Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) , Sabadell, Barcelona, España.
Servicio de Urología, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) , Sabadell, Barcelona, España.
Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2021 May;45(4):289-299. doi: 10.1016/j.acuro.2020.10.008. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
Although in the recent years, laparoscopy and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have improved postoperative recovery in radical cystectomy (RC), the clinical efficacy of their association remains unclear. Our objective is to analyze the possible benefits obtained from laparoscopic RC (LRC) and its subsequent combination with an ERAS (ERAS-LRC) protocol compared to open RC (ORC).
We analyzed 187 consecutive RCs with ileal conduit performed in our center, of which 139 met the inclusion criteria: 47 ORC, 39 LRC (both with conventional protocol) and 52 ERAS-LRCs.
No significant differences were found regarding age, sex, BMI and ASA score between groups. ERAS-LRC obtained a shorter length of stay than LRC and ORC (median 8 [7-10]) vs. 13 [10-17] vs. 15 [13-19.5] days, respectively; P<.001). ERAS-LRC had a shorter stay in the ICU and less days of nasogastric tube (P<.001). Postoperative complications and readmission rates were similar among groups. Multivariate logistic regression showed that absence of complications, younger age and ERAS behaved as independent factors for shorter hospital stay, while ERAS was the only independent factor of lower readmission rate at 90 days.
Although LRC presented perioperative benefits compared to ORC, the results were better after the implementation of an ERAS protocol. ERAS protocol had stronger impact on recovery than the surgical approach of the procedure.
尽管近年来腹腔镜和增强术后康复(ERAS)方案改善了根治性膀胱切除术(RC)的术后恢复,但它们联合应用的临床疗效仍不清楚。我们的目的是分析与开放 RC(ORC)相比,腹腔镜 RC(LRC)及其随后联合 ERAS 方案(ERAS-LRC)可能带来的益处。
我们分析了在我们中心进行的 187 例连续的回肠导管 RC,其中 139 例符合纳入标准:47 例 ORC、39 例 LRC(均采用常规方案)和 52 例 ERAS-LRC。
各组间年龄、性别、BMI 和 ASA 评分无显著差异。与 LRC 和 ORC 相比,ERAS-LRC 住院时间更短(中位数 8 [7-10] 天 vs. 13 [10-17] 天 vs. 15 [13-19.5] 天;P<.001);ERAS-LRC 在 ICU 停留时间和鼻胃管使用天数更少(P<.001)。各组术后并发症和再入院率相似。多变量逻辑回归显示,无并发症、年龄较小和 ERAS 是住院时间缩短的独立因素,而 ERAS 是 90 天再入院率降低的唯一独立因素。
尽管与 ORC 相比,LRC 具有围手术期优势,但在实施 ERAS 方案后效果更好。ERAS 方案对恢复的影响强于手术方法。