‘Fast-track’ multimodal rehabilitation program improves outcome after laparoscopic sigmoidectomy: a controlled prospective evaluation

  • W. Raue
  • O. Haase
  • T. Junghans
  • M. Scharfenberg
  • J. M. Müller
  • W. SchwenkEmail author
Original article



Laparoscopic colorectal resection improves patient outcome by reducing pain, postoperative pulmonary dysfunction, gastrointestinal paralysis, and fatigue. A multimodal rehabilitation program (“fast-track”) with epidural analgesia, early oral feeding, and enforced mobilization may further improve the excellent results of laparoscopic colorectal resection, enabling early ambulation of these patients.


Fifty two consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic sigmoidectomy with standardized regular perioperative treatment (standard) or multimodal rehabilitation program (“fast-track”). Outcome measures included pulmonary function, duration of postoperative ileus, pain perception, fatigue, morbidity, and mortality.


Twenty nine standard-care patients (19 men and 10 women) and 23 fast-track patients (15 men and eight women) were evaluated. Demographic and operative data were similar for the two groups. On the 1st postoperative day, pulmonary function was improved (p = 0.01) in fast-track patients. Oral feeding was achieved earlier (p < 0.01) and defecation occurred earlier (p < 0.01) in the fast-track group. Visual analogue scale scores for pain were similar for the two groups (p > 0.05), but fatigue was increased in the standard-care group on the 1st (p = 0.06) and 2nd (p < 0.05) postoperative days. Morbidity was not different for the two groups. Fast-track patients were discharged on day 4 (range, 3–6) and standard-care patients on day 7 (range, 4–14) (p < 0.001).


Multimodal rehabiliation can improve further on the excellent results of laparoscopic sigmoidectomy and decrease the postoperative hospital stay.


Laparoscopic sigmoidectomy Perioperative treatment Pulmonary function Morbidity Hospital stay 


  1. 1.
    American Thoracic Society1987Standardization of spirometry—1987 update. Am Rev Respir Dis13612851298Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Altman, DG 1991Practical statistics for medical research; 1st editionChapman & HallLondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bardram, L, Funch-Jensen, P, Jensen, P, Crawford, ME, Kehlet, H 1995Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural analgesia, and early oral nutrition and mobilisationLancet345763764CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardram, L, Funch Jensen, P, Kehlet, H 2000Rapid rehabilitation in elderly patients after laparoscopic colonic resectionBr J Surg8715401545CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen, T, Bendix, T, Kehlet, H 1982Fatigue and cardiorespiratory function following abdominal surgeryBr J Surg69417419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Christensen, T, Kehlet, H 1993Postoperative fatigueWorld J Surg17220225PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kehlet, H 2000Randomized controlled trial to examine the influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative ileus after laparoscopic sigmoid resectionBr J Surg87379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kehlet, H, Wilmore, DW 2000Multimodal strategies to improve surgical outcomeAm J Surg183630641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lacy, AM, Garcia-Valdecasas, JC, Piqué, JM 1995Short-term outcome analysis of a randomized study comparing laparoscopic versus open colectomy for colon cancerSurg Endosc911011105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marusch, F, Gastinger, I, Schneider, C, Scheidbach, H, Konradt, J, Bru, HP, Kohler, L, Barlehner, E, Kockerling, F 2001Experience as a factor influencing the indications for laparoscopic colorectal surgery and the resultsSurg Endosc15116120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milsom, JW, Böhm, B 1996Laparoscopic colorectal surgerySpringerNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neudecker, J, Schwenk, W, Junghans, T, Pietsch, S, Bohm, B, Muller, JM 1999Randomized controlled trial to examine the influence of thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative ileus after laparoscopic sigmoid resectionBr J Surg8612921295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwenk, W, Böhm, B, Müller, JM 1998Laparoskopische oder konventionelle kolorektale Resektionen—beeinflusst die Operationstechnik die LebensqualitätZentralbl Chir123483490Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schwenk, W, Böhm, B, Müller, JM 1998Postoperative pain and fatigue after laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resections: a prospective randomised trialSurgEndosc1211311136Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwenk, W, Bohm, B, Witt, C, Junghans, T, Grundel, K, Muller, JM 1999Pulmonary function following laparoscopic or conventional colorectal resection: a randomized controlled evaluationArch Surg134612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Senagore, AJ, Duepree, HJ, Delaney, CP, Brady, KM, Fazio, VW 2003Results of a standardized technique and postoperative care plan for laparoscopic sigmoid colectomyDis Colon Rectum46503509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stage, JG, Schulze, S, Moller, P, Overgaard, H, Andersen, M, Rebsdorf-Pedersen, VB, Nielsen, HJ 1997Prospective randomized study of laparoscopic versus open colonic resection for adenocarcinomaBr J Surg84391396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weeks, JC, Nelson, H, Gelber, S, Sargent, D, Schroeder, G 2002Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trialJAMA287321328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Raue
    • 1
  • O. Haase
    • 1
  • T. Junghans
    • 1
  • M. Scharfenberg
    • 1
  • J. M. Müller
    • 1
  • W. Schwenk
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of General, Visceral, Vascular, and Thoracic Surgery, Medical FacultyHumboldt University, Charité, Campus MitteBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations