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

被引:23
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
[31]   Colorectal surgical outcomes following implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme in Cape Town [J].
Oodit, R. ;
Constant, D. A. ;
Maree, F. ;
Lorrimer, I ;
Dalwai, E. K. ;
Moodley, J. .
SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 59 (04) :157-163
[32]   National disparities in use of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer in older adults [J].
Simon, Hillary L. ;
de Paula, Thais Reif ;
Spigel, Zachary A. ;
Keller, Deborah S. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2022, 70 (01) :126-135
[33]   Maximizing Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery With Enhanced Recovery (ERAS) [J].
Salenger, Rawn ;
Ad, Niv ;
Grant, Michael C. ;
Bakaeen, Faisal ;
Balkhy, Husam H. ;
Mick, Stephanie L. ;
Nia, Peyman Sardari ;
Kempfert, Joerg ;
Bonaros, Nikolaos ;
Bapat, Vinayak ;
von Ballmoos, Moritz C. Wyler ;
Gerdisch, Marc ;
Johnston, Douglas R. ;
Engelman, Daniel T. .
INNOVATIONS-TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNIQUES IN CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR SURGERY, 2024, 19 (04) :371-379
[34]   Enhanced recovery program for minimally invasive and vaginal urogynecologic surgery [J].
Trowbridge, Elisa Rodriguez ;
Evans, Sarah L. ;
Sarosiek, Bethany M. ;
Modesitt, Susan C. ;
Redick, Dana L. ;
Tiouririne, Mohamed ;
Thiele, Robert H. ;
Hedrick, Traci L. ;
Hullfish, Kathie L. .
INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2019, 30 (02) :313-321
[35]   Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in minimally invasive gynecological surgery: a review of the literature [J].
Slavchev, Stanislav ;
Yordanov, Angel .
POLISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 95 (03) :34-44
[36]   Should minimally invasive approaches in rectal surgery be regarded as a key element of modern enhanced recovery perioperative care? [J].
Kocian, Petr ;
Pazdirek, Filip ;
Prikryl, Petr ;
Vymazal, Tomas ;
Hoch, Jiri ;
Whitley, Adam .
ACTA CHIRURGICA BELGICA, 2023, 123 (02) :163-169
[37]   Does conversion during minimally invasive rectal surgery for cancer have an impact on short-term and oncologic outcomes? Results of a retrospective cohort study [J].
Abdalla, Solafah ;
Lupinacci, Renato M. ;
Genova, Pietro ;
Oberlin, Olivier ;
Goasguen, Nicolas ;
Fabiani, Bettina ;
Valverde, Alain .
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2022, 36 (05) :3558-3566
[38]   Minimally Invasive Surgery for Rectal Adenocarcinoma Shows Promising Outcomes Compared to Laparotomy, a National Cancer Database Observational Analysis [J].
Skancke, Matthew ;
Schoolfield, Clint ;
Umapathi, Bindu ;
Amdur, Richard ;
Brody, Fredrick ;
Obias, Vincent .
JOURNAL OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC & ADVANCED SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2019, 29 (02) :218-224
[39]   Rectal tube drainage reduces major anastomotic leakage after minimally invasive rectal cancer surgery [J].
Yang, C. -S. ;
Choi, G. -S. ;
Park, J. S. ;
Park, S. Y. ;
Kim, H. J. ;
Choi, J. -I. ;
Han, K. S. .
COLORECTAL DISEASE, 2016, 18 (12) :O445-O452
[40]   Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathways Role and Outcomes in the Management of Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer [J].
Zainfeld, Daniel ;
Shah, Ankeet ;
Daneshmand, Siamak .
UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2018, 45 (02) :229-+