Next Article in Journal
Preoperative Cancer Antigen 125 Level as Predictor for Complete Cytoreduction in Ovarian Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Liver Transplantation for Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: Current Knowledge and Open Issues
Previous Article in Journal
Tracers in Gastric Cancer Surgery
Previous Article in Special Issue
How We Treat Localized Rectal Cancer—An Institutional Paradigm for Total Neoadjuvant Therapy
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients

1
Department of General and Emergency Surgery, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20900 Monza, Italy
2
Department of General Surgery, University of Verona, 37100 Verona, Italy
3
Department of General Surgery, Candiolo Cancer Institute–FPO–IRCCS, 10060 Candiolo, Italy
4
Department of General Surgery, Pinerolo Hospital, 10064 Pinerolo, Italy
5
Department of General Surgery, Careggi Hospital, University of Firenze, 50100 Firenze, Italy
6
Department of Surgery, Degli Infermi Hospital, 13900 Biella, Italy
7
Department of General Surgery, Santa Maria Annunziata ASL Toscana Centro, 50100 Firenze, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(23), 5736; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235736
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 16 November 2022 / Accepted: 21 November 2022 / Published: 22 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Current Management of Early and Advanced Rectal Cancer)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

This research investigates the adherence and compliance to the ERAS pathway in patients operated for rectal cancer; the results highlights the important role of early postoperative compliance to the postoperative pathway with the development of complications.

Abstract

Early postoperative low compliance to enhanced recovery protocols has been associated with morbidity following colon surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the possible causes of early postoperative low compliance to the enhanced recovery pathway and its relationship with morbidity following rectal surgery for cancer. A total of 439 consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for rectal cancer have been included in the study. Compliance to enhanced recovery protocol on postoperative day (POD) 2 was evaluated in all patients. Indicators of compliance were naso-gastric tube and urinary catheter removal, recovery of both oral feeding and mobilization, and the stopping of intravenous fluids. Low compliance on POD 2 was defined as non- adherence to two or more items. One-third of patients had low compliance on POD 2. Removal of urinary catheter, intravenous fluids stop, and mobilization were the items with lowest adherence. Advanced age, duration of surgery, open surgery and diverting stoma were predictive factors of low compliance at multivariate analysis. Overall morbidity and major complications were significantly higher (p < 0.001) in patients with low compliance on POD 2. At multivariate analysis, failure to remove urinary catheter on POD 2 (OR = 1.83) was significantly correlated with postoperative complications. Low compliance to enhanced recovery protocol on POD 2 was significantly associated with morbidity. Failure to remove the urinary catheter was the most predictive indicator. Advanced age, long procedure, open surgery and diverting stoma were independent predictive factors of low compliance.

1. Introduction

Enhanced recovery protocols have been associated with a significant improvement of outcome after major surgery for gastrointestinal cancer [1,2,3]. The elderly and patients with multiple comorbidities can be included in the enhanced recovery program, but often require a tailored protocol [4,5].
Early postoperative low compliance to an enhanced recovery protocol has been reported in about one third of patients following elective colonic resection [6,7]. Patients with early low compliance after colonic resection had significant higher morbidity and longer hospital stays [8]. Few data are currently available on both the rate and causes of early low compliance to enhanced recovery protocols following rectal surgery and its relationship with morbidity occurring afterwards.
The first experiences with enhanced recovery protocols were carried out more than 20 years ago. New items reducing perioperative stress and invasiveness of surgery have been subsequently proposed [9,10]. Promising preliminary results have been obtained with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum, multimodal analgesia including abdominal wall blocks, and inferior mesenteric artery preservation in upper rectal cancer surgery [11,12,13,14].
The purpose of this study is to assess which variables can be associated with low compliance to enhanced recovery pathways. The relationship between low compliance and overall postoperative morbidity has also been investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

The present study is performed in accordance with STROBE guidelines [15]. Consecutive patients who underwent elective surgery for rectal cancer in seven Italian hospitals have been included in the study. Patients with combined resections (rectal and other viscera) were excluded. All patients have been prospectively registered in the database of the PeriOperative Italian Society. Each hospital applied a comprehensive ERAS pathway according to the ERAS® Society recommendation in colorectal surgery [16] and followed a pathway implementation program before starting the study [8].
In 35 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for upper rectal cancer at Monza Hospital, Monza, Italy, (Monza subgroup), three operative items have been added to the study protocol: TAP (transversus abdominis plane) block instead thoracic epidural catheter, low pneumoperitoneum (8 mmHg), and inferior mesenteric artery (IMA) sparing.
Demographics, perioperative variables, adherence to each item of the protocol, and short-term outcome parameters were prospectively collected in all patients. Indicators of postoperative compliance were naso-gastric tube and urinary catheter removal, recovery of oral feeding and mobilization out of bed, and the stopping of intravenous fluids. Removal of the naso-gastric tube was planned at the end of surgery; and patients were mobilized the day of surgery. The starting of oral feeding and removal of urinary catheter were planned on postoperative day 1. Intravenous fluid infusion was discontinued as early as possible in accordance with the recovery of oral feeding. Low compliance on postoperative day (POD) 2 was defined as non-adherence to two or more items [8].
Criteria to identify each postoperative complication were defined a priori [17] and the Clavien-Dindo classification has been used to grade their severity [18]. Complications graded as IIIb to V were considered as major. Discharge criteria and time to readiness for discharge were defined according to a previous study [19]. Any hospital readmission due to postoperative complications occurring within 30 days after discharge has been registered.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were reported as median along with the interquartile range (IQR) and compared with a Mann-Whitney’s U test, while categorical variables were reported as percentages and compared with the Chi square test. Variables predictive of complications were individuated with uni and multiple logistic regression methods. The analysis of factors associated with low compliance on POD2 was carried out in uneventful patients. Statistics were performed with SPSS 25 (IBM Corp. Released 2017, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp: Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

The present analysis includes 439 consecutive cancer patients who underwent elective rectal resection. An (American Society of Anesthesiology) ASA score of 3–4 was found in 141 (32.1%) patients, neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy was carried out in 113 (25.7%) patients, and laparoscopic surgery was successfully performed in 373 (82.7%) patients (Table 1).
The overall adherence to preoperative and operative items was 81.3%. No patient received oral antibiotics before surgery. Mechanical bowel preparation was carried out in 172 (39.3%) patients, while an abdominal drain was placed in 345 (78.8%). The naso-gastric tube was removed at the end of surgery in 398 (90.8%) patients.
Table 2 shows that a low protocol compliance on POD 2 was found in one-third of patients. The items with the lowest adherence were removal of the urinary catheter, the stopping of intravenous fluids, and mobilization.
Table 3 shows that advanced age, long surgical procedure, open surgery, and diverting stoma were significantly associated to low compliance on POD 2, whereas operative volemia monitoring was associated with high compliance (p = 0.06).
Table 4 reports short-term outcomes. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 149 (32.6%) patients and major complications occurred in 27 (6.2%) patients. Twenty-four (5.5%) patients underwent reoperation. Median time to readiness for discharge and length of hospital stay were 5 (4–8) and 6 (5–8) days. The readmission rate was 3.0% (13 patients).
Figure 1 shows that patients with low compliance on POD 2 had higher overall morbidity and major complications. At multivariate analysis, failure to remove the urinary catheter on POD 2 was significantly correlated with postoperative complications (Table 5).
Table 6 reports data on patients of the Monza subgroup who have a higher rate of ASA 3 compared to the overall series. The TAP block and IMA sparing technique were successfully performed in all patients, while low pneumoperitoneum failed in 5 (14.2%) patients who needed an increase up to 12 mmHg. Lymph-node collection and postoperative pain score were similar to the overall series, while early mobilization was observed in 32 (91.4%) patients. No anastomotic leak occurred.

4. Discussion

Low compliance to an enhanced recovery protocol was found in about one- third of patients after rectal surgery. Patients with low compliance on POD 2 had higher overall morbidity and major complications. Variables associated with early low compliance were advanced age, long procedure, open surgery, and diverting stoma. Upon multivariate analysis, failure to remove the urinary catheter on POD 2 was significantly correlated with postoperative complications.
Operative fluid overload and inadequate pain control can be determinants of postoperative low compliance to enhanced recovery protocol [20,21,22]; however, low compliance can also be considered an early sign for underlying complications. In a series of colon cancer patients, the failure to remove the urinary catheter and to stop intravenous fluids on POD 2 was a predictive indicator of morbidity [8]. To detect an early low compliance might yield to identify patients with higher risk to develop complications afterwards. These patients could benefit from proper diagnostics and the early treatment of complications. This is very important, especially in patients with advanced age and multiple comorbidities.
Previous studies found that minimally invasive colorectal surgery had an independent role to favor early postoperative recovery, to reduce overall morbidity, and to shorten the hospital stay [9,10,23,24]. In the present series, successful laparoscopic surgery was widely performed and conversion to laparotomy was necessary in only 2.7% of patients. A multivariate analysis showed that open surgery was the most important variable associated with low compliance to enhanced recovery protocol on POD 2. Our data also suggest that the elderly and patients who were given a long surgical procedure or diverting stoma had a lower compliance rate. Therefore, a tailored approach with a tight postoperative monitoring should be performed in these patients.
The rate of low compliance on POD 2 was similar to that reported following colonic surgery [8]. The lowest protocol adherence was found for removal of the urinary catheter and the stopping of intravenous fluids, whereas the highest adherence was found for naso-gastric tube removal and oral feeding recovery. Early low compliance to postoperative protocol was significantly associated with overall morbidity and major complications. In particular, failure to remove the urinary catheter on POD 2 played an independent role to favor postoperative morbidity. A delayed removal of urinary catheter increases urinary tract infections, and reduces the patient’s mobilization favoring respiratory complications [25].
The impact of the three additional operative items was positive. Both TAP block and IMA sparing were successfully performed in all patients, allowing good pain control, no anastomotic leak, and a lymph-node collection comparable to the overall series. A failure of low pneumoperitoneum was recorded in 14% of patients. These promising results and previous reports [20,21,22] should encourage the incorporation of a TAP block, low pneumoperitoneum, and IMA sparing in the enhanced recovery protocols.
A possible limitation of the present study is that participating hospitals could differ in the degree of enhanced recovery pathway implementation. However, the high adherence to preoperative and operative items indicates that the vast majority of patients followed a comprehensive protocol. The wide range of patients’ age and ASA score suggests a small likelihood of selection bias.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, early low compliance to postoperative enhanced recovery protocols was associated with overall morbidity and major complications following rectal surgery. Variables associated with early low compliance were advanced age, long procedure, open surgery and diverting stoma, suggesting a tailored and careful approach in these patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C., F.F. and M.B.; Data curation, M.C., C.P., L.P., A.M., F.F., R.P., M.S., M.T., N.T. and L.R.; Investigation, M.C. and M.B.; Supervision, M.B.; Writing—original draft, M.C., C.P. and M.B.; Writing—review & editing, M.C., L.P., A.M., F.F., R.P., M.S., M.T., N.T. and L.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of ASST Monza (protocol code 0012747 17 April 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study; data were collected anonymously without any identifying information.

Data Availability Statement

Data can be obtained under request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fearon, K.C.H.; Ljungqvist, O.; Von Meyenfeldt, M.; Revhaug, A.; Dejong, C.H.C.; Lassen, K.; Nygren, J.; Hausel, J.; Soop, M.; Andersen, J.; et al. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: A Consensus Review of Clinical Care for Patients Undergoing Colonic Resection. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 24, 466–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Spanjersberg, W.R.; Reurings, J.; Keus, F.; van Laarhoven, C.J. Fast Track Surgery versus Conventional Recovery Strategies for Colorectal Surgery. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011, 2, CD007635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Varadhan, K.K.; Neal, K.R.; Dejong, C.H.C.; Fearon, K.C.H.; Ljungqvist, O.; Lobo, D.N. The Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Pathway for Patients Undergoing Major Elective Open Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 29, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Launay-Savary, M.-V.; Mathonnet, M.; Theissen, A.; Ostermann, S.; Raynaud-Simon, A.; Slim, K. Are Enhanced Recovery Programs in Colorectal Surgery Feasible and Useful in the Elderly? A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Visc. Surg. 2017, 154, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Braga, M.; Pecorelli, N.; Scatizzi, M.; Borghi, F.; Missana, G.; Radrizzani, D. Enhanced Recovery Program in High-Risk Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: Results from the PeriOperative Italian Society Registry. World J. Surg. 2017, 41, 860–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Currie, A.; Burch, J.; Jenkins, J.T.; Faiz, O.; Kennedy, R.H.; Ljungqvist, O.; Demartines, N.; Hjern, F.; Norderval, S.; Lassen, K.; et al. The Impact of Enhanced Recovery Protocol Compliance on Elective Colorectal Cancer Resection. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 1153–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gianotti, L.; Beretta, S.; Luperto, M.; Bernasconi, D.; Valsecchi, M.G.; Braga, M. Enhanced Recovery Strategies in Colorectal Surgery: Is the Compliance with the Whole Program Required to Achieve the Target? Int. J. Color. Dis. 2014, 29, 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ceresoli, M.; Pedrazzani, C.; Pellegrino, L.; Ficari, F.; Braga, M.; Muratore, A.; Tamini, N.; Beretta, L.; Azzola, M.; Radrizzani, D.; et al. Early Non Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway Might Be an Alert for Underlying Complications Following Colon Surgery. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2022, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vlug, M.S.; Wind, J.; Hollmann, M.W.; Ubbink, D.T.; Cense, H.A.; Engel, A.F.; Gerhards, M.F.; van Wagensveld, B.A.; van der Zaag, E.S.; van Geloven, A.A.W.; et al. Laparoscopy in Combination with Fast Track Multimodal Management Is the Best Perioperative Strategy in Patients Undergoing Colonic Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2011, 254, 868–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Braga, M.; Scatizzi, M.; Borghi, F.; Missana, G.; Radrizzani, D.; Gemma, M.; Beretta, L.; Bona, S.; Monzani, R.; Azzola, M.; et al. Identification of Core Items in the Enhanced Recovery Pathway. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2018, 25, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Özdemir-van Brunschot, D.M.D.; van Laarhoven, K.C.J.H.M.; Scheffer, G.J.; Pouwels, S.; Wever, K.E.; Warlé, M.C. What Is the Evidence for the Use of Low-Pressure Pneumoperitoneum? A Systematic Review. Surg. Endosc. 2016, 30, 2049–2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Albers, K.I.; Polat, F.; Helder, L.; Panhuizen, I.F.; Snoeck, M.M.J.; Polle, S.B.W.; de Vries, H.; Dias, E.M.; Slooter, G.D.; de Boer, H.D.; et al. Quality of Recovery and Innate Immune Homeostasis in Patients Undergoing Low- Versus Standard Pressure Pneumoperitoneum During Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery (RECOVER). Ann. Surg. 2022, 276, e664–e673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shaibu, Z.; Chen, Z.; Theophilus, A.; Mzee, S.A.S. Preservation of the Arterial Arc Formed by Left Colic Artery, Proximal Inferior Mesenteric Artery, and the First Branch of Sigmoid Arteries in Anus Saving Treatment of Low Rectal Cancer. Am. Surg. 2021, 87, 1956–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, K.-Y.; Lu, Y.-J.; Lin, Y.-C.; Wei, P.-L.; Kang, Y.