Postoperative outcomes of Fast Track enhanced recovery protocol in open radical cystectomy: comparison with standard management in a high-volume center and Trifecta proposal.

Q1 Medicine
A. Ercolino, M. Droghetti, R. Schiavina, L. Bianchi, F. Chessa, F. Mineo Bianchi, U. Barbaresi, A. Angiolini, C. Casablanca, A. Mottaran, E. Molinaroli, C. Pultrone, H. Dababneh, A. Bertaccini, E. Brunocilla
{"title":"Postoperative outcomes of Fast Track enhanced recovery protocol in open radical cystectomy: comparison with standard management in a high-volume center and Trifecta proposal.","authors":"A. Ercolino, M. Droghetti, R. Schiavina, L. Bianchi, F. Chessa, F. Mineo Bianchi, U. Barbaresi, A. Angiolini, C. Casablanca, A. Mottaran, E. Molinaroli, C. Pultrone, H. Dababneh, A. Bertaccini, E. Brunocilla","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03843-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nWe aimed at comparing perioperative outcomes in patients submitted to radical cystectomy followed by Fast Track (FT) protocol or standard management, and propose a definition of Trifecta, to improve standardized quality assessment for RC.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe considered 191 patients submitted to RC between January 2017 and January 2019. Patients followed FT or standard management according to surgeon's preference. Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, alongside with postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Trifecta was defined as follows: inhospital stay (HS) ≤ 10 days, time to defecation (TtD) below the overall mean and no major (≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III) complications. Finally, Trifecta achievement rates were assessed in both groups.\n\n\nRESULTS\n75 patients (39%) followed the FT protocol and 116 (61%) standard management. The two groups were homogeneous for preoperative, intraoperative and pathological characteristics. Patients in the FT group had shorter TtD (5 vs. 6 days p=0.006), HS (12 vs. 14 days p=0.008) and lower readmission rate (8% vs. 19% p=0.04). Early complication rates and grades were similar, while less late complications were found in FT group (6.7% vs. 21.6% p=0,006). Trifecta achievement rate was higher for FT group (31% vs. 8% p<0.001). Single-item failure percentages for HS, TtD and major grade complications were respectively 90%, 60% and 19%, with no difference between the two groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nFT protocol can safely consent faster bowel recovery and earlier discharge after RC, plus reducing readmission rates. Using a Trifecta incorporating essential perioperative outcomes, could improve standardized quality assessment for RC.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"366 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03843-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND We aimed at comparing perioperative outcomes in patients submitted to radical cystectomy followed by Fast Track (FT) protocol or standard management, and propose a definition of Trifecta, to improve standardized quality assessment for RC. METHODS We considered 191 patients submitted to RC between January 2017 and January 2019. Patients followed FT or standard management according to surgeon's preference. Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, alongside with postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Trifecta was defined as follows: inhospital stay (HS) ≤ 10 days, time to defecation (TtD) below the overall mean and no major (≥ Clavien-Dindo grade III) complications. Finally, Trifecta achievement rates were assessed in both groups. RESULTS 75 patients (39%) followed the FT protocol and 116 (61%) standard management. The two groups were homogeneous for preoperative, intraoperative and pathological characteristics. Patients in the FT group had shorter TtD (5 vs. 6 days p=0.006), HS (12 vs. 14 days p=0.008) and lower readmission rate (8% vs. 19% p=0.04). Early complication rates and grades were similar, while less late complications were found in FT group (6.7% vs. 21.6% p=0,006). Trifecta achievement rate was higher for FT group (31% vs. 8% p<0.001). Single-item failure percentages for HS, TtD and major grade complications were respectively 90%, 60% and 19%, with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS FT protocol can safely consent faster bowel recovery and earlier discharge after RC, plus reducing readmission rates. Using a Trifecta incorporating essential perioperative outcomes, could improve standardized quality assessment for RC.
快速通道增强恢复方案在开放式根治性膀胱切除术中的术后结果:与大容量中心的标准管理和三氟替卡方案的比较
背景:我们旨在比较快速通道(FT)方案或标准管理下根治性膀胱切除术患者的围手术期预后,并提出三氟替尼的定义,以提高根治性膀胱切除术的标准化质量评估。方法:我们纳入了2017年1月至2019年1月期间提交RC的191例患者。根据术者的喜好,患者可选择FT或标准处理。比较两组患者术前、术中特征及术后结果。三氟替尼的定义为:住院时间(HS)≤10天,排便时间(TtD)低于总体平均时间,无重大(≥Clavien-Dindo III级)并发症。最后,对两组的三连片成功率进行评估。结果75例(39%)患者采用FT方案,116例(61%)患者采用标准管理。两组术前、术中及病理特征均相同。FT组患者TtD较短(5天对6天p=0.006), HS较短(12天对14天p=0.008),再入院率较低(8%对19% p=0.04)。早期并发症发生率和分级相似,FT组晚期并发症发生率较低(6.7% vs. 21.6% p= 0.006)。FT组的三连片成功率更高(31%比8% p<0.001)。HS、TtD、严重级并发症单项失败率分别为90%、60%、19%,两组间差异无统计学意义。结论sft方案可使术后肠恢复更快,出院更早,降低再入院率。使用纳入围手术期基本预后的三连片可以提高RC的标准化质量评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信