Lessons following implementation of a colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in a rural hospital setting.

INTRODUCTION: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have become increasingly popular in the management of patients undergoing colorectal resection. However, the validity of ERAS in rural hospital settings without intensive care facilities has not been primarily evaluated. This study aimed to assess an ERAS protocol in a rural surgical department based in Invercargill New Zealand. METHODS: Ten years of prospectively collected data were analysed retrospectively from an ERAS database of all patients undergoing open, converted, or laparoscopic colorectal resections. Data were collected between two time periods: before the implementation of an ERAS protocol, from January 2011 to December 2013; as well as after the implementation of an ERAS protocol, from January 2014 to December 2020. The primary outcome measures were hospital length of stay (LOS) and LOS in the critical care unit (LOS-CCU). Secondary outcomes were compliance with ERAS protocol, mortality, readmission, and reoperation rates. RESULTS: A total of 118 and 558 colorectal resections were performed in the pre-ERAS and ERAS groups respectively. A statistically significant reduction in hospital LOS was achieved from a median of 8 to 7 days (P = 0.038) when comparing pre-ERAS to ERAS groups respectively. Furthermore, a significant reduction in re-operation rates was observed (7.6% vs. 3% in the ERAS group, P = 0.033) which was seen without a rise in readmission rates (13.6% vs. 13.6% in the ERAS group). CONCLUSION: The implementation of ERAS in a rural surgical setting is feasible, and these initial findings suggest ERAS adds value in optimizing the colorectal patient's surgical journey.

Risk Factors for Adverse Outcome for Elderly Patients undergoing Curative Oncological Resection for Gastrointestinal Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of gastrointestinal cancer increases with age, with approximately 20% of these cases in people over 80 years of age. Due to pre-existing comorbidities, this onco-geriatric population often presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. METHODS: A systematic review of articles on PubMed was performed to determine the predictive ability of screening tools and their components regarding the occurrence of adverse outcomes in elderly onco-surgical patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. RESULTS: Surgical procedures in this patient cohort, particularly complex resections, may result in increased morbidity and mortality. The decision to treat an elderly patient with curative intent requires sound clinical judgment based on knowledge, consideration of objective parameters, and experience. These patients could potentially be optimized for surgery with the improvement of nutritional and overall performance status as well as with stabilizing comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Various geriatric assessment and screening tools have been developed to identify risk factors to assist the surgeon and the interdisciplinary team in treatment planning, including the Frailty Assessment Score, Timed Up and Go test, nutritional status, and Activities of Daily Living test. It is important to emphasize that transparent and open communication between the treating surgeon and the patient is crucial in that the patient fully understands the implications of the treatment plan.