Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Unselected rectal cancer patients undergoing low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy can be safely managed within an Enhanced Recovery Programme

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

An increasing body of evidence supports the application of the Enhanced Recovery Programme (ERP) to colorectal surgery. Some institutions have reported an association between ERP failure and low rectal cancer surgery. We present the results that we achieved by applying the ERP to low anterior resections for tumours within 6 cm of the anal verge, with a view to determining the validity and safety of applying the ERP to this patient group.

Methods

A multimodal ERP, based on Kehlet’s model, was introduced in January 2007 and applied to all patients undergoing elective resections. Patients having a low anterior resection for a rectal cancer less than 6 cm from the anal verge between January 2007 and August 2011 were retrospectively identified from a prospectively maintained database. Individual patient record review was performed.

Results

Twenty consecutive patients (12 males) were identified. Median total postoperative length of stay (LOS), including readmission, was 8 days (mean 10.7, range 4–47 days), with 2 readmissions and no deaths. When surgery was uncomplicated, median LOS was 5 days (mean 5.8, range 4–12 days, n = 11), whereas LOS increased when a complication occurred, with a median of 12 days (mean 16.6, range 8–47 days, n = 9) [p = 0.001].

Conclusions

The ERP can safely be applied to this high-risk patient group. When no complication occurs, LOS of 5 days can be expected. When a complication is encountered, LOS is prolonged (12 days), but this is acceptable compared with the current national median LOS in the United Kingdom of 11 days for all rectal cancer surgery (at any height) with a stoma.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ (2011) Fast track versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD007635

  2. Hignett S, Parmar CD, Lewis W, Makin CA, Walsh CJ (2010) Ileostomy formation does not prolong hospital length of stay after open anterior resection when performed within an enhanced recovery programme. Colorectal Dis 13:1180–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Teeuwen PH, Bleichrodt RP, de Jong PJ, van Goor H, Bremers AJ (2011) Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional perioperative care in rectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:833–839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Aarts MA, Okrainec A, Glicksman A, Pearsall E, Charles Victor J, McLeod RS (2012) Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total length of stay. Surg Endosc 26:442–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lovely JK, Maxson PM, Jacob AK et al (2012) Case-matched series of enhanced versus standard recovery pathway in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 99:120–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Branagan G, Richardson L, Shetty A, Chave HS (2010) An enhanced recovery programme reduces length of stay after rectal surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 25:1359–1362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hendry PO, Hausel J, Nygren J, The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Study Group et al (2009) Determinants of outcome after colorectal resection within an enhanced recovery programme. Br J Surg 96:197–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen CC, Huang IP, Liu MC, Jian JJ, Cheng SH (2011) Is it appropriate to apply the enhanced recovery program to patients undergoing laparoscopic rectal surgery? Surg Endosc 25:1477–1483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Low Rectal Cancer National Development Programme website, http://www.lorec.nhs.uk/. Accessed 16 Sep 2011

  10. Rahbari NN, Weitz J, Hohenberger W et al (2010) Definition and grading of anastomotic leakage following anterior resection of the rectum: a proposal by the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer. Surgery 147:339–351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sottmeier S, Harling H, Wille-Jørgensen P, Balleby L, Kehlet H (2011) Pathogenesis of morbidity after fast-track laparoscopic colonic cancer surgery. Colorectal Dis 13:500–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tan WS, Tang CL, Shi L, Eu KW (2009) Meta-analysis of defunctioning stomas in low anterior resection for rectal cancer. Br J Surg 96:462–472

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Glancy DG, Chaudhray BN, Greenslade GL, Dixon AR (2012) Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision can be performed on a non-selective basis in patients with rectal cancer with excellent medium-term results. Colorectal Dis 14:453–457

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Moran BJ (2010) Predicting the risk and diminishing the consequences of anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Acta Chir Iugosl 57:47–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Feng C, Yao RQ, Huang FZ, Nie WP, Liu XY (2011) Risk factors for anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for rectal cancer. Nan Fant Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 31:908–910

    Google Scholar 

  16. National Bowel Cancer Audit Report (2010) http://www.ic.nhs.uk/bowelreports. Accessed 13 Sep 2011

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. S. Chave.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Byrne, B.E., Branagan, G. & Chave, H.S. Unselected rectal cancer patients undergoing low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy can be safely managed within an Enhanced Recovery Programme. Tech Coloproctol 17, 73–78 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0886-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-012-0886-6

Keywords

Navigation