Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_917_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1: SAGES University MASTERS Program: Colorectal Pathway
- •Introduction
- •References
- •Colorectal Surgery Curriculum
- •Facebook™ Groups
- •Conclusion
- •Operative Setup
- •Operating Room Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Trocar Placement
- •Top-Down Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Port Placement
- •Left/Sigmoid Colectomy
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Supramesocolic Approach
- •Inframesocolic Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Colon Transection
- •Specimen Extraction
- •Anastomosis
- •Fistula Repair
- •Other Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Solicit Institutional Support
- •Reviewing Current Data
- •Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Risk Assessment
- •Special Considerations
- •Immune Suppression
- •Smokers
- •Malnutrition
- •Obesity
- •Renal Impairment
- •Preoperative Stoma Marking
- •Preoperative Patient Education
- •Parenteral Antibiotics
- •Positioning
- •Surgical Time-Out
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Preparation
- •Laparoscopic Access
- •Special Considerations
- •Complicated Peritoneal Entry
- •Equipment Issues
- •Physiologic Issues
- •Optimizing Laparoscopic Exposure
- •OR Table Positioning
- •Laparoscopic Visualization
- •Splenic Bleeding
- •Organ Injury
- •Small Bowel Injury
- •Ureteral Injury
- •Trocar Site Closure
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Definitions
- •Central Venous Ligation (CVL)
- •Pathological Outcomes
- •Long-Term Survival
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •12: Unexpected Findings at Appendectomy
- •Inflamed Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Appendiceal Mass
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Cecal Diverticulitis
- •Sigmoid Diverticulitis
- •Epiploic Appendagitis
- •Crohn’s Disease
- •Gynecologic Pathology
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps, Medial-to-Lateral Approach
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Operative Techniques
- •Positioning
- •Trocars Placement
- •Side-to-Side Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Stapled Anastomosis
- •Side-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-Side Handsewn Anastomosis
- •End-to-End Handsewn Anastomosis
- •Operative Time
- •Spillage
- •Alignment/Ergonomics
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •da Vinci Xi® Setup (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Complex Crohn’s Disease Resection
- •Crohn’s Fistula
- •Difficult Crohn’s Mesentery
- •Ileocolonic Reconstruction
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Entry
- •Adhesiolysis
- •Thickened Mesentery
- •Anastomotic Problems
- •Postoperative Issues
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Optimization
- •Accelerated Recovery Pathway
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Locally Advanced Tumors
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Colonic J Pouch
- •Transverse Coloplasty
- •Baker’s Anastomosis
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Rectal Stump Blowout
- •Staple Line Bleeding
- •Outcomes
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Anastomotic Assessment
- •Temporary Fecal Diversion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Malignant Diseases
- •Benign Diseases
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Room Setup
- •Operative Technique
- •Trocar Placement
- •Si® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Xi® Robot (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA)
- •Si Robot
- •Xi Robot
- •Instrument Insertion
- •Extracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Intracorporeal Anastomosis
- •Instrument Collisions
- •Bleeding
- •Anastomotic Leak
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Adhesions
- •Difficult Rectal Stump Dissection
- •Rectal Stump Retraction
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Review Operative Report
- •Review Pathology Report
- •Cross-Sectional Imaging
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Operative Setup
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Preoperative Staging
- •Indications and Contraindications
- •Multidisciplinary Management
- •Preoperative Versus Postoperative Chemoradiation
- •Short-Course Radiotherapy
- •Intraoperative Radiation
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Total Neoadjuvant Therapy
- •Nonoperative Management
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Other Equipment/Incisions
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Pelvic Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Setup
- •Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Extraction Site
- •Operative Technique: Surgical Steps
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Rectal Mobilization
- •Posterior Dissection
- •Lateral Dissection
- •Anterior Dissection
- •Pelvic Floor Dissection
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Synchronous Masses/Tumors
- •Meckel’s Diverticulum
- •Peritoneal Carcinomatosis
- •Liver Metastasis
- •Ovarian Mass
- •Malrotation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Technique
- •Learning Curve
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Operative Strategy
- •Operative Setup
- •Patient Positioning
- •Port Placement
- •Diagnostic Laparoscopy
- •Minimally Invasive Resectional Approach
- •Best Approach
- •Splenic Flexure Mobilization (If Needed)
- •Distal Colon Transection
- •Considerations During Laparoscopic Hartmann’s Procedure
- •Obese Patients
- •Minimally Invasive Non-resectional Approach
- •Laparoscopic Peritoneal Lavage
- •Operative Setup
- •Port Placement
- •Postoperative Management
- •Outcomes
- •Resection
- •Laparoscopic Lavage
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Splenic Flexure Release
- •Colonic Conduit Ischemia
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Surgeon-Related Factors
- •Bowel Preparation
- •Ureteral Stents
- •Patient Positioning
- •Pneumoperitoneum
- •Laparoscopic Exposure: Trocars
- •Laparoscopic Adhesiolysis

88
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
and convalescence decreased [5]. Since their introduction, volumes of work have
established that these pathways can reduce the stress response, postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay, and overall costs. Enhanced recovery was initiated in
colorectal surgery, and the largest body of literature is still based in the colorectal
eld; however, the concept and benets rapidly spread to a variety of surgical specialties [6].
With the undisputed improvement in clinical and nancial outcomes using
enhanced recovery protocols and need to improve surgical quality and value, this is
a topic relevant to all surgeons who perform colorectal procedures. As enhanced
recovery evolves, there are several important points for providers to keep in mind.
First, the term “enhanced recovery after surgery” is a misnomer, as the order sets
cover the entire patient surgical experience, and the preoperative, intraoperative,
and postoperative periods need to be incorporated for best success. In addition,
simply having a protocol is also not enough to reap the benets of enhanced recovery; experience and better organization of care are necessary for success [7]. Finally,
the implementation process involves the entire multidisciplinary team; all staff
members that care for the surgical patient should be educated in the protocols and
supportive. In this chapter, we debunk common assumptions around ERPs and use
a simple approach to help put an ERP into practice using minimal requirements for
maximal benet in colorectal surgery.
Reviewing theEvidence: TheClinical Case forERP
The benets of ERPs are becoming unquestionably clear based on a growing body of
literature. Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated the clinical benets of ERPs.
The most recent systematic review and meta-analysis included 25 randomized trials
comparing ERP versus conventional care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. In
this meta-analysis, there were signicant reductions in length of stay and perioperative morbidity in favor of ERP, without differences in readmissions or mortalities
(Table7.1) [8]. These overall effects remained signicant regardless of open versus
laparoscopic approach or by indication for surgery (colorectal cancer, rectal cancer, or
benign disease). A similar meta-analysis in patients undergoing major non-colorectal
Table 7.1 Results from a meta-analysis of 25 randomized trials comparing ERP and conventional
care in patients undergoing colorectal surgery
Number of comparisons
Outcome
Length of stay 24
Perioperative
morbidity
Mortality 22 Risk ratio: 1.79 (95% CI 0.81, 3.95)
Readmissions 19 Risk ratio: 1.10 (95% CI 0.81, 1.50)
Surgical site
infections
included
19 Risk ratio: 0.66 (95% CI 0.54, 0.80)
17 Risk ratio: 0.75 (95% CI 0.52, 1.07)
Effect
Mean difference: −2.62days (95% CI
−3.22, −2.02)

7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Table 7.2 Results of a meta-analysis comparing ERP and conventional care in patients undergo-
ing major non-colorectal abdominal surgery (randomized trials only)
Number of
Outcome
Length of stay 11
Perioperative
morbidity
Readmissions 7 Risk ratio: 1.60 (95% CI 0.87, 2.96)
comparisons included
12 Risk ratio: 0.68 (95% CI 0.43, 1.10)
Effect
Mean difference: −2.6days (95% CI −3.5, −1.7)
89
abdominal surgery also demonstrated a signicant decrease in length of stay without
a difference in readmissions, although the effect on complications was not statistically
signicant (Table7.2) [9]. Analysis of return of GI function has reported signicant
reductions in time to rst atus and time to rst bowel movement for both upper GI
and colorectal procedures [10]. Nonetheless, the effect sizes for these three important
outcomes are remarkably similar between colorectal and non-colorectal abdominal
surgery, suggesting the robustness of ERP principles. The generalizability of ERPs is
especially important, as the initial effort and resource investments and expertise development for a colorectal ERP can then be applied for other procedures and specialties.
With this evidence, methods to develop, implement, and measure outcomes with ERP
are key for surgeons performing colorectal surgery.
Solicit Institutional Support
Institutional support from hospital administrators is a necessary step for success, as
for senior level buy-in sets the tone for the culture change with ERP implementation, and demonstrates to all staff that the institution supports dedicating the time
and resources that are required to implement and maintain these pathways.
Institutional support for ERP is necessary to identify where support can be offered,
such as in the provision of an ERP facilitator, purchasing decisions, reallocation of
staff and support services, education sessions in relation to ERPs, and the development of strategies to improve multidisciplinary buy-in and participation [11]. A
recent study of SAGES members reported the single most important roadblock to
successful ERP implementation was the lack of support from the hospital administration [12]. Thus, the visible top-down support of the institution and administration
is key to drive the awareness and implementation of an ERP.As you put an ERP into
practice, the next step after reviewing the evidence and building a clinical case is to
present this evidence to the institutional administration to ensure high-level support
of the initiative.
Defining Leaders andCreation oftheMultidisciplinary Team
With support of the administration, the next step is to build the multidisciplinary
team. A successful ERP requires active collaboration and participation from the
entire healthcare provider team, to ensure that all involved stakeholders feel

90
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
accountable for the implementation and maintenance processes [13]. It is essential
to dene leaders and assemble a multidisciplinary team, identifying champions
from all involved specialties that will take the lead in organizing, implementing, and
maintaining their specialty’s respective roles in the ERP. The team begins with
dening a local clinical champion, who recognizes its benets. This individual then
forms a working group of similar-minded individuals from all involved parties into
a steering committee, which should be able to effectively disseminate the clinical
and economic benets of the ERP approach to their colleagues, implement, and
monitor changes. This steering committee should consist of representatives from
the involved specialties, as well as allied health professionals that are essential for
patient care. This multidisciplinary team is recommended to include surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, nursing representatives from the preoperative center, postanesthesia care unit, surgical ward, physiotherapists, pharmacists, and nutritionists
that meet on a regular schedule. Each of these individuals represents an essential
component in the patient’s perioperative journey. The role of the surgeon and anesthesiologist is obvious; however other specialties and team members should also be
recruited. For example, much of the preoperative testing and evaluation can be
streamlined to minimize patient burden and resource utilization. In this regard, the
inclusion of a representative of the medical specialty in charge of preoperative center is crucial. Operating room, perioperative care, and ward nursing representation
are also critical, to ensure education, acceptance, and compliance with the ERP
items during surgery and the patient’s stay in the postanesthesia recovery unit and
inpatient oor. Similarly, allied health professionals that provide much of the care
processes in the perioperative period should also be included. Pharmacists are an
essential team member for agreement with medications included in the pathways
and ease of future clinical trials. Nutrition, physical therapy, and wound ostomy care
nurses are invaluable for input on managing high-risk and frail patients during the
prehabilitation and postoperative periods. In most hospital systems, trainees are
actively involved in patient care and may actually have the primary role of putting
in orders and patient education. Thus, surgical resident involvement for ownership
and buy-in of the care practices by the house staff is critical. For centers with the
means or desire to publish, a librarian who can provide detailed literature searches
on the best available evidence can also facilitate the dissemination process and pathway design. Once protocols have been developed and approved, the Information
Technologies department can help streamline the implementation and audit processes, by integrating the pathways into the electronic medical record with automated order sets, back-end databases, and personalized queries on outcomes
metrics. Finally, a dedicated ERP facilitator is one of the essential elements commonly overlooked. The facilitator is paramount for successful ERP implementation
and subsequent audit processes [14, 15]. The ERP facilitator is mostly a nurse, nurse
practitioner, or physician assistant (most common in the United States). Their
responsibilities include reviewing the literature and evidence-based guidelines;
shepherding the pathways through the approval process; maintaining momentum;
creating patient education material; coordinating education sessions, meetings, and
launch; and, nally, conducting postlaunch feedback and audit [15]. In cases where

7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
there is a dedicated colorectal unit, the facilitator could also be the nurse manager
of the dedicated unit, helping to assure training and compliance with postoperative
care principles. The ERP coordinator is a vital member of the team who is responsible for overseeing each of these key steps and coordinating among specialties.
91
Reviewing Current Data
Once the team is created, it is important to provide clear goals for your ERP.The
rst step in this process is to review specic institutional practice patterns and outcomes. Determine what the current outcome and process measure data are at your
institution. Process measures cover what the institution does to maintain or improve
care; these measures typically reect generally accepted recommendations for clinical practice. Examples include use of bowel prep, blood sugar control before surgery, and the delivery of timely prophylactic antibiotics to reduce surgical site
infection. Outcome measures reect the impact of interventions on the patient’s care
and include metrics such as hospital length of stay, readmissions, and common complications. From these data, develop a specic needs assessment for change and
initial goals for the ERP, such as reducing the rate of surgical site infections, reducing length of stay, or reducing opioid use. Provide the group with your institution’s
current processes and outcomes, as well as the same metrics for other hospitals and
national benchmarks to emphasize the need and help prove the need for the change.
These are basics of patient improvement, nancial benets, and clinical outcomes,
to give the team a sense of urgency and need to implement a protocol. Without these
data, there may be resistance to change from healthcare providers that do not see
any advantages of the ERP approach over their current practice or fear the process
change will be cumbersome and expensive [12].
Creating anEducation Program
With the current state of your institution and ERP goals dened, the next step involves
education of these providers on current best practices and evidence-based recommendations and their potential improvements in clinical and nancial outcomes. It is
imperative to provide education for all staff at the appropriate levels, as well as to
create a sense of urgency to drive change initiatives. This approach has been shown
to be effective in a business setting, as well as in healthcare [11, 13]. Literature on the
basic principles and successful outcomes of ERP can be sent for the team to review
as pre-learning, prior to meeting in person. Suggested landmark background papers
are seen in Box 7.1. Next, targeted education specic to each team member’s contribution is essential for the team to understand their role and essential contribution to
the overall success of an ERP.Ideas for education include presenting the initiative at
grand rounds for each department involved and trainees, staff meetings, designated
education sessions, and ward “huddles” or sign-out sessions and creating handouts
for the staff with the protocol and their main role highlighted. For the nursing and

92
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
allied health staff, assure presentations occur at multiple periods to include staff that
work on evening or weekend shifts. With education, acceptance of the culture change
will come, followed by willing participation and then nally excitement for the new
standard and identication of ERP champions. It is especially important to educate
the primary caretakers, including nursing and other allied health professionals in the
preoperative clinic, postanesthesia care unit, and postoperative surgical ward, as
ERPs may require signicant departures from long-standing practices. Specic
changes like removing patient-controlled analgesia (PCAs) after surgery and removing the practice of preoperative fasting starting at midnight the night before surgery
require changes across multiple providers, preoperative clinic, admitting ofce, preanesthesia clinic and anesthesiologists, and postoperative and ward nursing. These
changes can be facilitated with the support of the champions, who can effectively set
goals, disseminate the evidence and benets underlying the proposed changes, and
support the implementation [1].
Box 7.1 Suggested Reading for Surgeons to Review Evidence for Enhanced
Recovery
1. King PM, Blazeby JM, Ewings P, etal. The inuence of an enhanced
recovery programme on clinical outcomes, costs and quality of life after
surgery for colorectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:506–13.
2. Kehlet H, Wilmore DW.Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution
of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:189–98.
3. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF,
Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA,
Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA, LAFA study group.
Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is
the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a
randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg. 2011;254:868–75.
4. Smart NJ, White P, Allison AS, Ockrim JB, Kennedy RH, Francis
NK.Deviation and failure of enhanced recovery after surgery following
laparoscopic colorectal surgery: early prediction model. Colorectal Dis.
2012;14:e727–34.
5. Aarts MA, Okrainec A, Glicksman A, Pearsall E, Victor JC, McLeod
RS.Adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for
colorectal surgery at academic teaching hospitals and impact on total
length of hospital stay. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:442–50.
6. Lawrence JK, Keller DS, Samia H, etal. Discharge within 24 to 72hours
of colorectal surgery is associated with low readmission rates when using
enhanced recovery pathways. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:390–4.
7. Keller DS, Bankwitz B, Woconish D, etal. Predicting who will fail early
discharge after laparoscopic colorectal surgery with an established
enhanced recovery pathway. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:74–9.
8. Lee L, Mata J, Augustin B, Ghitulescu GA, Boutros M, Charlebois P,
Stein B, Liberman AS, Fried GM, Morin N, Carli F, Latimer E, Feldman
LS. Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery versus conventional

7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
perioperative management for colorectal surgery. Ann Surg. 2015;
262(6):1026–33.
9. Stone AB, Grant MC, Pio Roda C, et al. Implementation costs of an
enhanced recovery after surgery program in the United States: a nancial
model and sensitivity analysis based on experiences at a Quaternary
Academic Medical Center. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222:219–25.
10. Keller DS, Delaney CP, Senagore AJ, Feldman LS, SAGES SMART Task
Force. Uptake of enhanced recovery practices by SAGES members: a
survey. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(9):3519–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00464-016-5378-8.
11. Carmichael JC, Keller DS, Baldini G, Bordeianou L, Weiss E, Lee L,
Boutros M, McClane J, Steele SR, Feldman LS.Clinical practice guideline for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the
American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Society
of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). Surg
Endosc. 2017;9.
12. Jurt J, Slieker J, Frauche P, Addor V, Solà J, Demartines N, Hübner
M.Enhanced recovery after surgery: can we rely on the key factors or do
we need the bel ensemble? World J Surg. 2017;41(10):2464–70. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4054-z.
13. Berian JR, Ban KA, Liu JB, Ko CY, Feldman LS, Thacker JK.Adherence
to enhanced recovery protocols in NSQIP and association with colectomy outcomes. Ann Surg. 2017.
14. Stone AB, Yuan CT, Rosen MA, Grant MC, Benishek LE, Hanahan E,
Lubomski LH, Ko C, Wick EC.Barriers to and facilitators of implementing enhanced recovery pathways using an implementation framework: a
systematic review. JAMA Surg. 2018;03.
93
Overcoming Barriers Through Culture Change
ERPs may represent a signicant culture change– departures from long-standing
clinical practices– and there may be initial resistance to change, especially if awareness of the benets of the ERP is poor [14]. Resistance to change has been identied
as one of the major barriers to ERP implementation, yet it is one that can be slowly
broken down through enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration and communication, as well as support from hospital administration [16, 17]. Other potential barriers that are often encountered include lack of manpower, knowledge, hospital
resources, buy-in, poor communication among team members, and patient factors
[12]. There may also be specialty-specic barriers and concerns. From the nursing
point of view, a potential lack of manpower and time is often viewed as potential
barriers to ERP implementation, as nurses may be resistant to interventions that
increased their workload and thus compound stafng shortages [16]. However,
studies have reported decreased or unchanged nursing workload as a result of

94
pathway implementation [18]. Surgeons often cite personal preferences, feeling
little room for improvement from their current outcomes, lack of time to learn new
methods, inconsistency with covering teams and partners, and comfort with longstanding practices as barriers to implementation [12]. Anesthesiologists were concerned about the surgeons’ willingness to cede control of perioperative elements
traditionally under their control. One common theme across specialties is that they
often saw other specialties as potential barriers, such as surgeon concerns about
ward nursing not adopting many of the perioperative interventions. Many of these
potential barriers can be overcome through improved organizational culture, communication, and education on everyone’s role in reaching the common goal of
improved patient recovery. Another common barrier to adoption is the perceived
additional costs and resources that these pathways require [16]. A review of the
economic data (described in more detail below) will show that there are important
cost savings associated with these pathways, and any initial resource investments
can be recovered by the clinical and economic benets [19, 20]. With the common
barriers and obstacles to success identied, the steering committee can proactively
develop action plans to overcome them and adjust the plans during regular meetings
to address new issues that arise.