-N. Transversus Abdominis Plane Block for Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Int. J. Surg. 2022, 104, 106825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12, 1495–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Gustafsson, U.O.; Scott, M.J.; Hubner, M.; Nygren, J.; Demartines, N.; Francis, N.; Rockall, T.A.; Young-Fadok, T.M.; Hill, A.G.; Soop, M.; et al. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations: 2018. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 659–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Bozzetti, F.; Braga, M.; Gianotti, L.; Gavazzi, C.; Mariani, L. Postoperative Enteral versus Parenteral Nutrition in Malnourished Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Randomised Multicentre Trial. Lancet 2001, 358, 1487–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.-A. Classification of Surgical Complications. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fiore, J.F.; Faragher, I.G.; Bialocerkowski, A.; Browning, L.; Denehy, L. Time to Readiness for Discharge Is a Valid and Reliable Measure of Short-Term Recovery After Colorectal Surgery. World J. Surg. 2013, 37, 2927–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Myles, P.S.; Andrews, S.; Nicholson, J.; Lobo, D.N.; Mythen, M. Contemporary Approaches to Perioperative IV Fluid Therapy. World J. Surg. 2017, 41, 2457–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bragg, D.; El-Sharkawy, A.M.; Psaltis, E.; Maxwell-Armstrong, C.A.; Lobo, D.N. Postoperative Ileus: Recent Developments in Pathophysiology and Management. Clin. Nutr. 2015, 34, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guay, J.; Nishimori, M.; Kopp, S.L. Epidural Local Anesthetics Versus Opioid-Based Analgesic Regimens for Postoperative Gastrointestinal Paralysis, Vomiting, and Pain After Abdominal Surgery. Anesth. Analg. 2016, 123, 1591–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kennedy, R.H.; Francis, E.A.; Wharton, R.; Blazeby, J.M.; Quirke, P.; West, N.P.; Dutton, S.J. Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Conventional Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer Within an Enhanced Recovery Programme: EnROL. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1804–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Braga, M.; Frasson, M.; Zuliani, W.; Vignali, A.; Pecorelli, N.; Di Carlo, V. Randomized Clinical Trial of Laparoscopic versus Open Left Colonic Resection. Br. J. Surg. 2010, 97, 1180–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zaouter, C.; Kaneva, P.; Carli, F. Less Urinary Tract Infection by Earlier Removal of Bladder Catheter in Surgical Patients Receiving Thoracic Epidural Analgesia. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2009, 34, 542–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Correlation between morbidity and compliance on postoperative day 2.
Figure 1. Correlation between morbidity and compliance on postoperative day 2.
Cancers 14 05736 g001
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics.
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics.
VariableMedianIQRN%
Age68.0059.76–76.5
SexM 27662.9%
F 16337.1%
BMI24.8222.59–27.68
BMI class<25 22350.8
25–29 16437.4
>30 5211.8
ASA score1 6013.7%
2 23854.2%
3 12728.9%
4 143.2%
Diabetes 5312.1%
Preoperative Haemoglobin13.4012.2–14.5
Neoadjuvant CT-RT 11325.7%
Mechanical bowel preparation 17239.3%
SurgeryAnterior resection 40391.8%
Abdominoperineal amputation 368.2%
Duration of Surgery (min)243191–300
Intraoperative inotropes 235.3%
Successful laparoscopy 36382.7%
Laparoscopy converted to open surgery 102.7%
Diverting Stoma 24154.9%
Drain 34578.8%
Table 2. Cumulative compliance with postoperative era items.
Table 2. Cumulative compliance with postoperative era items.
ItemPOD
01234
Naso-gastric tube removal90.896.697.599.199.5
Solid Diet7.360.081.291.895.4
Stop IV infusion1.641.265.079.285.4
Urinary Catheter removal1.741.164.584.991.7
Mobilization > 4 h8.043.265.074.681.4
Table 3. Variables associated with low compliance on postoperative day 2.
Table 3. Variables associated with low compliance on postoperative day 2.
VariablePostoperative ComplianceUnivariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis
High Compliance Low ComplianceOR95% CISign.OR95% CISign.
N/Median%/IQRN/Median%/IQR
Men 6738.1%3640.9%1.1260.6681.8990.656
Age (years) 6758.22–7571.9561–77.741.0321.0071.0570.0111.0361.0061.0670.018
BMI 24.8222.2–27.3924.1022.12–27.140.9920.9261.0620.808
BMI class<258951.4%5158.0%1 (ref)
25–296537.6%2730.7%0.7250.4121.2760.265
>301911.0%1011.4%0.9180.3972.1270.843
ASA score12715.3%1011.4%1 (ref)
