Impact of enhanced recovery on oncological outcomes following minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer

被引:21
作者
Quiram, B. J. [1 ]
Crippa, J. [2 ]
Grass, F. [2 ]
Lovely, J. K. [3 ]
Behm, K. T. [2 ]
Colibaseanu, D. T. [3 ,5 ]
Merchea, A. [3 ,5 ]
Kelley, S. R. [2 ]
Harmsen, W. S. [4 ]
Larson, D. W. [2 ]
机构
[1] St Olaf Coll, Northfield, MN 55057 USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Dept Surg, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Mayo Clin Pharm, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Dept Biomed Stat & Informat, Rochester, MN USA
[5] Mayo Clin, Div Colon & Rectal Surg, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
关键词
LONG-TERM SURVIVAL; LAPAROSCOPIC-ASSISTED RESECTION; LENGTH-OF-STAY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PATHOLOGICAL OUTCOMES; COLORECTAL SURGERY; PERIOPERATIVE CARE; ERAS PROTOCOL; PATHWAY; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1002/bjs.11131
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Oncological outcomes of locally advanced rectal cancer depend on the quality of surgical and oncological management. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have yet to be assessed for their oncological impact when used in combination with minimally invasive surgery. This study assessed outcomes with or without an ERP in patients with rectal cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of all consecutive adult patients who underwent elective minimally invasive surgery for primary rectal adenocarcinoma with curative intent between February 2005 and April 2018. Both laparoscopic and robotic procedures were included. Short-term morbidity and overall survival were compared between patients treated according to the institutional ERP and those who received conventional care. Results: A total of 600 patients underwent minimally invasive surgery, of whom 320 (53.3 per cent) were treated according to the ERP and 280 (46.7 per cent) received conventional care. ERP was associated with less overall morbidity (34.7 versus 54.3 per cent; P < 0.001). Patients in the ERP group had improved overall survival on univariable (91.4 versus 81.7 per cent at 5 years; hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95 per cent c. i. 0.28 to 0.99) but not multivariable (HR 0.78, 0.41 to 1.50) analysis. Multivariable analysis revealed age (HR 1.46, 1.17 to 1.82), male sex (HR 1.98, 1.05 to 3.70) and complications (HR 2.23, 1.30 to 3.83) as independent risk factors for compromised overall survival. Disease-free survival was comparable for patients who had ERP or conventional treatment (80.5 versus 84.6 per cent at 5 years respectively; P=0.272). Conclusion: Treatment within an ERP was associated with a lower morbidity risk that may have had a subtle impact on overall but not disease-specific survival.
引用
收藏
页码:922 / 929
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Minimally invasive versus open pelvic exenterations for rectal cancer: a comparative analysis of perioperative and 3-year oncological outcomes
    Kazi, M.
    Kumar, N. A. N.
    Rohila, J.
    Sukumar, V.
    Engineer, R.
    Ankathi, S.
    Desouza, A.
    Saklani, A.
    BJS OPEN, 2021, 5 (05):
  • [23] Clinical and Economic Impact of an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Open and Laparoscopic Rectal Surgery
    Garfinkle, Richard
    Boutros, Marylise
    Ghitulescu, Gabriela
    Vasilevsky, Carol-Ann
    Charlebois, Patrick
    Liberman, Sender
    Stein, Barry
    Feldman, Liane S.
    Lee, Lawrence
    JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2018, 28 (07): : 811 - 818
  • [24] The Impact of Enhanced Recovery on Long-Term Survival in Rectal Cancer
    Gomaa, Ibrahim
    Aboelmaaty, Sara
    Narasimhan, Avantika Lakshmi
    Bhatt, Himani
    Day, Courtney N.
    Harmsen, William S.
    Rumer, Kristen K.
    Perry, William R.
    Mathis, Kellie L.
    Larson, David W.
    ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 31 (05) : 3233 - 3241
  • [25] Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional care in colonic and rectal surgery
    Keane, Celia
    Savage, Stephanie
    McFarlane, Kim
    Seigne, Richard
    Robertson, Greg
    Eglinton, Tim
    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2012, 82 (10) : 697 - 703
  • [26] Enhanced recovery after surgery in minimally invasive gynecologic surgery surgical patients: one size fits all?
    Helou, Christine M.
    Chaves, Katherine F.
    Limperg, Tobias B.
    Anderson, Ted L.
    CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 32 (04) : 248 - 254
  • [27] Does Robot Overcome Obesity-related Limitations of Minimally Invasive Rectal Surgery for Cancer?
    Bayraktar, Onur
    Aytac, Erman
    Ozben, Volkan
    Atasoy, Deniz
    Bilgin, Ismail A.
    Bayraktar, Ilknur Erenler
    Baca, Bilgi
    Hamzaoglu, Ismail
    Karahasanoglu, Tayfun
    SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2018, 28 (01) : E8 - E11
  • [28] Evolution of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer: update from the national cancer database
    Gilmore, Brian
    Adam, Mohamed A.
    Rhodin, Kristen
    Turner, Megan C.
    Ezekian, Brian
    Mantyh, Christopher R.
    Migaly, John
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (01): : 275 - 290
  • [29] Cost impact analysis of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery program implementation in Alberta colon cancer patients
    Nelson, G.
    Kiyang, L. N.
    Chuck, A.
    Thanh, N. X.
    Gramlich, L. M.
    CURRENT ONCOLOGY, 2016, 23 (03) : E221 - E227
  • [30] Comparative oncological outcomes and survival following surgery for low rectal cancer - a single center experience
    Molnar, Calin
    Nicolescu, Cosmin
    Grigorescu, Bianca Liana
    Botoncea, Marian
    Butiurca, Vlad-Olimpiu
    Petrisor, Marius Daniel
    Gurzu, Simona
    ROMANIAN JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY AND EMBRYOLOGY, 2019, 60 (03) : 847 - 852