Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol in Advanced and Recurrent Rectal Cancer Patients after beyond Total Mesorectal Excision Surgery: A Feasibility Study

• Published in: Cancers Vol. 15; no. 18; p. 4523
• Main Authors: Nordkamp, Stefi, Creemers, Davy M. J, Glazemakers, Sofie, Ketelaers, Stijn H. J, Scholten, Harm J, van de Calseijde, Silvie, Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A. P, Tolenaar, Jip L, Crezee, Hendi W, Rutten, Harm J. T, Burger, Jacobus W. A, Bloemen, Johanne G
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.09.2023; MDPI
• Subjects: Analgesia; Analysis; Anesthesia; Cancer; Cancer patients; Cancer surgery; Care and treatment; Catheters; Chemotherapy; Colorectal cancer; Colorectal carcinoma; Compliance; Complications; Complications and side effects; Diseases; Epidural; Feasibility studies; Hospitals; Intravenous administration; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Methadone; Nurses; Oncology, Experimental; Pain management; Patients; Postoperative; Radiation therapy; Recovery (Medical); Recovery of function; Rectum; Relapse; Surgery; Surgical outcomes
• ISSN: 2072-6694; 2072-6694
• DOI: 10.3390/cancers15184523

Introduction: The implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) has been deemed unfeasible until now because of the heterogeneity of this disease and low caseloads. Since evidence and experience with ERAS principles in colorectal cancer care are increasing, a modified ERAS protocol for this specific group has been developed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the implementation of a tailored ERAS protocol for patients with LARC or LRRC, requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) surgery. Methods: Patients who underwent a bTME for LARC or LRRC between October 2021 and December 2022 were prospectively studied. All patients were treated in accordance with the ERAS LARRC protocol, which consisted of 39 ERAS care elements specifically developed for patients with LARC and LRRC. One of the most important adaptations of this protocol was the anaesthesia procedure, which involved the use of total intravenous anaesthesia with intravenous (iv) lidocaine, iv methadone, and iv ketamine instead of epidural anaesthesia. The outcomes showed compliance with ERAS care elements, complications, length of stay, and functional recovery. A follow-up was performed at 30 and 90 days post-surgery. Results: Seventy-two patients were selected, all of whom underwent bTME for either LARC (54.2%) or LRRC (45.8%). Total compliance with the adjusted ERAS protocol was 73.6%. Major complications were present in 12 patients (16.7%), and the median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR 6.0–14.0). Patients who received multimodal anaesthesia (75.0%) stayed in the hospital for a median of 7.0 days (IQR 6.8–15.5). These patients received fewer opioids on the first three postoperative days than patients who received epidural analgesia (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The implementation of the ERAS LARRC protocol seemed successful according to its compliance rate of >70%. Its complication rate was substantially reduced in comparison with the literature. Multimodal anaesthesia is feasible in beyond TME surgery with promising effects on recovery after surgery.