Advertisement

Effects of a new perioperative enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Atsushi FujioEmail author
  • Shigehito Miyagi
  • Kazuaki Tokodai
  • Wataru Nakanishi
  • Ryuichi Nishimura
  • Kazuhiro Mitsui
  • Michiaki Unno
  • Takashi Kamei
Original Article
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are becoming the standard of care in many surgical procedures, although data on their use following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a new ERAS pathway in terms of the patient nutrition status after hepatectomy for HCC.

Methods

This is a retrospective analysis of 97 consecutive patients treated with open or laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC between January 2011 and August 2014. We compared the perioperative outcomes between patients whose treatment incorporated the ERAS pathway and control patients. The nutritional status was evaluated using the controlling nutritional status score.

Results

The length of hospital stay (LOS) after both open and laparoscopic hepatectomy was shorter for the ERAS group than the control group. The days of ambulation and cessation of intravenous infusion were earlier and the postoperative nutrition status was statistically better in the ERAS group than in the control group. A multivariate analysis showed that being in the non-ERAS group was a risk factor of delayed discharge. There were no marked differences in the rate of severe complications between the two groups.

Conclusions

The ERAS pathway seems feasible and safe and results in a faster recovery, reduced LOS, improved nutrition status, and fewer severe complications.

Keywords

Enhanced recovery after surgery Hepatectomy Hepatocellular carcinoma Controlling nutrition status 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Go Miyata (Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital) for offering helpful discussion during the writing of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Atsushi Fujio and the other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in association with this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Kehlet H, Wilmore DW. Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248:189–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arsalani-Zadeh R, ElFadl D, Yassin N, MacFie J. Evidence-based review of enhancing postoperative recovery after breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2011;98:181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ronellenfitsch U, Schwarzbach M, Kring A, Kienle P, Post S, Hasenberg T. The effect of clinical pathways for bariatric surgery on perioperative quality of care. Obes Surg. 2012;22:732–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malviya A, Martin K, Harper I, Muller SD, Emmerson KP, Partington PF, et al. Enhanced recovery program for hip and knee replacement reduces death rate. Acta Orthop. 2011;82:577–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hughes MJ, McNally S, Wigmore SJ. Enhanced recovery following liver surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16:699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ni CY, Yang Y, Chang YQ, Cai H, Xu B, Yang F, et al. Fast-track surgery improves postoperative recovery in patients undergoing partial hepatectomy for primary liver cancer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:542–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schultz NA, Larsen PN, Klarskov B, Plum LM, Frederiksen HJ, Christensen BM, et al. Evaluation of a fast-track programme for patients undergoing liver resection. Br J Surg. 2013;100:138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Virani S, Michaelson JS, Hutter MM, Lancaster RT, Warshaw AL, Henderson WG, et al. Morbidity and mortality after liver resection: results of the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204:1284–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, Demartines N, Roulin D, Francis N, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr. 2012;31:783–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Ulibarri JI, Gonzalez-Madrono A, de Villar NG, Gonzalez P, Gonzalez B, Mancha A, et al. CONUT: a tool for controlling nutritional status. First validation in a hospital population. Nutr Hosp. 2005;20:38–45.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: 5-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones C, Kelliher L, Dickinson M, Riga A, Worthington T, Scott MJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection. Br J Surg. 2013;100:1015–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coolsen MM, Wong-Lun-Hing EM, van Dam RM, van der Wilt AA, Slim K, Lassen K, et al. A systematic review of outcomes in patients undergoing liver surgery in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathways. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15:245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Connor S, Cross A, Sakowska M, Linscott D, Woods J. Effects of introducing an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for patients undergoing open hepatic resection. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15:294–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coolsen MM, Bakens M, van Dam RM, Olde Damink SW, Dejong CH. Implementing an enhanced recovery program after pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: is it feasible? World J Surg. 2015;39:251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaibori M, Matsui K, Ishizaki M, Iida H, Yoshii K, Asano H, et al. Effects of implementing an "enhanced recovery after surgery" program on patients undergoing resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Today. 2017;47:42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Iseki Y, Shibutani M, Maeda K, Nagahara H, Ohtani H, Sugano K, et al. Impact of the preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score on the survival after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Okamura Y, Ashida R, Ito T, Sugiura T, Mori K, Uesaka K. Preoperative neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and prognostic nutritional index predict overall survival after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg. 2015;39:1501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lopez-Larramona G, Lucendo AJ, Tenias JM. Association between nutritional screening via the Controlling Nutritional Status index and bone mineral density in chronic liver disease of various etiologies. Hepatol Res. 2015;45:618–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Usami M, Miyoshi M, Kanbara Y, Aoyama M, Sakaki H, Shuno K, et al. Effects of perioperative synbiotic treatment on infectious complications, intestinal integrity, and fecal flora and organic acids in hepatic surgery with or without cirrhosis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011;35:317–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sugawara G, Nagino M, Nishio H, Ebata T, Takagi K, Asahara T, et al. Perioperative synbiotic treatment to prevent postoperative infectious complications in biliary cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2006;244:706–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Di Sandro S, Bagnardi V, Najjar M, Buscemi V, Lauterio A, De Carlis R, et al. Minor laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is safer than minor open resection, especially for less compensated cirrhotic patients: propensity score analysis. Surg Oncol. 2018;27:722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ciria S, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G. Comparative short-term benefits of laproscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263:761–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morise Z. Developments and perspectives of laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Today. 2019;49:649–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryTohoku University Graduate School of MedicineSendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations