Abstract
Introduction
Guidelines recommend incorporation of more than 20 perioperative interventions within an enhanced recovery program (ERP). However, the impact of overall adherence to the pathway and the relative contribution of each intervention are unclear. The aim of this study was to estimate the extent to which adherence to ERP elements is associated with outcomes and identify key ERP elements predicting successful recovery following bowel resection.
Methods
Prospectively collected data entered in a registry specifically designed for ERPs were reviewed. Patients undergoing elective bowel resection between 2012 and 2014 were treated within an ERP comprising 23 care elements. Primary outcome was successful recovery defined as the absence of complications, discharge by postoperative day 4 and no readmission. Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day morbidity, and severity (Comprehensive complication index, CCI, 0–100). Regression analyses were adjusted for potential confounders.
Results
A total of 347 patients were included in the study. Median primary LOS was 4 days (IQR 3–7). Patients were adherent to median 18 (IQR 16–20) elements. A total of 156 (45 %) patients had successful recovery. Morbidity occurred in 175 (50 %) patients with median CCI 8.6 (IQR 0–22.6). There was a positive association between adherence and successful recovery (OR 1.39 for every additional element, p < 0.001), LOS (11 % reduction for every additional element, p < 0.001), 30-day postoperative morbidity (OR 0.78, p < 0.001), and the CCI (17 % reduction, p < 0.001). Laparoscopy (OR 4.32, p < 0.001), early mobilization out of bed (OR 2.25, p = 0.021), and early termination of IV fluid infusion (OR 2.00, p = 0.013) significantly predicted successful recovery. These factors were also associated with reduced morbidity and complication severity.
Conclusions
Increased adherence to ERP interventions was associated with successful early recovery and a reduction in postoperative morbidity and complication severity. In an established ERP where overall adherence was high, laparoscopic approach, perioperative fluid management, and patient mobilization remain key elements associated with improved outcomes.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) incorporate multiple evidence-based interventions aiming to reduce the metabolic stress occurring during surgery, but also to organize care for patients undergoing a particular procedure by limiting unwanted variability in care processes [1]. Guidelines from the ERAS® society recommend the implementation of more than 20 perioperative care components for patients undergoing colorectal surgery [2]. However, compared to traditional care, ERPs have been shown to consistently improve postoperative outcomes regardless of the number, the type, the combination, or the level of evidence of the elements used [3]. Furthermore, each intervention adds complexity to the pathway and may require additional resources.
Monitoring care process to evaluate the quality of perioperative care may be especially relevant for procedures in which serious postoperative events such as reoperation or mortality are rare, as in case for colectomy [4]. In the context of enhanced recovery, the impact of overall adherence to care processes, namely ERP elements, and the relative contribution of each intervention to patient recovery are still questioned. To date, there is preliminary evidence that adherence to care processes is associated with improved patient recovery [5–9]. However, existing reports mainly dealt with early phases of protocol implementation in which overall adherence was low [7], or failed to take into account important confounding factors such as postoperative morbidity [9]. The McGill University Health Centre first implemented an ERP for colorectal patients in 2006 [10] and is currently running a well-established care pathway incorporating a large number of perioperative interventions, which reduces hospital stay and societal costs compared to usual care [11].
The objective of this study was to estimate, in patients enrolled in an established ERP, to what extent the degree of adherence with ERP interventions impacts on recovery after surgery, and to identify which elements are associated with postoperative outcomes.
Methods
This study was designed and reported following the STROBE guidelines for the conducting and reporting of observational cohort studies [12].
Study design
This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database including patients undergoing elective bowel surgery treated within an ERP in a university-affiliated tertiary teaching institution. Study approval was granted by the institutional review board (14-170-SDR). Patients who underwent scheduled bowel resection between September 2012 and December 2014 were identified from the institutional operating room database and cross-checked with a prospective database specifically designed to capture adherence to ERP care processes and postoperative outcomes. Patients not followed prospectively by a clinical auditor were excluded from the study.
Enhanced recovery program
In 2006, an ERP for selected patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection was first introduced in our institution [10]. In August 2010, this ERP was modified to include a total of 23 perioperative care components (Table 1) and was extended to all patients undergoing elective bowel resection [13].
Patients were admitted to hospital on the day of surgery. All cases were performed by one of three fellowship-trained colorectal surgeons (BS, ASL, PC). Discharge was planned for postoperative day (POD) 3 or earlier if patients achieved the following discharge criteria: tolerance of oral intake, recovery of gastrointestinal function (i.e., passage of flatus), adequate pain control with oral analgesia, ability to mobilize and self-care, and no evidence of complication or untreated medical problems. Final decision on discharge remained at the individual surgeon’s discretion.
Data collection
From September 2012 a dedicated, trained clinical auditor prospectively collected patient data up until 30 days after surgery. Data were entered into the ERAS Interactive Audit System (http://www.erassociety.org, ENCARE, Kista, Sweden), an international web-based registry that was specifically designed for interactive audit and research. Each patient data field contained approximately 140 different variables including preoperative patient characteristics, operative data, adherence to perioperative care processes, and postoperative outcomes. Every 3–4 months, the auditor reviewed adherence and outcome data with the ERP team and discussed any new trend or issue arising from the latest time period. A clinical researcher unaware of patient’s adherence to ERP components verified postoperative outcome data for each patient by reviewing medical charts and the electronic medical record. Additional information was retrieved from medical records to compute Charlson comorbidity index [14], CR-POSSUM score [15], Apfel postoperative nausea and vomit (PONV) risk score [16], and the comprehensive complication index (CCI) [17], which were not originally included in the ERAS audit system.
Adherence and outcome measures
Adherence to each ERP component was defined as the successful completion of a planned intervention (e.g., a patient planned to have regular food on POD 1 actually receives a meal and consumes it). Definitions for each measure of adherence can be found in Table 1. Adherence to intraoperative intravenous infusions followed recent recommendations [18], taking into consideration the patient ideal body weight, use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP), surgical approach, duration of surgery and blood loss. Cutoffs for adherence were set at <3 ml/kg/h for laparoscopic surgery and <5 ml/kg/h for open surgery. Adherence to PONV prophylaxis considered patients Apfel score in accordance with consensus guidelines [19]. Overall adherence to the ERP was also calculated for each patient.
Primary outcome measure of the study was successful recovery, a composite end point defined as discharge by POD 4, no occurrence of complications or hospital readmission within 30 days of operation. Secondary outcomes of the study included length of primary hospital stay (LOS), 30-day postoperative morbidity, and the comprehensive complication index (CCI). LOS was defined as the number of nights spent in hospital during the primary stay from the day of admission to the day of discharge. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were defined a priori (Supplementary Material 1). The severity of each complication was graded according to the Dindo–Clavien classification [20], and a CCI was then generated for each patient. This is a validated measure summarizing the complete spectrum of complications occurred and their severity in a single score ranging from 0 to 100 [17].
Statistical analysis
We performed a complete case analysis including patients with data for all ERP adherence variables and outcome measures. Relevant characteristics of the included patients and those excluded from the study were compared using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, and Student’s t test or Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data, as appropriate.
Univariate analysis (i.e., logistic regression for binary outcomes and linear regression for continuous outcomes) was performed to assess the association of patient or procedure-related variables and ERP interventions with outcomes. To identify ERP elements independently associated with the outcomes of interest, we used binary logistic regression (for the outcomes successful recovery and occurrence of 30-day complications) and linear regression (for log-transformed LOS and log-transformed 30-day CCI). Variables significant at p < 0.10 were retained in the final model. Only early postoperative elements (up to POD1) were considered in the analysis because it is difficult to distinguish whether adherence to late care processes are indicators or predictors of poor recovery outcomes. In example, delayed transition to oral analgesia can be a consequence of adverse events leading to poor recovery, and not a cause. In the same way, patient mobilization on late postoperative days represents an outcome rather than indicate the adherence to a care process. In fact, both ability to mobilize and pain control with oral analgesia represent discharge criteria. To evaluate the impact of overall adherence to the pathway (i.e., the overall number of ERP elements to which a patient was adherent) on outcomes, we also ran multivariate analyses adjusted for confounding factors.
All multivariate models were adjusted for relevant prognostic factors known to affect patient adherence and postoperative outcomes such as age, gender, preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, pelvic surgery and inflammatory bowel disease [21].
According to previous research, between 5 and 10 events per independent variable are required to obtain reliable regression coefficients in multivariate logistic regression models [22], and a minimum of 15 subjects per variable are required for linear regression [23]. As ERP elements may be highly correlated with one another, the risk of multicollinearity was assessed by inspecting correlation matrices between independent variables and by computing the variance inflation factor (VIF). VIF values exceeding 10 indicate serious multicollinearity, and values greater than 4 may be a cause for concern [24]. The discriminative power of the logistic model equations was determined by running a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and by calculating the relative area under the curve (AUC). The goodness-of-fit of the predictive models was assessed through the Hosmer–Lemeshow test.
Because of the confounding effect of intra- and postoperative complications on adherence to ERP components, we also performed a sensitivity analysis excluding patients who experienced intraoperative or early postoperative complications (before POD 2).
Descriptive data are reported as mean (95 % confidence interval, CI), or median (interquartile range, IQR), otherwise specified. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA® version 13.1 software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). All statistical tests were 2-sided, a “p” value < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Four hundred and forty patients underwent scheduled bowel resection during the study period. Ninety-three (21 %) patients were excluded from the analysis because they were not followed prospectively through the ERAS interactive audit system. The remaining 347 patients were included in this study. Included and excluded patients had similar demographic and clinical features (Supplementary Material 2).
Table 2 shows baseline characteristics of patients included in the study. One hundred twelve (32 %) patients had a low preoperative physical status as measured by ASA score. Two hundred twenty-eight (66 %) patients were operated for malignancy, 125 of which (55 %) had localized colorectal cancer (TNM stage 0–II).
Table 3 includes patients’ operative characteristics. One hundred eighty-two (52 %) patients underwent segmental colonic resection, while 121 (35 %) patients underwent pelvic surgery including low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection and total proctocolectomy. Two hundred seventy-eight (80 %) patients were approached with laparoscopy, 28 (8 %) required conversion to an open procedure. Intraoperative complications occurred in 25 (7 %) patients.
Table 4 shows adherence rates for single ERP elements. Overall, patients were adherent to median 18 (16–20) elements. Median adherence was similar for preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative elements (75, 78, and 80 percent, respectively). The only elements with poor adherence (<50 %) were intraoperative balanced intravenous infusions and intake of oral nutritional supplementation on the day of surgery postoperatively.
Table 5 reports postoperative outcomes. One hundred fifty-six (45 %) patients had a successful recovery with early discharge, no readmission and no complications. Median length of primary hospital stay was 4 days (3–7); 135 (39 %) patients were discharged within the third day after surgery. One hundred seventy-five (50 %) patients experienced at least one complication within 30 days after surgery, and 56 (16 %) patients were treated for a complication after discharge. Hospital readmissions at 30-days occurred in 44 (13 %) patients. Most common reasons for readmission were intraperitoneal or pelvic abscess (n = 10, 23 %), bowel obstruction (n = 7, 16 %), anastomotic leak (n = 6, 14 %), and other gastrointestinal complications (n = 6, 14 %).
The impact of overall adherence on outcomes
Figure 1 shows the significant association between overall adherence to ERP elements and recovery outcomes. There was a positive association between adherence and successful recovery (adjusted OR 1.39 (95 % CI 1.24–1.57) for every additional element, p < 0.001). An inverse relationship was found between adherence and LOS (11 % reduction, 95 % CI −14 to −8 %, p < 0.001), 30-day postoperative morbidity (OR 0.78, 95 % CI 0.70–0.87, p < 0.001), and the CCI (17 % reduction, 95 % CI −23 to −10 %, p < 0.001). There was no association between overall adherence to ERP and hospital readmission (adjusted OR 1.03 (95 % CI 0.89–1.18) for every additional element, p = 0.726).
Predictors of recovery outcomes
Table 6 reports univariate logistic regression for predictors of successful recovery including patient- and procedure-related confounding factors such as age, gender, ASA score, type of surgery, and intraoperative complications. At multivariate analysis (Table 7), laparoscopy (OR 4.32, 95 % CI 2.26–8.27, p < 0.001), early mobilization out of bed (OR 2.25, 95 % CI 1.13–4.47, p = 0.021), and early termination of IV fluid infusion (OR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.16–3.45, p = 0.013) were significantly associated with successful recovery. These factors were also key elements associated with reduction in LOS, 30-day postoperative morbidity and complication severity index as measured by the CCI. In addition, intraoperative balanced IV fluids were associated with a 21 % reduction in LOS, while epidural anesthesia prolonged LOS by 19 %.
Sensitivity analysis
Excluding patients who experienced intraoperative or early complications (n = 71), the positive association between overall adherence to the pathway and successful recovery remained significant (OR 1.37 (95 % CI 1.20–1.57) for every additional element, p < 0.001). At multivariate analysis, laparoscopy (OR 4.61, 95 % CI 2.28–9.33, p < 0.001) and early mobilization (OR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.06–4.66, p = 0.035) were the only factors significantly associated with successful recovery.
Discussion
This study relying on prospectively collected data in a tertiary Canadian university hospital showed that increased adherence to ERP interventions is independently associated with successful recovery, reduced LOS, and complications following bowel surgery. In this large series of patients treated between 2012 and 2014, where mean adherence to the pathway was high, laparoscopic surgery, early mobilization out of bed, and perioperative fluid management resulted as key elements correlating with improved postoperative outcomes.
When compared to traditional perioperative care, ERPs in colorectal surgery have been shown to improve postoperative outcomes in terms of accelerating recovery, reducing LOS, medical complications [25], and societal costs [11]. Positive results for ERPs seem to be achieved regardless of the number, type, or the combination of interventions implemented in different series [3]. This may suggest that it is not the effect of single ERP elements or the number of elements, but simply the coordination of care into an organized pathway that reduces variability and is sufficient to improve outcomes. In our study, we assessed the relationship between adherence to ERP elements and postoperative results and identified key processes facilitating recovery in order to consider whether additional resources should be allocated to increase adherence to those elements (e.g., dedicated personnel for patient mobilization).
In previous series, adherence was usually lower for postoperative elements [7, 8, 26]. In fact, compliance with postoperative interventions may be influenced by patient symptoms and by the occurrence of complications. In the current series, adherence was high and similar throughout the different perioperative phases reflecting a well-organized and established clinical pathway. In addition, only early postoperative interventions (i.e., within the first 24 h) were considered in the analysis to limit the potential influence of adverse events on adherence. Low adherence was found for intraoperative fluid infusions and intake of oral nutritional supplements on the day of surgery postoperatively. The former may be related to the lack of a specifically dedicated anesthesia team for colorectal surgery but also to the adoption of a strict definition of adherence following recently published guidelines [27]. The latter represents an organizational problem (e.g., product availability, patient arriving to the surgical ward late in the day). Both elements represent targets for improvement.
Gustafsson and colleagues [7] previously demonstrated that adherence to more than 70 % of the planned care processes was associated with lower morbidity and shorter LOS compared to lower adherence. However, they used arbitrary adherence thresholds and did not adjust for the confounding effect of postoperative complications. In our series, patients with higher adherence to the pathway had a greater chance of a successful recovery. In fact, we found a strong association between adherence and outcomes even when patients experiencing intraoperative or early morbidity where excluded from the analysis. For every additional element to which patients were compliant, LOS and 30-day morbidity decreased, confirming results from a large UK study [9] that found a significant inverse relationship between the mean adherence to the ERP and LOS in multiple surgical subspecialties. In our analysis, we chose a composite end point as a proxy for successful postoperative recovery, taking into account not only primary hospital stay and morbidity but also hospital readmission, which is a key post-discharge outcome associated with delayed patient recovery and increased healthcare costs [28]. The use of LOS as measure of postoperative recovery is debated as it may be influenced by non-clinical factors such as surgeon’s preference and hospital tradition [29]. An alternative and valid measure of short-term postoperative recovery could have been the time to readiness for discharge (i.e., the time to achieve standardized discharge criteria) [30], but this variable was not part of our database and could not be reliably collected retrospectively.
It is still unclear whether there is an ideal combination of perioperative interventions, or whether there are single items with a greater impact on recovery within an ERP. In a study including mostly open colonic surgery [5], early mobilization, urinary catheter removal, and early oral diet were found as independent predictors of early discharge. However, the lengthy study period including a phase of implementation and the lack of controlling for confounding factors and postoperative complications is a potential source of bias. In a recent multicenter study by the ERAS compliance group [6], where only preoperative and intraoperative items were considered, carbohydrate loading, laparoscopy and restrictive intravenous fluids were found as independent factors associated with reduced LOS and morbidity, while epidural analgesia delayed discharge. In our cohort, laparoscopic approach, early mobilization and discontinuation of intravenous fluids were key elements associated with successful recovery and reduced 30-day morbidity and complication severity. Epidural analgesia was the only ERP element delaying discharge, corroborating recent evidence from a randomized controlled trial [31]. For laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an ERP, the use of transversus abdominis plane blocks has been proposed as a new opioid-sparing strategy to prevent epidural catheter management issues that may delay discharge [32].
Research shows that laparoscopy in the context of ERPs is associated with reduced pain, ileus [33], and attenuated inflammatory response [34] compared to open surgery. Evidence supports that the combination of laparoscopy and enhanced recovery is associated with improved outcomes. However, ERPs significantly reduce the gap in postoperative results between open and minimally invasive surgery [35]. Early mobilization after surgery is considered a key component of ERPs. It is well known that staying in bed leads to deconditioning that can largely be prevented by physical activity [36]. However, there is little evidence that the implementation of specific interventions to increase mobilization improves outcomes [37]. In our analysis, simply mobilizing out of bed once on the first day after surgery was a significant predictor of early discharge and reduced morbidity. Future studies are warranted to clarify the impact of mobilization on postoperative recovery and verify whether there is a dose–effect relationship.
Adherence to postoperative elements of the pathway may be difficult to interpret as it is confounded by the patient’s recovery status. For example, a patient symptomatic for postoperative ileus is less likely to start early oral nutrition and feel like ambulating. Thus, in our regression models, we only considered early postoperative elements (up to 24 h after surgery) that are potentially less influenced by the development of complications and also performed a sensitivity analysis excluding patients with intraoperative or early postoperative morbidity as previously reported by Larson et al. [8]. In this analysis, laparoscopy and early mobilization remained significant factors associated with successful recovery.
Notably, post-discharge complications occurred in 16 % of our cohort resulting in a considerable number of patients returning to the emergency department (ED) (20 %) and eventually being readmitted (13 %). These results corroborate with recent enhanced recovery colorectal surgery series where hospital readmissions ranged between 9 and 13 % [35, 38, 39]. In a previous study, compliance to ERP greater than 93 % was found as a protective factor for readmission [38]. In our series, adherence to ERP had no effect on post-discharge outcomes. More than half of emergency visits resulted in hospital readmission, mostly because of late infectious and surgical complications requiring in hospital management. Patients who returned to the ED but were not readmitted represent a target for quality improvement, as they could have been managed in an outpatient setting or through the local community services or family physicians. Patient information regarding post-discharge care can certainly be improved. In addition, establishing a dedicated follow-up service may also be considered in order to anticipate any serious clinical issue or to prevent unnecessary ED visits.
Strengths and limitations
Although data were prospectively collected and patients were followed by an independent auditor not involved in clinical activities, this analysis carries intrinsic limitations of all observational studies. Sample size may be considered insufficient for the regression analysis we carried out because of the high number of predictors included. However, we limited our series to two consecutive years to avoid time-related bias since ERPs are constantly evolving through time, and new elements are added or removed according to the evidence. Around 20 % of patients who underwent colorectal resection in our institution in the target period were not included in this series as their data were not prospectively collected. These patients were randomly missed because of personnel unavailable to record data. While retrospective chart review can provide reliable postoperative outcome data, it does not provide patient-reported information regarding adherence. Thus, it was decided to exclude these patients from the study to ensure a high quality of the data. Notably, no difference in preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes was found between included and excluded patients.
Main strengths of this study were that it followed recent recommendations for reporting and used clear definitions of adherence and outcome measures [40]. In fact, most of the existing works on enhanced recovery fail to thoroughly report the definitions of adherence to each implemented interventions. Other strengths and unique features of this study include the use of sensitivity analysis, and the choice of a composite end point encompassing different clinically relevant recovery outcomes allowing us to better ascertain the role of adherence to ERP elements and its association with postoperative results. Furthermore, all multivariate models were adjusted for relevant factors influencing adherence and postoperative outcomes including patient comorbidities and procedural factors as previously described [21, 41].
The findings of this study confirm the positive impact of ERP interventions on recovery and suggest that auditing adherence to the pathway is a key metric to assess the effectiveness of an ERP. Our results should encourage the allocation of resources toward strategies likely to increase adherence. For example, adopting a structured pathway for all bowel resection patients with standardized sets of perioperative clinical orders minimizes the variability of patient care favoring adherence to care processes. In addition, reinforcing perioperative education and patient engagement in the pathway may prove effective in improving adherence to elements requiring a high degree of self-management such as mobilization and diet.
Conclusions
In this retrospective study relying on prospectively collected data within an established ERP, increased adherence to enhanced recovery interventions was associated with successful early recovery and a reduction in postoperative morbidity and complication severity. Laparoscopic approach, perioperative fluid management, and patient mobilization were key elements associated with improved outcomes. Our findings suggest that further measures should be implemented to increase adherence to ERP interventions.
References
Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248:189–198
Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, McNaught CE, Macfie J, Liberman AS, Soop M, Hill A, Kennedy RH, Lobo DN, Fearon K, Ljungqvist O, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society fPC, European Society for Clinical N, Metabolism, International Association for Surgical M, Nutrition (2013) Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS((R))) Society recommendations. World J Surg 37:259–284
Gianotti L, Beretta S, Luperto M, Bernasconi D, Valsecchi MG, Braga M (2014) Enhanced recovery strategies in colorectal surgery: is the compliance with the whole program required to achieve the target? Int J Colorectal Dis 29:329–341
Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJ (2004) Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg 198:626–632
Bakker N, Cakir H, Doodeman HJ, Houdijk AP (2015) Eight years of experience with enhanced recovery after surgery in patients with colon cancer: impact of measures to improve adherence. Surgery 157:1130–1136
Eras Compliance Group (2015) The impact of enhanced recovery protocol compliance on elective colorectal cancer resection: results from an international registry. Ann Surg 261:1153–1159
Gustafsson UO, Hausel J, Thorell A, Ljungqvist O, Soop M, Nygren J, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Study G (2011) Adherence to the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery. Arch Surg 146:571–577
Larson DW, Lovely JK, Cima RR, Dozois EJ, Chua H, Wolff BG, Pemberton JH, Devine RR, Huebner M (2014) Outcomes after implementation of a multimodal standard care pathway for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 101:1023–1030
Simpson JC, Moonesinghe SR, Grocott MP, Kuper M, McMeeking A, Oliver CM, Galsworthy MJ, Mythen MG, National Enhanced Recovery Partnership Advisory B (2015) Enhanced recovery from surgery in the UK: an audit of the enhanced recovery partnership programme 2009–2012. Br J Anaesth 115:560–568
Carli F, Charlebois P, Baldini G, Cachero O, Stein B (2009) An integrated multidisciplinary approach to implementation of a fast-track program for laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Can J Anaesth 56:837–842
Lee L, Mata J, Ghitulescu GA, Boutros M, Charlebois P, Stein B, Liberman AS, Fried GM, Morin N, Carli F, Latimer E, Feldman LS (2015) Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery versus conventional perioperative management for colorectal surgery. Ann Surg 262:1026–1033
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457
Kolozsvari NO, Capretti G, Kaneva P, Neville A, Carli F, Liberman S, Charlebois P, Stein B, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2013) Impact of an enhanced recovery program on short-term outcomes after scheduled laparoscopic colon resection. Surg Endosc 27:133–138
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383
Tekkis PP, Prytherch DR, Kocher HM, Senapati A, Poloniecki JD, Stamatakis JD, Windsor AC (2004) Development of a dedicated risk-adjustment scoring system for colorectal surgery (colorectal POSSUM). Br J Surg 91:1174–1182
Apfel CC, Laara E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N (1999) A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology 91:693–700
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, Puhan MA, Clavien PA (2013) The comprehensive complication index: a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg 258:1–7
Baldini G, Fawcett WJ (2015) Anesthesia for colorectal surgery. Anesth Clin 33:93–123
Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Kovac A, Kranke P, Meyer TA, Watcha M, Chung F, Angus S, Apfel CC, Bergese SD, Candiotti KA, Chan MT, Davis PJ, Hooper VD, Lagoo-Deenadayalan S, Myles P, Nezat G, Philip BK, Tramer MR (2014) Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 118:85–113
