Robotic colorectal resection in combination with a multimodal enhanced recovery program - results of the first 100 cases.

PURPOSE: In Germany, colorectal robot-assisted surgery (RAS) has found its way and is currently used as primary technique in colorectal resections at our clinic. We investigated whether RAS can be extensively combined with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) in a large prospective patient group. METHODS: Using the DaVinci Xi surgical robot, all colorectal RAS from 09/2020 to 01/2022 were incorporated into our ERAS® program. Perioperative data were prospectively recorded using a data documentation system. The extent of resection, duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, conversion rate, and postoperative short-term results were analyzed. We documented the postoperative duration of Intermediate Care Unit (IMC) stay and major and minor complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, anastomotic leak rate, reoperation rate, hospital-stay length, and ERAS® guideline adherence. RESULTS: One hundred patients (65 colon and 35 rectal resections) were included (median age: 69 years). The median durations of surgery were 167 min (colon resection) and 246 min (rectal resection). Postoperatively, four patients were IMC-treated (median stay: 1 day). In 92.5% of the colon and 88.6% of the rectum resections, no or minor complications occurred postoperatively. The anastomotic leak rate was 3.1% in colon and 5.7% in rectal resection. The reoperation rate was 7.7% (colon resection) and 11.4% (rectal resection). The hospital stay length was 5 days (colon resection) and 6.5 days (rectal resection). The ERAS® guideline adherence rate was 88% (colon resection) and 82.6% (rectal resection). CONCLUSION: Patient perioperative therapy per the multimodal ERAS® concept is possible without any problems in colorectal RAS, leading to low morbidity and short hospital stays.

Laparoscopic rectal resection without epidural catheters-does it work?

PURPOSE: Placement of an epidural catheter (EC) in colorectal resections is still recommended as a valid measure to achieve a low level of pain. However, EC is associated with increased invasiveness and with an increased risk of bladder emptying disorders and a decrease in blood pressure, which all relate to delayed mobilization. Preliminary data shows that EC placement may not be necessary for laparoscopic colon resections. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate how the omission of EC placement influences short-term postoperative outcomes in laparoscopic rectal resections. METHODS: All laparoscopic rectal resections occurring between 2013 and 2020 were prospectively examined. Resections from January 2013 to February 2018 (group A) were compared with resections from March 2018 to December 2020 (group B; after the internal change of the perioperative pain regime). In addition to EC placement, the other target parameters of our study were urinary catheter placement during the inpatient stay, postoperative pain > 3 days on a numerical rating scale (NRS), mobilization in the first 5 postoperative days, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo, intermediate care unit stay (IMC stay) in days, and hospital length of stay in days. RESULTS: In the entire study period, 221 laparoscopic rectal resections were performed: 122 in group A and 99 resections in group B. The frequency of EC placement and urinary catheter placement, postoperative IMC stay, and hospital length of stay was significantly lower in group B (p < 0.05). The postoperative mobilization of patients in group B was possible more quickly. There were no differences in the level of pain, time until the first postoperative bowel movement, and postoperative complications according to Clavien-Dindo. CONCLUSION: Omission of EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections led to faster mobilization, a shorter IMC stay, and a shorter hospital stay without increasing the pain level. Postoperative complications did not change when an EC was not placed. Therefore, routine EC placement in laparoscopic rectal resections is unnecessary.

[First 18 months as certified ERAS® center for colorectal cancer : Lessons learned and results of the first 261 patients]. / Achtzehn Monate als zertifiziertes ERAS®-Zentrum für kolorektale Resektionen : "Lessons learned" und Ergebnisse der ersten 261 Patienten.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) describes a multimodal, interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment concept that optimizes the postoperative convalescence of the patient through the use of evidence-based measures. GOAL OF THE WORK: The aim of this article is to present the experiences of our center certified by the ERAS® Society for colorectal resections 18 months after successful implementation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Since the beginning of the certification 261 patients have been treated in our clinic according to the specifications of the ERAS® concept. As a comparison group the last 50 patients prior to implementation were evaluated in terms of compliance with ERAS® requirements, length of hospital stay and readmission rate, the need for care in an intensive or intermediate care ward, the number of necessary reoperations and the complication rate. RESULTS: Compliance increased from 39.3% preERAS® to 81.1% after ERAS® implementation (p < 0.001). At the same time the length of stay of ERAS® patients was reduced from 7 days to 5 days (p = 0.001). While the rate of surgical complications was the same between the two groups (p = 0.236), nonsurgical complications occurred significantly less frequently in the ERAS® cohort (p = 0.018). DISCUSSION: There are well-known stumbling blocks in implementing and maintaining an ERAS® concept; however, it is worthwhile for the patient to circumnavigate this and establish ERAS® as the standard treatment path.

Does heart rate variability predict hypotension and bradycardia after induction of general anaesthesia in high risk cardiovascular patients?

This study investigated whether heart rate variability predicts haemodynamic events in high risk patients, defined as Revised Cardiac Risk Index score = 3, scheduled for general anaesthesia. Fifty patients underwent baseline measurement of heart rate variability and were then assigned according to haemodynamic events (hypotension or bradycardia) after standardised induction of anaesthesia into 'stable' (n = 39) and 'unstable' patients (n = 11). Unstable patients had significantly lower baseline total power. Total power < 500 ms2 x Hz(-1) was associated with high sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of hypotension or bradycardia. Prospectively, 29 patients with total power < 500 ms2 x Hz(-1) were compared with 21 patients with total power > 500 ms2 x Hz(-1). Differences were found in the lowest mean arterial pressure and heart rate after induction of anaesthesia. We conclude that the pre-operative total power of heart rate variability in high risk patients may indicate the occurrence of haemodynamic events with high sensitivity and specificity. Heart rate variability may be a suitable tool to identify patients at high risk of a haemodynamic event and may be used to indicate need for intensive monitoring and, perhaps, prophylactic treatment.