Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 215–220 | Cite as

A prospective randomized pilot study evaluating an ERAS protocol versus a standard protocol for patients treated with radical cystectomy and urinary diversion for bladder cancer

  • Sebastian Karl Frees
  • Jonathan Aning
  • Peter Black
  • Werner Struss
  • Robert Bell
  • Claudia Chavez-Munoz
  • Martin Gleave
  • Alan I. SoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

There is a lack of evidence demonstrating the benefits of using enhanced recovery after surgery protocols (ERAS). Here, we propose to use a randomized clinical pilot study to demonstrate the benefits and feasibility of implementing ERAS versus standard protocols (SP) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary diversion.

Methods

27 consecutive patients undergoing RC were included in the study. 12 patients were prospectively randomized to follow an ERAS protocol and 15 patients followed an SP. Duration of hospital stay, time to first flatulence and bowel movement, complications and 30 day readmission rates, as well as subjective outcomes such as postoperative pain, nausea, bowel symptoms, quality of life (QoL), and patient experience and satisfaction were evaluated.

Results

Patients following ERAS had a significantly shorter: hospital stay, time to flatulence, and time to bowel movement than patients following SP. No major complications were reported. Only one patient in the ERAS group was readmitted for bowel obstruction, and no patients were readmitted in the SP group. Patients under ERAS reported lower postoperative pain scores. Mean Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Bladder Cancer score decreased and mean Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, bowel symptom score increased in the SP group at the time of discharge compared to prior to surgery.

Conclusions

This study shows the feasibility of a randomized pilot study assessing ERAS compared to SP post RC. ERAS protocol provided evidence of significant benefits over SP with similar complication rates. This study suggests the need for a clinical trial of assessing ERAS protocols after RC.

Keywords

ERAS Cystectomy Urinary diversion Outcomes Bladder cancer 

Notes

Authors’ contribution

SKF: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. JA: protocol/project development, data collection, or management. PB, WS, CC-M, and MG: manuscript writing/editing. RB: data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. AIS: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human rights and informed consent

Written consent was acquired from all participants of the study. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

345_2017_2109_MOESM1_ESM.eps (220 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (EPS 219 kb) Figure S1: Study design
345_2017_2109_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (357 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 356 kb) Figure S2A: Mean visual pain score of patients following ERAS protocol in comparison with patients following standard protocol. Figure S2B: Number of patients following ERAS protocol experiencing nausea in comparison with patients following standard protocol
345_2017_2109_MOESM3_ESM.docx (84 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 84 kb) Table S1: Charlson Comorbidity Index for each patients included in the trial

References

  1. 1.
    Witjes JA et al (2016) Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 71:462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stein JP, Skinner DG (2006) Radical cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of a standard procedure. World J Urol 24(3):296–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nielsen ME et al (2014) Association of hospital volume with conditional 90-day mortality after cystectomy: an analysis of the National Cancer Data Base. BJU Int 114(1):46–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hautmann RE, de Petriconi RC, Volkmer BG (2010) Lessons learned from 1,000 neobladders: the 90-day complication rate. J Urol 184(3):990–994 (quiz 1235) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hautmann RE et al (2013) ICUD-EAU international consultation on bladder cancer 2012: urinary diversion. Eur Urol 63(1):67–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78(5):606–617CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basse L et al (2002) Accelerated postoperative recovery programme after colonic resection improves physical performance, pulmonary function and body composition. Br J Surg 89(4):446–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kehlet H, Dahl JB (2003) Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery. Lancet 362(9399):1921–1928CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geltzeiler CB et al (2014) Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. JAMA Surg 149(9):955–961CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bredart A et al (2005) An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer 41(14):2120–2131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cella DF et al (1993) The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 11(3):570–579CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wei JT et al (2000) Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 56(6):899–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charlson ME et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Varadhan KK et al (2010) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing major elective open colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Nutr 29(4):434–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cerantola Y et al (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS(R)) society recommendations. Clin Nutr 32(6):879–887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukhtar S et al (2013) Challenging boundaries: an enhanced recovery programme for radical cystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(3):200–206CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Collins JW et al (2016) Introducing an enhanced recovery programme to an established totally intracorporeal robot-assisted radical cystectomy service. Scand J Urol 50(1):39–46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cerruto MA et al (2014) Fast track surgery to reduce short-term complications following radical cystectomy and intestinal urinary diversion with Vescica Ileale Padovana neobladder: proposal for a tailored enhanced recovery protocol and preliminary report from a pilot study. Urol Int 92(1):41–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koupparis A et al (2015) Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal urinary diversion: impact on an established enhanced recovery protocol. BJU Int 116(6):924–931CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saar M et al (2013) Fast-track rehabilitation after robot-assisted laparoscopic cystectomy accelerates postoperative recovery. BJU Int 112(2):E99–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karl A et al (2014) A new concept for early recovery after surgery for patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: results of a prospective randomized study. J Urol 191(2):335–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cui Y et al (2016) Effect of alvimopan on accelerates gastrointestinal recovery after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 25:1–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clyne M (2014) Bladder cancer: faster recovery after radical cystectomy with alvimopan. Nat Rev Urol 11(4):186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee CT et al (2014) Alvimopan accelerates gastrointestinal recovery after radical cystectomy: a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 66(2):265–272CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nieuwenhuijzen JA et al (2008) Urinary diversions after cystectomy: the association of clinical factors, complications and functional results of four different diversions. Eur Urol 53(4):834–842 (discussion 842–4) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tyson MD, Chang SS (2016) Enhanced recovery pathways versus standard care after cystectomy: a meta-analysis of the effect on perioperative outcomes. Eur Urol 70:995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Guan X et al (2014) A comparative study of fast-track versus conventional surgery in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical cystectomy and ileal conduit diversion: Chinese experience. Sci Rep 4:6820CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Daneshmand S et al (2014) Enhanced recovery protocol after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 192(1):50–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xu W et al (2015) Postoperative pain management after radical cystectomy: comparing traditional versus enhanced recovery protocol pathway. J Urol 194(5):1209–1213CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Smith J et al (2014) Evolution of the Southampton enhanced recovery programme for radical cystectomy and the aggregation of marginal gains. BJU Int 114(3):375–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Persson B et al (2015) Initial experiences with the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in open radical cystectomy. Scand J Urol 49(4):302–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urologic SciencesVancouver Prostate Centre, University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Dept. of Urologic SciencesUBC, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care CentreVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations