Implementing a fast-track protocol for patients undergoing bowel resection: not so fast
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Multimodality fast-track protocols have been shown to enhance recovery after bowel resection. However, it remains unclear which of the components impact outcomes and whether processes actually occur as intended. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent elective bowel resection at a university teaching hospital under a standardized fast-track recovery protocol were compared with patients who underwent similar procedures before protocol initiation. Compliance was measured with the 7 major elements of the protocol: administration of nonopioid analgesia, perioperative lidocaine, nasogastric tube removal, early feeding, early ambulation, and fluid restriction. RESULTS: Eighty pathway patients were compared with 87 conventional patients. Only 3 of the 7 major components were successfully implemented. Fluid restriction was achieved in only 2 patients. Pain scores and ileus-related morbidities were comparable with the exception of nasogastric tube reinsertion, which was required twice as often in pathway patients (17 vs 8, P = .02). Thirteen pathway patients were readmitted compared with 7 control patients (P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of expected care cannot be assumed. There was no discernible benefit in patient outcomes.
- SourceAvailable from: ottawa-anesthesia.org[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Postoperative ileus is a concern among surgical patients. Epidural anesthesia and analgesia with local anesthetics can decrease the duration of ileus. Significant systemic absorption of local anesthesia occurs during epidural use. In this study, we examined whether many of the beneficial effects on bowel function seen with epidural lidocaine are also present when the drug is given parenterally. Forty patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy were studied with one half of the patients receiving a lidocaine bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (3 mg/min, unless weight <70 kg, then 2 mg/min); the other half received a saline infusion. A blind observer recorded the patient's daily pain score, the time the patient first experienced flatulence and had the first bowel movement, and the total use of analgesics. Lidocaine-treated patients first experienced flatulence in a significantly shorter time (P < 0.01) than control patients. Lidocaine patients' hospital stay was also significantly shorter (P < 0.05); on average, they spent 1.1 fewer days in the hospital. I.V. lidocaine initiated before anesthesia and continued 1 h postoperatively significantly sped up the return of bowel function. Lidocaine patients were also more comfortable postoperatively. Many of the bowel function benefits attributed to epidural lidocaine are also present when the drug is administered parenterally. Additionally, the length of hospital stay was reduced in lidocaine-treated patients. Implications: This study prospectively examined whether I.V. lidocaine could affect the return of bowel function after radical prostate surgery. Lidocaine-treated patients had shorter hospital stays, less pain, and faster return of bowel function. In this population, lidocaine infusion can be a useful adjunct in anesthetic management.Anesthesia & Analgesia 03/1998; 86(2):235-9. DOI:10.1097/00000542-199709001-00804 · 3.42 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Surgical injury can be followed by pain, nausea, vomiting and ileus, stress-induced catabolism, impaired pulmonary function, increased cardiac demands, and risk of thromboembolism. These problems can lead to complications, need for treatment in hospital, postoperative fatigue, and delayed convalescence. Development of safe and short-acting anaesthetics, improved pain relief by early intervention with multimodal analgesia, and stress reduction by regional anaesthetic techniques, beta-blockade, or glucocorticoids have provided important possibilities for enhanced recovery. When these techniques are combined with a change in perioperative care a pronounced enhancement of recovery and decrease in hospital stay can be achieved, even in major operations. The anaesthetist has an important role in facilitating early postoperative recovery by provision of minimally-invasive anaesthesia and pain relief, and by collaborating with surgeons, surgical nurses, and physiotherapists to reduce risk and pain.The Lancet 01/2004; 362(9399):1921-8. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14966-5 · 45.22 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Preliminary clinical studies have suggested that gabapentin may produce analgesia and reduce the need for opioids in postoperative patients. The aim of the present study was to investigate the opioid-sparing and analgesic effects of gabapentin administered during the first 24 h after abdominal hysterectomy. In a randomized, double-blind study, 80 patients received oral gabapentin 1200 mg or placebo 1 h before surgery, followed by oral gabapentin 600 mg or placebo 8, 16 and 24 h after the initial dose. Patients received patient-controlled analgesia with morphine at doses of 2.5 mg with a lock-out time of 10 min for 24 h postoperatively. Pain was assessed on a visual analogue scale (VAS) at rest and during mobilization, nausea, somnolence and dizziness on a four-point verbal scale, and vomiting as present/not present at 2, 4, 22 and 24 h postoperatively. Thirty-nine patients in the gabapentin group, and 32 patients in the placebo group completed the study. Gabapentin reduced total morphine consumption from median 63 (interquartile range 53-88) mg to 43 (28-60) mg (P < 0.001). We observed a significant inverse association between plasma levels of gabapentin at 2 h postoperatively, and morphine usage from 0 to 2 h, and from 0 to 4 h postoperatively (R2 = 0.30, P = 0.003 and R2 = 0.24 P = 0.008, respectively). No significant differences in pain at rest or during mobilization, or in side-effects, were observed between groups. Gabapentin in a total dose of 3000 mg, administered before and during the first 24 h after abdominal hysterectomy, reduced morphine consumption with 32%, without significant effects on pain scores. No significant differences in side-effects were observed between study-groups.Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 03/2004; 48(3):322-7. DOI:10.1111/j.0001-5172.2004.0329.x · 2.31 Impact Factor