Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Witjes JA et al (2016) Updated 2016 EAU guidelines on muscle-invasive and metastatic bladder cancer. Eur Urol 71:462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Stein JP, Skinner DG (2006) Radical cystectomy for invasive bladder cancer: long-term results of a standard procedure. World J Urol 24(3):296–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):46–55

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hautmann RE et al (2013) ICUD-EAU international consultation on bladder cancer 2012: urinary diversion. Eur Urol 63(1):67–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kehlet H (1997) Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br J Anaesth 78(5):606–617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):446–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kehlet H, Dahl JB (2003) Anaesthesia, surgery, and challenges in postoperative recovery. Lancet 362(9399):1921–1928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Geltzeiler CB et al (2014) Prospective study of colorectal enhanced recovery after surgery in a community hospital. JAMA Surg 149(9):955–961

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):2120–2131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):570–579

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):899–905

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Charlson ME et al (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40(5):373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):434–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):879–887

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mukhtar S et al (2013) Challenging boundaries: an enhanced recovery programme for radical cystectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 95(3):200–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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):39–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):41–49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):924–931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saar M et al (2013) Fast-track rehabilitation after robot-assisted laparoscopic cystectomy accelerates postoperative recovery. BJU Int 112(2):E99–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):335–340

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 25:1–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Clyne M (2014) Bladder cancer: faster recovery after radical cystectomy with alvimopan. Nat Rev Urol 11(4):186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee CT et al (2014) Alvimopan accelerates gastrointestinal recovery after radical cystectomy: a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur Urol 66(2):265–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 70:995

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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 4:6820

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Daneshmand S et al (2014) Enhanced recovery protocol after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer. J Urol 192(1):50–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Xu W et al (2015) Postoperative pain management after radical cystectomy: comparing traditional versus enhanced recovery protocol pathway. J Urol 194(5):1209–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):375–383

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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):302–307

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urologic Sciences, Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

    Sebastian Karl Frees, Jonathan Aning, Peter Black, Werner Struss, Robert Bell, Claudia Chavez-Munoz, Martin Gleave & Alan I. So

  2. Dept. of Urologic Sciences, UBC, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre, 2775 Laurel St. 6th floor, Vancouver, BC, V5Z1M9, Canada

    Alan I. So

Authors
  1. Sebastian Karl Frees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jonathan Aning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Werner Struss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claudia Chavez-Munoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Gleave
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alan I. So
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alan I. So.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (EPS 219 kb) Figure S1: Study design

345_2017_2109_MOESM2_ESM.pdf

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

Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 84 kb) Table S1: Charlson Comorbidity Index for each patients included in the trial

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frees, S.K., Aning, J., Black, P. et al. 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. World J Urol 36, 215–220 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2109-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2109-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation