Systematic review of enhanced recovery after gastro-oesophageal cancer surgery

Introduction

Fast track methodology or enhanced recovery schemes have gained increasing popularity in perioperative care. While evidence is strong for colorectal surgery, its importance in gastric and oesophageal surgery has yet to be established. This article reviews the evidence of enhanced recovery schemes on outcome for this type of surgery.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted up to March 2014. Studies were retrieved and analysed using predetermined criteria.

Results

From 34 articles reviewed, 18 eligible studies were identified: 7 on gastric and 11 on oesophageal resection. Three randomised controlled trials, five case-controlled studies and ten case series were identified. The reported protocols included changes to each stage of the patient journey from pre to postoperative care. The specific focus following oesophageal resections was on early mobilisation, a reduction in intensive care unit stay, early drain removal and early (or no) contrast swallow studies. Following gastric resections, the emphasis was on reducing epidural anaesthesia along with re-establishing oral intake in the first three postoperative days and early removal of nasogastric tubes.In the papers reviewed, mortality rates following fast track surgery were 0.8% (9/1,075) for oesophageal resection and 0% (0/329) for gastric resection. The reported morbidity rate was 16.5% (54/329) following gastric resection and 38.6% (396/1,075) following oesophageal resection. Length of stay was reduced in both groups compared with conventional recovery groups in comparative studies.

Conclusions

The evidence for enhanced recovery schemes following gastric and oesophageal resection is weak, with only three (low volume) published randomised controlled trials. However, the enhanced recovery approach appears safe and may be associated with a reduction in length of stay.     

Urban legends series: Sjögren’s syndrome

Oral Diseases (2012) 19 , 46–58 Sjögren’s syndrome (SjS) is one of the most common autoimmune rheumatic diseases, clinically characterized by xerostomia and keratoconjunctivitis sicca. We investigated the following controversial topics: (i) Do we have reliable ways of assessing saliva production? (ii) How important are the quantity and quality of saliva? (iii) Are only anti‐SSA/Ro and anti‐SSB/La relevant for the diagnosis of SjS? (iv) Are the American‐European Consensus criteria (AECC) the best way to diagnose SjS? Results from literature searches suggested the following: (i) Despite the fact that numerous tests are available to assess salivation rates, direct comparisons among them are scarce with little evidence to suggest one best test. (ii) Recent developments highlight the importance of investigating the composition of saliva. However, more research is needed to standardize the methods of analysis and collection and refine the quality of the accumulating data. (iii) In addition to anti‐Ro/La autoantibodies, anti α‐fodrin IgA and anti‐MR3 autoantibodies seem to be promising diagnostic markers of SjS, but more studies are warranted to test their sensitivity and specificity. (iv) AECC are classification, not diagnostic criteria. Moreover, recent innovations have not been incorporated into these criteria. Consequently, treatment directed to patients diagnosed using the AECC might exclude a significant proportion of patients with SjS.     

Reduction in length of stay for patients undergoing oesophageal and gastric resections with implementation of enhanced recovery packages

Introduction

The high mortality and morbidity associated with resection for oesophagogastric malignancy has resulted in a conservative approach to the postoperative management of this patient group. In August 2009 we introduced an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway tailored to patients undergoing resection for oesophagogastric malignancy. We aimed to assess the impact of this change in practice on standard clinical outcomes.

Methods

Two cohorts were studied of patients undergoing resection for oesophagogastric malignancy before (August 2008 – July 2009) and after (August 2009 – July 2010) the implementation of the ERAS pathway. Data were collected on demographics, interventions, length of stay, morbidity and in-hospital mortality.

Results

There were 53 and 55 oesophagogastric resections undertaken respectively for malignant disease in each of the study periods. The median length of stay for both gastric and oesophageal resection decreased from 15 to 11 days (Mann– Whitney U, p<0.001) following implementation of the ERAS pathway. There was no significant increase in morbidity (gastric resection 23.1% vs 5.3% and oesophageal resection 25.9% vs 16.7%) or mortality (gastric resection no deaths and oesophageal resection 1.8% vs 3.6%) associated with the changes. There was a significant decrease in the number of oral contrast studies used following oesophageal resection, with a reduction from 21 (77.8%) in 2008–2009 to 6 (16.7%) in 2009–2010 (chi-squared test, p<0.0001).

Conclusions

The introduction of an enhanced recovery programme following oesophagogastric surgery resulted in a significant decrease in length of median patient stay in hospital without a significant increase in associated morbidity and mortality.     

Using mobile technology to overcome language barriers in medicine

Australia has a large migrant population with variable fluency in English. Interpreting services help ensure that healthcare services are delivered appropriately to these populations. However, the use of professional interpreters in hospitals is expensive. There are also issues with service availability and convenience. Mobile devices containing software with translating abilities have promising potential to improve communication between patients and hospital staff as an adjunct to professional interpreters. It is highly convenient and inexpensive. There are concerns about the accuracy of the interpretation done with such software and more research needs to be carried out to support or allay these concerns. For now, clinically important and medicolegal related interpretation should be undertaken by professional interpreters whereas less crucial tasks may be performed with the help of interpreting software on mobile devices.