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Feroci F, Lenzi E, Baraghini M, Garzi A, Vannucchi A, Cantafio S, Scatizzi M (2013) Fast-track surgery in real life: how patient factors influence outcomes and compliance with an enhanced recovery clinical pathway after colorectal surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 23:259–265
Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE (2007) Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol 165:710–718
Green SB (1991) How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivar Behav Res 26:499–510
Glantz SA, Slinker BK (1990) Primer of applied regression and analysis of variance. McGraw-Hill, Health Professions Division, New York
Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M (2014) Enhanced recovery program in colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg 38:1531–1541
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 94:224–231
Fawcett WJ, Baldini G (2015) Optimal analgesia during major open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Anesthesiol Clin 33:65–78
Dimick JB, Ghaferi AA (2015) Hospital readmission as a quality measure in surgery. JAMA 313:512–513
Neville A, Lee L, Antonescu I, Mayo NE, Vassiliou MC, Fried GM, Feldman LS (2014) Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery. Br J Surg 101:159–170
Fiore JF Jr, Faragher IG, Bialocerkowski A, Browning L, Denehy L (2013) Time to readiness for discharge is a valid and reliable measure of short-term recovery after colorectal surgery. World J Surg 37:2927–2934
Hubner M, Blanc C, Roulin D, Winiker M, Gander S, Demartines N (2015) Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway. Ann Surg 261:648–653
Keller DS, Ermlich BO, Schiltz N, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL Jr, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2014) The effect of transversus abdominis plane blocks on postoperative pain in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Dis Colon Rectum 57:1290–1297
van Bree SH, Vlug MS, Bemelman WA, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Zwinderman AH, de Jonge WJ, Snoek SA, Bolhuis K, van der Zanden E, The FO, Bennink RJ, Boeckxstaens GE (2011) Faster recovery of gastrointestinal transit after laparoscopy and fast-track care in patients undergoing colonic surgery. Gastroenterology 141:872–880
Veenhof AA, Vlug MS, van der Pas MH, Sietses C, van der Peet DL, de Lange-de Klerk ES, Bonjer HJ, Bemelman WA, Cuesta MA (2012) Surgical stress response and postoperative immune function after laparoscopy or open surgery with fast track or standard perioperative care: a randomized trial. Ann Surg 255:216–221
Kennedy RH, Francis EA, Wharton R, Blazeby JM, Quirke P, West NP, Dutton SJ (2014) Multicenter randomized controlled trial of conventional versus laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme: EnROL. J Clin Oncol 32:1804–1811
Convertino VA (1997) Cardiovascular consequences of bed rest: effect on maximal oxygen uptake. Med Sci Sports Exerc 29:191–196
Castelino T, Fiore JF Jr, Niculiseanu P, Landry T, Augustin B, Feldman LS (2016) The effect of early mobilization protocols on postoperative outcomes following abdominal and thoracic surgery: a systematic review. Surgery 59:991–1003
Francis NK, Mason J, Salib E, Allanby L, Messenger D, Allison AS, Smart NJ, Ockrim JB (2015) Factors predicting 30-day readmission after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery within an enhanced recovery programme. Colorectal Dis 17:O148–O154
Lawrence JK, Keller DS, Samia H, Ermlich B, Brady KM, Nobel T, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2013) Discharge within 24–72 h of colorectal surgery is associated with low readmission rates when using enhanced recovery pathways. J Am Coll Surg 216:390–394
Day RW, Fielder S, Calhoun J, Kehlet H, Gottumukkala V, Aloia TA (2015) Incomplete reporting of enhanced recovery elements and its impact on achieving quality improvement. Br J Surg 102:1594–1602
Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Woconish D, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL Jr, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2014) Predicting who will fail early discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc 28:74–79
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to Berson Augustin, BSc, for his effort in collecting data, and to Debbie Watson, BSc, coordinator of the Mcgill University Health Centre ERP for all her work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Nicolò Pecorelli, Olivia Hershorn, Gabriele Baldini, Julio F. Fiore Jr., Barry L Stein, A Sender Liberman, Patrick Charlebois, and Francesco Carli have no conflicts of interests or financial ties to disclose. Liane S. Feldman is the recipient of an unrestricted educational grant from Medtronic.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pecorelli, N., Hershorn, O., Baldini, G. et al. Impact of adherence to care pathway interventions on recovery following bowel resection within an established enhanced recovery program. Surg Endosc 31, 1760–1771 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5169-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5169-2