Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery has been proven effective for patients with gastrointestinal cancer. But radical enhanced recovery could also lead to adverse clinical outcomes. Compared with reports on the estimation of successful implementation of enhanced recovery, studies on risk factors of enhanced recovery failure are still lacking.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 102 patients in ERAS who underwent elective colon cancer surgery. This study included 102 patients with colon cancer between 2015 and 2019, defining enhanced recovery failure as postoperative length of stay over 10 days, stay in ICU over 24 h after surgery, reoperation, death, or unplanned readmission within 30 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore potential risk factors of failure.

Results

Aged ≥ 75, open operation, number of drainage tube over 1, re-urethral catheterization, and Clavien-Dindo grade over 2 were associated with ERAS failure, according to univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 75 [OR 7.231; P = 0.009]; open operation (OR 3.599; P = 0.021); and number of drainage tube over 1 (OR 3.202; P = 0.020) were independent risk factors for ERAS failure.

Conclusions

We found age ≥ 75, open operation, and number of drainage tube over 1 are independent risk factors associated with ERAS failure after colon cancer surgery.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilmore DW, Kehlet H (2001) Management of patients in fast track surgery. BMJ 322:473–476

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chestovich PJ, Lin AY, Yoo J (2003) Fast-track pathways in colorectal surgery. Surg Clin N Am 93:21–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bosio RM, Smith BM, Aybar PS, Senagore AJ (2007) Implementation of laparoscopic colectomy with fast-track care in an academic medical center: benefits of a fully ascended learning curve and specialty expertise. Am J Surg 193:413–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z (2013) Enhanced Recovery after Surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 56:667–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJHM (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD007635

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lassen K, Soop M, Nygren J, Cox PB, Hendry PO, Spies C, von Meyenfeldt M, Fearon KC, Revhaug A, Norderval S, Ljungqvist O, Lobo DN, Dejong CH, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group (2009) Consensus review of optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) group recommendations. Arch Surg 144:961–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 Percutan Tech 23:259–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis NK (2012) Deviation and failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery following laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Color Dis 14:727–734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lewis DR, Chen HS, Cockburn MG, Wu XC, Stroup AM, Midthune DN, Zou Z, Krapcho MF, Miller DG, Feuer EJ (2017) Early estimates of SEER cancer incidence, 2014. Cancer 123:2524–2534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Murray T, Thun MJ (2008) Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 58:71–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Alley PG (2000) Surgery for colorectal cancer in elderly patients. Lancet 356:956

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Temple LK, Hsieh L, Wong WD et al (2004) Use of surgery among elderly patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3475–3484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Papamichael D, Audisio R, Horiot JC, Glimelius B, Sastre J, Mitry E, van Cutsem E, Gosney M, Köhne CH, Aapro M, SIOG (2009) Treatment of the elderly colorectal cancer patient: SIOG expert recommendations. Ann Oncol 20:5–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamamoto S, Hinoi T, Niitsu H et al (2017) Influence of previous abdominal surgery on surgical outcomes between laparoscopic and open surgery in elderly patients with colorectal cancer: subanalysis of a large multicenter study in Japan. J Gastroenterol 52:695–704

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ, Nguyen VQ, Pigazzi A, Carmichael JC, Mills SD, Stamos MJ (2014) Colorectal cancer resections in the aging US population a trend toward decreasing rates and improved outcomes. JAMA Surg 149:557–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wagman LD (2007) Laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer: reaching equipoise? J Clin Oncol 25:2996–2998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Greene FL (1999) Laparoscopic management of colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 49:221–228

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Marcello PW (2000) Laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Gastroenterology 118:806

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 6:477–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Weeks JC, Nelson H, Gelber S, Sargent D, Schroeder G (2002) Short-term quality-of-life outcomes following laparoscopic-assisted colectomy vs open colectomy for colon cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 287:321–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson H, Sargent DJ, Wieand HS et al (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Buunen M, Veldkamp R, Hop WC et al (2009) Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial. Lancet Oncol 10:44–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sun J, Qiu ZJ (2011) A non-randomized perspective investigation on long-term outcomes comparison between laparoscopic and open surgery in the treatment of colon cancer. Fudan Univ J Med Sci 03:211–215

  26. 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 32:1804–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Robinson JO (1986) Surgical drainage: an historical perspective. Br J Surg 73:422–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Sagar PM, Couse N, Kerin M, May J, Macfie J (1993) Randomized trial of drainage of colorectal anastomosis. Br J Surg 80:769–771

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsujinaka S, Konishi F (2011) Drain vs no drain after colorectal surgery. Indian J Surg Oncol 2:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rondelli F, Bugiantella W, Vedovati MC et al (2014) To drain or not to drain extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis 16:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Urbach DR, Kennedy ED, Cohen MM et al (1999) Colon and rectal anastomoses do not require routine drainage. Ann Surg 229:174–180

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Petrowsky H, Demartines N, Rousson V, Clavien PA (2004) Evidence-based value of prophylactic drainage in gastrointestinal surgery. Ann Surg 240:1074–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Foster ME (2017) To drain or not after colorectal surgery. Ann R CON Surg Engl 70:158–160

    Google Scholar 

  34. Emile SH, Abd El-Hamed TM (2017) Routine drainage of colorectal anastomoses: an evidence-based review of the current literature. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2017:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schreiber A, Aydil E, Walschus U, Glitsch A, Patrzyk M, Heidecke C-D, Schulze T (2019) Early removal of urinary drainage in patients receiving epidural analgesia after colorectal surgery within an ERAS protocol is feasible. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 404:853–863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sun SD, Wu PP, Zhou JF, Wang JX, He QL (2020) Failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Int J Color Dis 35:1007–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Crouzet J, Bertrand X, Venier AG, Badoz M, Husson C, Talon D (2007) Control of the duration of urinary catheterization: impact on catheter-associated urinary tract infection. J Hosp Infect 67:253–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Collard MK, Anyla M, Lefevre JH et al (2020) Patients’ refusal as major limitation of early discharge after colorectal resection in an enhanced recovery program. Langenbeck's Arch Surg 405:337–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jian-Sheng Chen and Si-Da Sun contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, 20 Chazhong Road, Fuzhou, 350005, China

    Jian-Sheng Chen, Si-Da Sun, Zhi-Sheng Wang, Tian-Hong Cai, Long-Kai Huang, Wen-Xing Sun, Chang-Qing Lin, Jun-Feng Zhou, Jia-Xing Wang & Qing-Liang He

Authors
  1. Jian-Sheng Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Si-Da Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhi-Sheng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tian-Hong Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Long-Kai Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wen-Xing Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chang-Qing Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jun-Feng Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jia-Xing Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Qing-Liang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qing-Liang He.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, JS., Sun, SD., Wang, ZS. et al. The factors related to failure of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) in colon cancer surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 405, 1025–1030 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01975-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-020-01975-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation