Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhanced recovery and accelerated discharge after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: safety, patient feedback, and cost implications

  • Original Article - Pituitaries
  • Published:
Acta Neurochirurgica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a constant motivation. There is growing evidence that an endoscopic (rather than microscopic) transsphenoidal approach to pituitary tumours can play a role, facilitating faster recovery and a commensurate reduction in length of stay (LOS). Reducing LOS is beneficial to both patients and healthcare systems. We sought to assess the safety, patient feedback, and resource implications of adopting an enhanced recovery and accelerated discharge policy for elective pituitary surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively assessed two consecutive cohorts of patients undergoing elective surgery for pituitary adenoma in a single UK centre between July 2016 and November 2019. The pre-ERAS cohort included 52 sequential patients operated prior to protocol change. The ERAS cohort included 55 sequential patients operated after a protocol change. Patient demographic data, tumour characteristics, intra- and post-operative CSF leak, the rate and cause of readmission (within 30 days), and the mean and median LOS were recorded. Patient feedback was collected from a subset of patients (n = 23) in the ERAS group.

Results

The two cohorts were well-matched with respect to their demographic, pathological, and operative characteristics. The rates of readmission within 30 days of discharge were similar between the two groups (8% pre-ERAS cohort, 9% ERAS cohort, p = 0.75). In the pre-ERAS cohort, the mean LOS was 4.5 days and median LOS was 3 days. This compares with significant reduction in LOS for the ERAS group: mean of 1.7 days and median of 1 day (p < 0.05). Thirty-nine of 55 patients in the ERAS group were discharged on post-operative day 1. Patient feedback was very positive in the ERAS group (mean patient satisfaction score of 9.7/10 using a Likert scale).

Conclusions

An enhanced recovery protocol after elective endoscopic pituitary surgery is safe, reduces length of stay, and is associated with high patient satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Koupparis A, Dunn J, Gillatt D et al (2010) Improvement of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystecomy. British Journal of Medical and Surgical Urology 3:237–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J et al (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Arch Surg 144:961–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Podore PC, Throop EB (1999) Infrarenal aortic surgery with a 3-day hospital stay: a report on success with a clinical pathway. J Vasc Surg 29:787–792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tovar EA, Roethe RA, Weissig MD et al (1998) One-day admission for lung lobectomy: an incidental result of a clinical pathway. Ann Thorac Surg 65:803–806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Higgins TS, Courtemanche C, Karakla D et al (2008) Analysis of transnasal endoscopic versus transseptal microscopic approach for excision of pituitary tumors. Am J Rhinol 22(6):649–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Barker FG II, Klibanski A, Swearingen B (2003) Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors in the United States, 1996–2000: mortality, morbidity, and the effects of hospital and surgeon volume. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88(10):4709–4719

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cappabianca P, Alfieri A, Colao A et al (1999) Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach: an additional reason in support of surgery in the management of pituitary lesions. Skull Base Surg 9(2):109–117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Casler JD (2005) Doolittle AM, Mair EA. Endoscopic surgery of the anterior skull base. Laryngoscope 115(1):16–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Neal JG, Patel SJ, Kulbersh JS et al (2007) Comparison of techniques for transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. Am J Rhinol 21(2):203–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rotenberg B, Tam S, Ryu WH et al (2010) Microscopic versus endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review. Laryngoscope 120(7):1292–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarkiss CA, Lee J, Papin JA et al (2015) Pilot study on early postoperative discharge in pituitary adenoma patients: effect of socioeconomic factors and benefit of specialized pituitary centers. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 76(4):323–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas JG, Gadgil N, Samson SL et al (2014) Prospective trial of a short hospital stay protocol after endoscopic endonasal pituitary adenoma surgery. World Neurosurg 81(3–4):576–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Recommendations for low volume pituitary surgery. Society of British Neurological Surgery Policies and Publications. https://www.sbns.org.uk/index.php/download_file/view/1448/87/ Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  15. The Leeds Pituitary Centre Handbook, available on the Leeds Teaching Hospitals website. https://www.leedsth.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/patient-and-visitor-information/patient-information-leaflets/ Accessed 15 Jan 2020

  16. Smith I, Krankes P, Murat I et al (2011) Perioperative fasting in adults and children: guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology. Eur J Anaesthesiol 28(8):556–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schraag S, Pradelli L, Alsaleh AJO et al (2018) Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Anesthiol 18(1):162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kranke P, Jokinen J, Pace NL, et al. (2015) Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 16;(7)

  19. Cornesse D, Senard M, Hans GA et al (2010) Comparison between two intraoperative intravenous loading doses of paracetamol on pain after minor hand surgery: two grams versus one gram. Acta Chir Belg 110(5):529–532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Milton Raff M, Belbachir A, El-Tallawy S et al (2018) Intravenous oxycodone versus other intravenous strong opioids for acute postoperative pain control: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Pain and Therapy 1:19–39

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS et al (2014) Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 118(1):85–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Spitzer M, Wildenhain J, Rappsilber J et al (2014) BoxPlotR: a web tool for generation of box plots. Nat Methods 11:121–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alzhrani G, Sivakumar W, Park MS, Taussky P, Couldwell WT (2018) Delayed complications after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. World Neurosurg 109:233–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zimmer LA, Andaluz N (2018) Incidence of epistaxis after endoscopic pituitary surgery: proposed treatment algorithm. Ear Nose Throat J 97(3):E44–E48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Zwagerman NT, Wang EW, Shin SS et al (2019) Does lumbar drainage reduce postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak after endoscopic endonasal skull base surgery? A prospective, randomized controlled trial. Neurosurg 131:1172–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nix P, Tyagi A, Phillips N (2015) Evolution of a UK endoscopic anterior skull base pituitary service-the first 123 patients. Clin Otolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.12514

  27. Strickland BA, Lucas J, Harris B et al (2018) Identification and repair of intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid leaks in endonasal transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: surgical experience in a series of 1002 patients. J Neurosurg 129(2):425–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

    Mark A. Hughes, Elizabeth Culpin, Roisin Darley, Alex Smedley, Atul Tyagi, Asim Sheikh & Nick Phillips

  2. Department of Anaesthesia, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

    Justin McKinlay

  3. Department of Ear, Nose and Throat Surgery, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK

    Paul Nix

Authors
  1. Mark A. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elizabeth Culpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roisin Darley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin McKinlay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Nix
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alex Smedley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Atul Tyagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Asim Sheikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nick Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark A. Hughes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, formal consent is not required. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pituitaries

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hughes, M.A., Culpin, E., Darley, R. et al. Enhanced recovery and accelerated discharge after endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: safety, patient feedback, and cost implications. Acta Neurochir 162, 1281–1286 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04282-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-020-04282-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation