International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 1637–1644 | Cite as

Influence of size and complexity of the hospitals in an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection

  • Antonio Arroyo
  • José Manuel Ramirez
  • Daniel Callejo
  • Xavier Viñas
  • Sergio Maeso
  • Roger Cabezali
  • Elena Miranda
  • Spanish Working Group in Fast Track Surgery (GERM)
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to see whether the application of the enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection improves the results and, in turn, the influence of complexity and size of the hospitals in applying this and its results.

Methods

A multi-centric prospective study was controlled with a retrospective group. The prospective operation group included 300 patients with elective colorectal resection due to cancer. The centres were divided depending on size and complexity in large reference centres (group 1) and area and basic general hospitals (group 2). The retrospective control group included 201 patients with the same characteristics attended before the application of the programme. Completion of categories of the protocol, complications, perioperative mortality and stay in hospital were recorded.

Results

The introduction of the programme achieved a reduction in mortality (1 vs. 4 %), morbidity (26 vs. 39 %) and preoperative (<24 h vs. 3 days) and postoperative (7 vs. 11 days) stays (p < 0.01). There was greater fulfilment of protocol in group 2 with the mean number of items completed at 8.46 and 60 % completed compared with the hospitals in group 1 (7.70 completed items and 55 % completion). The size of the hospital had no relation to the rate of complications (21.3 vs. 26.5 %). In smaller sized and less complex hospitals, the average length of stay was 1.88 days less than in those of greater size (6.45 vs. 8.33 days).

Conclusion

Patients treated according to an enhanced recovery programme develop significantly fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay. The carrying out of protocol is greater in smaller and less complex hospitals and is directly related to a shorter stay in hospital.

Keywords

Enhanced recovery programme Colorectal 

References

  1. 1.
    Roig JV, Rodríguez-Carrillo R, García-Armengol J et al (2007) Multimodal rehabilitation in colorectal surgery. On resistance to change in surgery and the demands of society. Cir Esp 81:307–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78:606–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2002) Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcome. Am J Surg 183:630–641PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grol R, Grimshaw J (2003) From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 362:1225–1230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mitchell RE, Lee BT, Cookson MS et al (2009) Immediate surgical outcomes for radical prostatectomy in the University HealthSystem Consortium Clinical Data Base: the impact of hospital case volume, hospital size and geographical region on 48,000 patients. BJU Int 104:1442–1445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson AD, McNaught CE, MacFie J, Tring I, Barker P, Mitchell CJ (2003) Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization and standard perioperative surgical care. Br J Surg 90:1497–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delaney CP, Zutshi M, Senagore AJ, Remzi FH, Hammel J, Fazio VW (2003) Prospective, randomized, controlled trial between a pathway of controlled rehabilitation with early ambulation and diet and traditional postoperative care after laparotomy and intestinal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 46:851–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gatt M, Anderson AD, Reddy BS, Hayward-Sampson P, Tring IC, MacFie J (2005) Randomized clinical trial of multimodal optimization of surgical care in patients undergoing major colonic resection. Br J Surg 92:1354–1362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Khoo CK, Vickery CJ, Forsyth N, Vinall NS, Eyre-Brook IA (2007) A prospective randomized controlled trial of multimodal perioperative management protocol in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection for cancer. Ann Surg 245:867–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J et al (2007) A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 94:224–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stephen AE, Berger DL (2003) Shortened length of stay and hospital cost reduction with implementation of an accelerated clinical care pathway after elective colon resection. Surgery 133:277–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramirez JM, Blasco JA, Roig JV, Maeso S, Casal JE, Esteban F, Callejo D, Spanish working group on fast track surgery (2011) Enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery: a multicentre study. BMC Surg 11:9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Archibald LH, Ott MJ, Gale CM, Zhang J, Peters MS, Stroud GK (2011) Enhanced recovery after colon surgery in a community hospital system. Dis Colon Rectum 54(7):840–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kahokehr AA, Sammour T, Sahakian V, Zargar-Shoshtari K, Hill AG (2011) Influences on length of stay in an enhanced recovery programme after colonic surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:594–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Walter CJ, Watson JT, Pullan RD, Kenefick NJ, Mitchell SJ, Defriend DJ (2011) Enhanced recovery in major colorectal surgery: safety and efficacy in an unselected surgical population at a UK district general hospital. Surgeon 9:259–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJHM (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2. Art. No.: CD007635. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007635.pub2
  17. 17.
    Schwenk W, Gunther N, Wendling P et al (2008) “Fast-track” rehabilitation for elective colonic surgery in Germany—prospective observational data from a multi-centre quality assurance programme. Int J Colorectal Dis 23:93–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Braumann C, Guenther N, Wendling P, Fast-Track Colon II Quality Assurance Group et al (2009) Multimodal perioperative rehabilitation in elective conventional resection of colonic cancer: results from the German Multicenter Quality Assurance Program ‘Fast-Track Colon II’. Dig Surg 26:123–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwarzbach M, Hasenberg T, Linke M, Kienle P, Post S, Ronellenfitsch U (2011) Perioperative quality of care is modulated by process management with clinical pathways for fast-track surgery of the colon. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1567–1575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ahmed J, Lim M, Khan S, McNaught C, Macfie J (2010) Predictors of length of stay in patients having elective colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery protocol. Int J Surg 8:628–632PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nygren J, Soop M, Thorell A, Sree NK, Ljungqvist O (1999) Preoperative oral carbohydrates and postoperative insulin resistance. Clin Nutr 18:117–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheatham ML, Chapman WC, Key SP, Sawyers JL (1995) A meta-analysis of selective versus routine nasogastric decompression after elective laparotomy. Ann Surg 221:469–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merad F, Yahchouchi E, Hay JM, Fingerhut A, Laborde Y, Langlois-Zantain O (1998) Prophylactic abdominal drainage after elective colonic resection and suprapromontory anastomosis: a multicenter study controlled by randomization. French Associations for Surgical Research. Arch Surg 133:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Urbach DR, Kennedy ED, Cohen MM (1999) Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg 229:174–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Burke P, Mealy K, Gillen P, Joyce W, Traynor O, Hyland J (1994) Requirement for bowel preparation in colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 81:907–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daltroy LH, Morlino CI, Eaton HM, Poss R, Liang MH (1998) Preoperative education for total hip and knee replacement patients. Arthritis Care Res 11:469–478PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mowatt G, Houston G, Hernandez R, de Verteuil R, Fraser C, Cuthbertson B, Vale L (2009) Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients. Health Technol Assess 13:1–118Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Di Fronzo LA, Cymerman J, O’Connell TX (1999) Factors affecting early postoperative feeding following elective open colon resection. Arch Surg 134:941–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Arroyo
    • 1
  • José Manuel Ramirez
    • 2
  • Daniel Callejo
    • 3
  • Xavier Viñas
    • 4
  • Sergio Maeso
    • 3
  • Roger Cabezali
    • 5
  • Elena Miranda
    • 6
  • Spanish Working Group in Fast Track Surgery (GERM)
  1. 1.Coloproctology Unit, Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital of ElcheElcheSpain
  2. 2.Department of Colorectal SurgeryHospital Clínico Universitario Lozano BlesaZaragozaSpain
  3. 3.Health Technology AssessmentAgencia Laín EntralgoMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryHospital d’IgualadaIgualadaSpain
  5. 5.Department of SurgeryFundación Hospital CalahorraCalahorraSpain
  6. 6.Department of AnesthesiologyUniversity Hospital of ElcheElcheSpain

Personalised recommendations