Purpose: There is no consensus on which items of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) should and should not be implemented in radical cystectomy (RC). The aim of this study is to report current practices across European high-volume RC centers involved in ERAS. Methods: Based on the recommendations of the ERAS society, we developed a survey with 17 questions that were validated by the Young Academic Urologists–urothelial group. The survey was distributed to European expert centers that implement ERAS for RC. Only one answer per-center was allowed to keep a representative overview of the different centers. Results: 70 surgeons fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Of note, 28.6% of surgeons do not work with a referent anesthesiologist and 25% have not yet assessed the implementation of ERAS in their center. Avoiding bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, and removal of the nasogastric tube were widely implemented (> 90%application). On the other hand, preoperative carbohydrate loading, opioid-sparing anesthesia, and audits were less likely to be applied. Common barriers to ERAS implementation were difficulty in changing habits (55%), followed by a lack of communication across surgeons and anesthesiologist (33%). Responders found that performing a regular audit (14%), opioid-sparing anesthesia (14%) and early mobilization (13%) were the most difficult items to implement. Conclusion: In this survey, we identified the ERAS items most and less commonly applied. Collaboration with anesthesiologists as well as regular audits remain a challenge for ERAS implementation. These results support the need to uniform ERAS for RC patients and develop strategies to help departments implement ERAS.

Current application of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for patients undergoing radical cystectomy: lessons learned from European excellence centers

Cimadamore A.;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: There is no consensus on which items of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) should and should not be implemented in radical cystectomy (RC). The aim of this study is to report current practices across European high-volume RC centers involved in ERAS. Methods: Based on the recommendations of the ERAS society, we developed a survey with 17 questions that were validated by the Young Academic Urologists–urothelial group. The survey was distributed to European expert centers that implement ERAS for RC. Only one answer per-center was allowed to keep a representative overview of the different centers. Results: 70 surgeons fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Of note, 28.6% of surgeons do not work with a referent anesthesiologist and 25% have not yet assessed the implementation of ERAS in their center. Avoiding bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, and removal of the nasogastric tube were widely implemented (> 90%application). On the other hand, preoperative carbohydrate loading, opioid-sparing anesthesia, and audits were less likely to be applied. Common barriers to ERAS implementation were difficulty in changing habits (55%), followed by a lack of communication across surgeons and anesthesiologist (33%). Responders found that performing a regular audit (14%), opioid-sparing anesthesia (14%) and early mobilization (13%) were the most difficult items to implement. Conclusion: In this survey, we identified the ERAS items most and less commonly applied. Collaboration with anesthesiologists as well as regular audits remain a challenge for ERAS implementation. These results support the need to uniform ERAS for RC patients and develop strategies to help departments implement ERAS.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11390/1243042
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 10
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 9
social impact