are independent risk factors for survival in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Review Article

Role of lymphadenectomy in resectable pancreatic cancer

Original Article

A double-lumen irrigation-suction tube placed during operation could reduce the risk of grade C anastomotic leakage resulting from selective sigmoid colon cancer radical resection

Original Article

Factors associated with patency loss and actuarial patency rate following post-cholecystectomy bile duct injury repair: long-term follow-up

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

10.04.2024 | Postoperative Schmerztherapie | Nachrichten

Chronische Schmerzen nach Op. oft mit neuropathischer Komponente

10.04.2024 | Narbenhernie | Nachrichten

Deutlich weniger Narbenhernien mit der Small-Bites-Technik

09.04.2024 | Appendektomie | Nachrichten

Appendektomie: Vorsicht bei systemischen Glukokortikoiden!

08.04.2024 | Andrologie | Nachrichten

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet
weitere anzeigen

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht, PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske Das Webinar S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“ beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske
Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis CME-Kurs
CME: 2 Punkte

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.