Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An enhanced recovery programme reduces length of stay after rectal surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Enhanced Recovery Programmes (ERP) result in shorter hospital stay after colonic resection with no increase in complication, mortality or readmission rates. There is little data regarding the use of an ERP after rectal resection. We investigated the effect of introducing laparoscopic surgery and the ERP on outcomes in our unit.

Methods

From February 2007, elective patients undergoing rectal resection (laparoscopic or open) under the care of two colorectal surgeons were placed into the ERP. Length of stay (LOS) was recorded as total LOS, including readmissions. Comparison was made with a cohort of patients from 2004–2005 before the onset of laparoscopic surgery/ERP.

Results

Forty patients in the ERP group were compared with 42 patients from 2004–2005. Morbidity and mortality rates were similar. LOS was shorter in the ERP group cf. the retrospective group (median 7 days vs. 11 days; p = 0.002). Median LOS was shorter in both laparoscopic ERP patients (6 days cf. 11 days; p = 0.004) and open ERP patients (7 days cf. 11 days; p = 0.014) cf. the retrospective group.

Conclusion

Patients having rectal resections benefit from a multimodal approach to surgery with significant reductions in LOS, but no change in morbidity or mortality.

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

Access this article

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. Andersen J, Hjort-Jakobsen D, Christiansen PS, Kehlet H (2007) Readmission rates after a planned hospital stay of 2 versus 3 days in fast-track colonic surgery. Br J Surg 94(7):890–893

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gouvas N, Tan E, Windsor A, Xynos E, Tekkis PP (2009) Fast-track vs. standard care in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis update. Int J Colorectal Dis 24(10):1119–1131, Epub 2009 May 5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Spatz H, Zülke C, Beham A, Agha A, Bolder U, Krenz D, Fürst A, Lattermann R, Gröppner G, Hemmerich B, Piso P, Schlitt H (2006) “Fast track” for laparoscopic assisted rectum resection—what can be achieved? First results of a feasibility study. Zentralbl Chir 131(5):383–387, German

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwenk W, Neudecker J, Raue W, Haase O, Müller JM (2006) “Fast-track” rehabilitation after rectal cancer resection. Int J Colorectal Dis 21(6):547–553, Epub 2005 Nov 9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lindsetmo RO, Champagne B, Delaney CP (2009) Laparoscopic rectal resections and fast-track surgery: what can be expected? Am J Surg 197(3):408–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WC, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ, Haglind E, Påhlman L, Cuesta MA, Msika S, Morino M, Lacy AM, COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (COLOR) (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484, 7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H et al (2005) Short-term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lacy AM, Garcia-Valdecasas JC, Delgado S et al (2002) Laparoscopy-assisted colectomy versus open colectomy for treatment of non-metastatic colon cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 359:2224–2229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Aziz O, Constantinides V, Tekkis PP, Athanasiou T, Purkayastha S, Paraskeva P, Darzi AW, Heriot AG (2006) Laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 13(3):413–424, Epub 2006 Feb 1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yamamoto S, Fukunaga M, Miyajima N, Okuda J, Konishi F (2009) Japan Society of Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery. Impact of conversion on surgical outcomes after laparoscopic operation for rectal carcinoma: a retrospective study of 1, 073 patients. J Am Coll Surg 208(3):383–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Agha A, Fürst A, Iesalnieks I, Fichtner-Feigl S, Ghali N, Krenz D, Anthuber M, Jauch KW, Piso P, Schlitt HJ (2008) Conversion rate in 300 laparoscopic rectal resections and its influence on morbidity and oncological outcome. Int J Colorectal Dis 23(4):409–417

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, Nygren J, Lassen K, Andersen J, Kessels AG, Revhaug A, Kehlet H, Ljungqvist O, Fearon KC, von Meyenfeldt MF (2007) A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 94(2):224–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Graham Branagan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Branagan, G., Richardson, L., Shetty, A. et al. An enhanced recovery programme reduces length of stay after rectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 25, 1359–1362 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1032-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-010-1032-4

Keywords

Navigation