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
Overcoming Barriers by Building theBusiness Case
forEnhanced Value withERPs
One of the oft-stated barriers to ERP adoption is the perception that signicant time,
money, and resources are required. While certainly some investments in time and
healthcare resources are necessary, especially when it comes to a dedicated ERP
facilitator, these overall costs are often more than recovered based from the overall
cost savings associated with ERPs. It is also important to frame the benets of ERP
through the “value” perspective. Value in healthcare is dened as the outcomes
achieved per dollar spent [21]. Value is always dened around the customer, which
is the surgical patient. Value depends on results, and it is important to realize that
cost reduction without regard to the outcomes achieved is dangerous and selfdefeating, leading to false “savings” and potentially ineffective care and poor outcomes. Conversely, when value improves, patients, payers, providers, and suppliers
all benet, and the economic sustainability of the healthcare system increases [21].
Improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of healthcare requires that we decrease
or eliminate care that provides no benet or offer interventions that provide good
value for their cost [22]. ERPs eliminate surgical practices that are outdated, have
no evidence-based benet, and may be harmful– such as perioperative starvation
and prolonged postoperative bedrest– and replace them with multiple evidencebased interventions within a single perioperative strategy that may reduce waste and
variability and improve outcomes. There is a cost to set up an ERP, with much of the
expense to cover salary of the ERP coordinator. However, these costs can be spread
across a large number of patients, especially as ERP principles can be easily applied
across different procedure groups, thus resulting in a negligible per patient cost. In
addition, even including all input and maintenance costs, there is an overall cost

7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Table 7.3 Breakdown of McGill University Health Centre Surgical Recovery (SuRe) workgroup
program costs over a 1-year period
Full-time ERP nurse coordinator (yearly salary) 81,225
Opportunity costs of ERP steering group (1hr./meeting × 26 meetings) 14,320
Nurse specialists and managers, nutritionist, physiotherapist, librarian, clinical
leaders from surgery, and anesthesia ($550 per meeting)
Patient education material (operating costs of work performed by a medical
informatics center)
Total 108,770
Used with permission of Wolters Kluwer Health from Lee etal. [20]
95
13,225
benet for the savings resulting from the accelerated recovery and use of resources
during the hospital stay; these saving are furthered by the reduction of postdischarge
healthcare resources, complications, and readmissions with ERP. Several studies
have proven this overall cost benet. In a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing
ERP with conventional care in colorectal surgery, Lee and colleagues found the
yearly cost of the ERP was $108,770 (2103 CAD); this cost was spread across multiple patients and specialties managed by ERPs, resulting in a mean overall cost of
the multidisciplinary program to approximately $153 (2013 CAD) per patient [20]
(Table7.3). The authors found no shift in the burden of care to the outpatient setting,
either resulting an overall signicantly lower societal costs (productivity losses and
caregiver burden) or total cost savings with ERP of $2985 ($373–$5753) per patient
[20]. The available economic data generally support the cost-effectiveness of ERP,
with lower total and direct costs [23–29]. At one institution, there was a per patient
reduction of $7129in direct costs, corresponding to a cost savings of $777,061in
the 6-month study period the ERP group [26]. The cost-effectiveness was generalizable to all patient populations, with the cost benet for ERP expected to generate
cost savings in at least 85% of unadjusted and 82% of adjusted cost samples [27].
Another study estimated that the implementation of ERP across an entire provincial
hospital network in Alberta, Canada, reported that an upfront investment of $528,459
CAN over 2years was required [30]. The “break-even point”– where the cost savings would be greater than the implementation costs– was estimated at 93 to 236
cancer resections or 38 to 80 noncancer resections. Based on these data, it was further estimated that every $1 invested would result in $3.8 (range 2.4–5.1) in return
[31]. Data from an academic US center reported similar results (Table7.4) [19]. All
of these studies support the notion of higher value care with ERP, with provision of
better outcomes at the same cost, identical outcomes at the same cost, or better outcomes at lower costs.
Developing theProtocols
After reviewing the evidence, current outcome, and process measure data and developing the multidisciplinary team, the next step is writing the detailed care plans. In
the ERP development, it is necessary to consider the preoperative, intraoperative,
and postoperative periods, and then drill down on the distinct elements you want to
cover in each time frame. The specic elements included will depend on the

96
Table 7.4 Implementation costs at an American quaternary academic medical center
Costs 100 250 500
Implementation costs, $ 10,000 10,000 10,000
Site visits/training course 0 73,700 135,839
Surgeon/anesthesia/nursing leadership time 0 25,000 50,000
Capita expenses, equipment, $
Annual costs, $
Personnel
Project manager 100,875 100,875 126,094
Acute pain nurse 0 56,950 113,900
Preoperative support 0 28,475 56,950
Materials
Education materials 2000 5000 10,000
Carbohydrate drinks/nutritional supplements 5000 12,500 25,000
Disposable materials related to uid therapy monitor or
other ERAS equipment
Total rst-year costs, $ 117,875 325,00 552,783
Annual maintenance costs, $ 107,875 216,300 356,944
Cost per patient, year 1, $ 1179 1300 1106
Cost per patient, nonyear 1, $ 1079 865 714
Used with permission of Elsevier from Stone etal. [19]
D. S. Keller and L. Lee
Annual no. of ERAS cases
0 12,500 25,000
Fig. 7.1 Enhanced recovery protocol template. (Used with permission of the Society of American
Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) from SAGES SMART Program. Available
online at: http://www.sages.org/smart-enhanced-recovery-program)
individual institution and the ERP goals, but there are essential elements to cover in
all protocols. Samples and guidelines can be found on the SAGES SMART
Enhanced Recovery Program site [32]. A general template is seen in Fig.7.1. In the
preoperative period, patient education and setting expectations should be the

7 Debunking Enhanced Recovery Protocols inColorectal Surgery: Minimal…
Fig. 7.2 Enhanced recovery protocol educational material
97
cornerstone of every ERP [33]. Preoperative education is essential; the need for
more education and counseling has been identied as a barrier to ERP success [34].
Thus, information should be repeated at different points in time and via different
means – words, pictures, electronic media, or mobile health apps – to increase
patient engagement in their recovery process (Fig.7.2) [15, 33, 35]. The bowel
preparation should be detailed; the current standard of care is mechanical and oral
antibiotics to reduce surgical site infection [36, 37]. There may also be a role for a
prehabilitation program prior to surgery, with nutrition, regular exercise, smoking
cessation, and anxiety/stress management facilitate return to baseline functional status; this is especially important in colorectal cancer and frail patients [38–40]. Other
tenets for the preoperative period are uid and carbohydrate loading, clear liquids
until 2hours before surgery, and preemptive pain and ileus management [6]. During
the intraoperative period, attention should focus on multimodal pain management,
minimally invasive approaches instead of large incisions when feasible, goaldirected uid therapy, and avoidance of unnecessary drains and tubes. Postoperatively,
important elements include early ambulation; early removal of catheters, drains, and
tubes; early resumption of diet and cessation of supplemental intravenous uids,
and multimodal opioid-sparing pain management. Patients should also have a
scheduled follow- up visit before discharge to reduce anxiety during the transition of
care from hospital to home.
Measuring andFurther Improving Outcomes
Audit of processes and outcomes is a common theme across all periods. The designated coordinator can document compliance with the protocol overall and individual ERP elements and evaluate the process and outcome variables for key metrics.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
