Patrick Charlebois

Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: a randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer.

Background:The preoperative period (prehabilitation) may represent a more appropriate time than the postoperative period to implement an intervention. The impact of prehabilitation on recovery of function al exercise capacity was thus studied in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. Methods:A parallel-arm single-blind superiority randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive either prehabilitation (n = 38) or rehabilitation (n = 39). Both groups received a home-based intervention of moderate aerobic and resistance exercises, nutritional counseling with protein supplementation, and relaxation exercises initiated either 4 weeks before surgery (prehabilitation) or immediately after surgery (rehabilitation), and continued for 8 weeks after surgery. Patients were managed with an enhanced recovery pathway. Primary outcome was functional exercise capacity measured using the validated 6-min walk test. Results:Median duration of prehabilitation was 24.5 days. While awaiting surgery, functional walking capacity increased (≥20 m) in a higher proportion of the prehabilitation group compared with the rehabilitation group (53 vs. 15%, adjusted P = 0.006). Complication rates and duration of hospital stay were similar. The difference between baseline and 8-week 6-min walking test was significantly higher in the prehabilitation compared with the rehabilitation group (+23.7 m [SD, 54.8] vs. −21.8 m [SD, 80.7]; mean difference 45.4 m [95% CI, 13.9 to 77.0]). A higher proportion of the prehabilitation group were also recovered to or above baseline exercise capacity at 8 weeks compared with the rehabilitation group (84 vs. 62%, adjusted P = 0.049). Conclusion:Meaningful changes in postoperative functional exercise capacity can be achieved with a prehabilitation program.

Randomized clinical trial of prehabilitation in colorectal surgery

‘Prehabilitation’ is an intervention to enhance functional capacity in anticipation of a forthcoming physiological stressor. In patients scheduled for colorectal surgery, the extent to which a structured prehabilitation regimen of stationary cycling and strengthening optimized recovery of functional walking capacity after surgery was compared with a simpler regimen of walking and breathing exercises.

Intravenous lidocaine versus thoracic epidural analgesia: a randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery using an enhanced recovery program.

Background and Objective: Laparoscopy, thoracic epidural analgesia, and enhanced recovery program (ERP) have been shown to be the major elements to facilitate the postoperative recovery strategy in open colorectal surgery. This study compared the effect of intraoperative and postoperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion with thoracic epidural analgesia on postoperative restoration of bowel function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection using an ERP. Methods: Sixty patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic colorectal surgery were prospectively randomized to receive either thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA group) or IV lidocaine infusion (IL group) (1 mg/kg per hour) with patient-controlled analgesia morphine for the first 48 hours after surgery. All patients received a similar ERP. The primary outcome was time to return of bowel function. Postoperative pain intensity, time out of bed, dietary intake, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were also recorded. Results: Mean times and SD (95% confidence interval) to first flatus (TEA, 24 [SD, 11] [19-29] hrs vs IL, 27 [SD, 12] [22-32] hrs) and to bowel movements (TEA, 44 ±19 [35-52] hrs vs IL, 43 [SD, 20] [34-51] hrs) were similar in both groups (P = 0.887). Thoracic epidural analgesia provided better analgesia in patients undergoing rectal surgery. Time out of bed and dietary intake were similar. Patients in the TEA and IL groups were discharged on median day 3 (interquartile range, 3-4 days), P = 0.744. Sixty percent of patients in both groups left the hospital on day 3. Conclusions: Intraoperative and postoperative IV infusion of lidocaine in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal resection using an ERP had a similar impact on bowel function compared with thoracic epidural analgesia.

Evaluating intraoperative laparoscopic skill: direct observation versus blinded videotaped performances.

The Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skill (GOALS) has been shown to meet high standards for direct observation. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of GOALS when applied to blinded, videotaped performances. Five novice surgeons and 5 experienced surgeons were each evaluated by 2 observers during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Subsequently, 4 laparoscopists (V1 to V4) evaluated the videotaped procedures using GOALS. Two of the raters (V1 and V3) had prior experience using GOALS. The interrater reliabilities between video raters (VRs) and between VRs and direct raters (DRs) were calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Construct validity was assessed using 2-way analysis of variance. Interrater reliability between the 4 VRs and the 2 DRs was 0.72. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the 4 VRs was 0.68 and for each VR compared with the mean DR was 0.86, 0.39, 0.94, and 0.76, respectively. All raters, except V2, differentiated between novice and experienced groups (P values ranged from .01 to .05). These data suggest that GOALS can be used to assess laparoscopic skill based on videotaped performances but that rater training may play an important role in ensuring the reliability and validity of the instrument. Experience with the tool in the operating room may improve the reliability of video rating and could be of value in training evaluators.

Cost-effectiveness of Enhanced Recovery Versus Conventional Perioperative Management for Colorectal Surgery.

Objective: To determine the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) versus conventional care for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Background: ERPs for colorectal surgery are clinically effective, but their cost-effectiveness is unknown. Methods: A multi-institutional prospective cohort cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection at 2 university-affiliated institutions from October 2012 to October 2013 were enrolled. One center used an ERP, whereas the other did not. Postoperative outcomes were recorded up to 60 days. Total costs were reported in 2013 Canadian dollars. Effectiveness was measured using the SF-6D, a health utility measure validated for postoperative recovery. Uncertainty was expressed using bootstrapped estimates (10,000 repetitions). Results: A total of 180 patients were included (conventional care: n = 95; ERP: n = 95). There were no differences in patient characteristics except for a higher proportion of laparoscopy in the ERP group. Mean length of stay was shorter in the ERP group (6.5 vs 9.8 days; P = 0.017), but there were no differences in complications or readmissions. Patients in the ERP group returned to work quicker and had less caregiver burden. There was no difference in quality of life between the 2 groups. The cost of the ERP program was

Spinal analgesia for laparoscopic colonic resection using an enhanced recovery after surgery programme: better analgesia, but no benefits on postoperative recovery: a randomized controlled trial

153 per patient. Overall societal costs were lower in the ERP group (mean difference = −2985; 95% confidence interval, −5753 to −373). The ERP had a greater than 99% probability of cost-effectiveness. The results were insensitive to a range of assumptions and subgroups. Conclusions: Enhanced recovery is cost-effective compared with conventional perioperative management for elective colorectal resection.

The association of the distance walked in 6 min with pre- operative peak oxygen consumption and complications 1 month after colorectal resection*

BACKGROUND This study was undertaken to determine the impact of an intrathecal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine, when compared with systemic morphine, on the quality of postoperative analgesia and other outcomes in the context of the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme for laparoscopic colonic resection. METHODS Fifty patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated to receive either a spinal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine followed by oral oxycodone (spinal group) or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA group). The primary outcome was consumption of opioids during the first three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, return of bowel function and dietary intake, readiness to hospital discharge, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS Postoperative opioid consumption in the spinal group was significantly less over the first three postoperative days (P<0.001). The quality of analgesia at rest in the first 24 h was better in the spinal group (P<0.005). Excessive sedation and respiratory depression were reported in two elderly patients with spinal analgesia. There were no differences between the two groups in other outcomes (return of bowel function and dietary intake, readiness to hospital discharge, and length of hospital stay). CONCLUSIONS When ERAS programme is used for laparoscopic colonic resection, an intrathecal mixture of bupivacaine and morphine was associated with less postoperative opioid consumption, but has no other advantages over systemic opioids.

Risk of Hypogonadism From Scatter Radiation During Pelvic Radiation in Male Patients With Rectal Cancer

We measured the distance 112 patients walked in 6 min, as well as their peak oxygen consumption pedalling a bicycle, week before scheduled resection of benign or malignant colorectal disease. The distance walked correlated with peak oxygen consumption, the former ‘accounting’ for about half the variation in the latter, r2 0.52 (95% CI 0.38–0.64), p < 0.0001. In the first postoperative month, 42/112 patients experienced a complication. In multivariate analysis, complications were less likely with longer walking distances and increasing age: the odds ratio (95% CI) reduced to 0.995 (0.990–0.999) for each metre distance, and to 0.96 (0.93–0.99) with each year of age, p = 0.025 and p = 0.018, respectively. The distance walked in 6 min before surgery can provide prognostic information when cardiopulmonary exercise testing is unavailable.

Phase II trial of short-course radiotherapy followed by delayed surgery for locoregionally advanced rectal cancer.

PURPOSE Recent studies have reported fluctuations in sex hormones during pelvic irradiation. The objective of this study was to observe the effects of radiation on hormonal profiles for two treatment modalities: conventional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) given neoadjuvantly for patients with rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS Routine serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and testosterone levels were collected from 119 consecutive male patients receiving either EBRT, using 45.0-50.4 Gy in 25-28 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy or HDRBT using 26 Gy in 4 fractions. RESULTS Thirty patients with initially abnormal profiles were excluded. Profiles included in this study were collected from 51 patients treated with EBRT and 38 patients treated with HDRBT, all of whom had normal hormonal profiles before treatment. Mean follow-up times were 17 months for the entire patient cohort-14 and 20 months, respectively-for the EBRT and HDRBT arms. Dosimetry results revealed a mean cumulative testicular dose of 1.24 Gy received in EBRT patients compared with 0.27 Gy in the HDRBT group. After treatment, FSH and LH were elevated in all patients but were more pronounced in the EBRT group. The testosterone-to-LH ratio was significantly lower (p = 0.0036) in EBRT patients for tumors in the lower third of the rectum. The 2-year hypogonadism rate observed was 2.6% for HDRBT compared with 17.6% for EBRT (p = 0.09) for tumors in the lower two thirds of the rectum. CONCLUSION HDRBT allows better hormonal sparing than EBRT during neoadjuvant treatment of patients with rectal cancer.

Goal-directed Fluid Therapy Does Not Reduce Primary Postoperative Ileus after Elective Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

A prospective phase II study to investigate the feasibility and the rate of complete pathological response (ypT0) after short‐course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by surgery at 8 weeks.