29956.3%4854.5%1.3090.5862.9230.511
34223.9%2933.0%1.8640.7844.4330.159
484.5%11.1%0.3380.0373.0520.334
Diabetes 158.5%1415.9%2.0310.9324.4240.075
Haemoglobin (g/dL)13.7012.8–14.613.1012.3–14.30.8290.6960.9890.0370.9130.7421.1240.392
Neoadjuvant CT/RT 3620.5%1921.6%1.0710.5732.0030.830
Mechanical bowel preparation 7140.6%3337.5%0.8790.5191.4880.631
Preoperative glucidic drink 10861.4%5967.0%1.2810.7482.1940.367
Epidural catheter 4726.9%2629.5%1.1420.6482.0130.646
Intraoperative advanced volemia monitoring 5933.7%1314.8%0.3410.1750.6640.0020.480.2221.0360.062
Operative inotropes 52.9%44.5%1.6190.4246.1860.481
Operative warming 17298.3%88100.0%1.7600.7692.3560.897
Duration of Surgery 215175.5–275263210–317.51.0061.0031.0090.0001.0061.0021.0100.002
Open Surgery 158.5%2022.7%3.1571.5266.5310.0022.7321.1736.3620.02
Abdominoperineal amputation 126.8%1213.6%1 (ref)
Anterior resection 16493.2%7686.4%0.4630.1991.0790.074
Diverting stoma 7039.8%5865.9%2.9281.7164.9950.0001.9071.0333.5180.039
Drain 14180.1%7686.4%1.5720.7713.2060.2131.2930.5732.9160.536
ref: reference.
Table 4. Patient’s outcomes.
Table 4. Patient’s outcomes.
VariableMedianIQRN%
Postoperative Pain (NRS)POD 121–4
POD 220–3
POD 310–2
POD 400–1
Overall morbidity 14932.6%
Major complication 276.2%
Clavien-Dindo grade0 29067.0%
1 5412.5%
2 4410.2%
IIIa 184.2%
IIIb 225.1%
Iva 30.7%
Ivb 20.5%
V 00.0%
Anastomotic leak 276.2%
Abdominal abscess 81.8%
Respiratory complication 112.5%
Wound infection 163.7%
Urinary infection 122.8%
Reoperation 245.5%
Readmission 133.0%
Day Fit for Discharge54–8
Length of stay65–8
Table 5. Variables associated with any complication.
Table 5. Variables associated with any complication.
VariablesUnivariate Analysis Multivariate Analysis
OR95% CISign.OR95% CISign.
ASA score 3–4 1.2110.7931.8490.375
Age 1.0000.9831.0180.968
Men 1.5130.9902.3120.056
Diabetes 1.4200.7872.5640.245
BMI < 25 1 (ref)
BMI 25–29 1.1420.7351.7740.555
BMI ≥ 30 1.7070.9183.1750.091
Neadjuvant CT/RT 1.3880.8882.1700.150
Mechanical bowel preparation1.0370.6901.5610.860
SurgeryAnterior resection1 (ref)
Abdominoperineal amputation 1.1070.5292.3180.787
Successful_laparoscopy0.6930.4161.1550.159
Failure to remove NG tube on POD21.7840.5355.9490.346
Failure to have solid diet on POD22.1131.2933.4520.0031.3570.7372.4980.327
Failure to stop IV fluids on POD22.1911.4453.3210.0001.5180.8952.5740.122
Failure to remove urinary catehter on POD22.3591.5503.5910.0001.8061.1332.8780.013
Failure to mobilize >4 h on POD 21.8351.2062.7930.0051.4660.9362.2950.095
Poorly controlled pain on POD2 (NRS > 3)1.8821.1423.1010.0131.4300.8392.4380.189
ref: reference.
Table 6. Monza subgroup patients’ characteristics.
Table 6. Monza subgroup patients’ characteristics.
VariableValueMedianIQRN%
Men 1851
Age 7161.5–80
BMI class<25 1646
25–291131
≥30823
ASA score1 25.7
21337
31954
425.7
IMA sparing 35100
TAP-block 35100
Failure Low Pneumop. 58.6
Successful laparoscopy 35100
Lymph nodes harvested 1512–21
NRSPOD 122–5
POD 222–5
POD 311–3
POD 400–2
Mobilization > 4 h POD2 3291
Clavien Dindo0 2160
1411
2617
3a12.8
3b12.8
400
500
Anastomotic leak 00
Fit for discharge, d 64–7
LOS, d 75–8
Readmission 38.6
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ceresoli, M.; Pedrazzani, C.; Pellegrino, L.; Muratore, A.; Ficari, F.; Polastri, R.; Scatizzi, M.; Totis, M.; Tamini, N.; Ripamonti, L.; et al. Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients. Cancers 2022, 14, 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235736

AMA Style

Ceresoli M, Pedrazzani C, Pellegrino L, Muratore A, Ficari F, Polastri R, Scatizzi M, Totis M, Tamini N, Ripamonti L, et al. Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients. Cancers. 2022; 14(23):5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235736

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ceresoli, Marco, Corrado Pedrazzani, Luca Pellegrino, Andrea Muratore, Ferdinando Ficari, Roberto Polastri, Marco Scatizzi, Mauro Totis, Nicolò Tamini, Lorenzo Ripamonti, and et al. 2022. "Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients" Cancers 14, no. 23: 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235736

APA Style

Ceresoli, M., Pedrazzani, C., Pellegrino, L., Muratore, A., Ficari, F., Polastri, R., Scatizzi, M., Totis, M., Tamini, N., Ripamonti, L., & Braga, M. (2022). Early Postoperative Low Compliance to Enhanced Recovery Pathway in Rectal Cancer Patients. Cancers, 14(23), 5736. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14235736

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop