Search

The present review discusses restrictive perioperative fluid protocols within enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways. Standardized definitions of a restrictive or liberal fluid regimen are lacking since they depend on conflicting evidence, institutional protocols, and personal preferences. Challenges related to restrictive fluid protocols are related to proper patient selection within standardized ERAS protocols. On the other hand, invasive goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) is reserved for more challenging disease presentations and polymorbid and frail patients. While the perfusion rate (mL/kg/h) appears less predictive for postoperative outcomes, the authors identified critical thresholds related to total intravenous fluids and weight gain. These thresholds are discussed within the available evidence. The authors aim to introduce their institutional approach to standardized practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anxiety is common before surgery and known to negatively impact recovery from surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a preoperative nurse dialogue on a patient's anxiety, satisfaction and early postoperative outcomes. Method: This 1:1 randomized controlled trial compared patients undergoing major visceral surgery after a semistructured preoperative nurse dialogue (interventional group: IG) to a control group (CG) without nursing intervention prior to surgery. Anxiety was measured with the autoevaluation scale State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Y-form) pre and postoperatively. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) In-Patsat32 questionnaire was used to assess patient satisfaction at discharge. Further outcomes included postoperative pain (visual analogue scale: VAS 0–10), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opiate consumption and length of stay (LOS). Results: Over a period of 6 months, 35 participants were randomized to either group with no drop-out or loss to follow-up (total n = 70). The median score of preoperative anxiety was 40 (IQR 33–55) in the IG vs. 61 (IQR 52–68) in the CG (p < 0.001). Postoperative anxiety levels were comparable 34 (IQR 25–46) vs. 32 (IQR 25–44) for IG and CG, respectively (p = 0.579). The IG did not present higher overall satisfaction (90 ± 15 vs. 82.9 ± 16, p = 0.057), and pain at Day 2 was similar (1.3 ± 1.7 vs. 2 ± 1.9, p = 0.077), while opiate consumption, PONV levels and LOS were comparable. Conclusion: A preoperative dialogue with a patient-centered approach helped to reduce preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing major visceral surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of an intraoperative standardized surgical site infection (SSI) prevention bundle. Methods: The multimodal, evidence-based care bundle included nine intraoperative items (antibiotic type, timing, and re-dosing; disinfection; induction temperature control > 36.5°; glove change; intra-cavity lavage; wound protection; and closure strategy). The bundle was applied to all consecutive patients undergoing colonic resections. The primary outcome, SSI, was independently assessed by the National Infection Surveillance Committee for up to 30 postoperative days. A historical, institutional pre-implementation control group (2012–2017) with an identical methodology was used for comparison. Findings: In total, 1516 patients were included, of which 1256 (82.8%) were in the control group and 260 (17.2%) were in the post-implementation group. After 2:1 propensity score matching, the groups were similar for all items (p > 0.05). Overall compliance with the care bundle was 77% (IQR 77–88). The lowest compliance rates were observed for temperature control (53% overall), intra-cavity lavage (64% overall), and wound protection and closure (68% and 63% in the SSI group, respectively). Surgical site infections were reported in 58 patients (22.2%) vs. 21.4% in the control group (p = 0.79). Infection rates were comparable throughout the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) categories: superficial, 12 patients (4.5%) vs. 4.2%, p = 0.82; deep incisional, 10 patients (3.7%) vs. 5.1%, p = 0.34; organ space, 36 (14%) vs. 12.4%, p = 0.48. After propensity score matching, rates remained comparable throughout all comparisons (all p > 0.05). Conclusions: The implementation of an intraoperative standardized care bundle had no impact on SSI rates. This may be explained by insufficient compliance with the individual measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]