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.     

Are we ready for definitive clinical guidelines on xylitol/polyol use?

In the past decades, numerous studies have looked at the anticaries effects of polyols, particularly xylitol, and a great many studies have focused on xylitol's antimicrobial properties. Researched vehicles have mostly included chewing gums, followed by lozenges/candies, toothpastes, and others (e.g., syrup). Good evidence supports the claims that xylitol is non-cariogenic and has a dose-/frequency-dependent antimicrobial effect on dental plaque/mutans streptococci, and that polyol use is very safe. However, interpretation of caries data has been controversial, due in part to variability in study designs, formulations/dosages tested, and outcomes reported (e.g., many caries studies have a "no gum" control, limiting the interpretation of the polyol's benefit; few studies have compared different polyols side-by-side, or in adults). Even when the level/strength of high-quality anticaries evidence is still limited, most recent systematic reviews have consistently concluded that the habitual use of sucrose-free xylitol or polyol-combination chewing gum/ lozenges is an effective adjunct in coronal caries prevention. Consequently, many health organizations worldwide are supporting this recommendation for at-risk populations. However, most experts agree that well-designed, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials (RCTs) (focusing on efficacy, feasibility, adherence, dosage, vehicle, synergism with other preventive strategies, and cost) are still needed in target populations worldwide to reach definitive caries-preventive/therapeutic recommendations.