Abstract
Aim: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been proven to optimize postoperative outcomes; however, misuse of opioid analgesics can still hinder postoperative recovery due to related side effects and potential complications.
Introduction: To determine if the implementation of ERAS protocol in post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (PC-RPLND) patients could help with reducing postoperative pain and opioid use.
Methods: A case-control study of consecutive testicular cancer patients with indications for PCRLPND, who were offered Conventional Post-operative Management (CPM) or ERAS protocol. Outcomes of interest included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-assessed pain level at postoperative days 3, 7, and 30, and Morphine-Equivalent Doses (MEDs)/postoperative day. Intraoperative parameters and postoperative complications were recorded. Parametric and non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: In total, 100 opioid-naïve PC-RPLND patients were studied. CPM and ERAS groups (36 and 64 patients, respectively) had similar demographic and baseline clinical characteristics). ERAS group patients had significantly lower blood loss (p = 0.005), blood transfusion rate (p < 0.001), and duration of the procedure (p < 0.001). Post-operative complications were comparable between groups. Nausea and bowel disorders were numerically but not statistically more frequent in the CPM group. ERAS patients had shorter mean hospital stay (5.3 ± 1.4 vs. 7.4 ± 1.6 days, p < 0.001), lower daily MEDs (4.73 ± 2.63 vs. 7.04 ± 2.29, p < 0.001), and lower VAS scores on post-operative day 7 (3.89 ± 1.07 vs. 4.67 ± 1.17, p = 0.001). Post-operative pain was similar between groups on post-operative days 3 and 30.
Conclusion: Systematic implementation of ERAS protocol after PC-RPLND improves pain management, optimizes patient recovery, and prevents over-prescription of opioid analgesics.
Graphical Abstract
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2013.09.014] [PMID: 24189391]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.05.037] [PMID: 28506855]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.09.088] [PMID: 21168869]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002402] [PMID: 29049124]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000625] [PMID: 27623005]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.10.009] [PMID: 29080782]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0217] [PMID: 30646062]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2009.09.028] [PMID: 20113944]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002458] [PMID: 29049117]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.031] [PMID: 27297680]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.05.020] [PMID: 27234997]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae] [PMID: 15273542]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2108-3] [PMID: 29080948]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bju.13521] [PMID: 27128851]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2018.03.010] [PMID: 29706465]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2133-2] [PMID: 29167985]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.07.031] [PMID: 28801130]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/21681805.2015.1004641] [PMID: 25660105]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2109-2] [PMID: 29116394]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1950-z] [PMID: 27734131]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.05.083] [PMID: 26021824]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.2279]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2114] [PMID: 25553155]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001555] [PMID: 27500337]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002510] [PMID: 29049123]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2018.1468706] [PMID: 29760868]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2439] [PMID: 29203521]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000004762] [PMID: 30059422]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.006] [PMID: 26721613]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/pr.2017.166] [PMID: 28767106]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.08.016] [PMID: 21621130]