Search

A multimodal analgesia (MMA) protocol has shown the effect of postoperative pain control and reduced the postoperative opioid consumption. However, it was questionable whether MMA could replace opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative pain control. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate whether an MMA protocol is non-inferior to opioid-based PCA for pain management after a minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery.A randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial was conducted on patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic resection of colorectal cancer. The patients were randomly assigned to either the PCA or MMA group. The MMA protocol included pregabalin, tramadol, wound infiltration, and transversus abdominis plane block. The primary outcome was the numeric rating scale (NRS) score for pain at rest 24 h postoperatively.Ninety-seven patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean difference in NRS score at rest at 24 h was 0.25 (95% confidence interval, - 0.61 to 1.11). This result demonstrated the non-inferiority of MMA to PCA in our non-inferiority margin (- 1). Compared with the PCA group, the median remifentanil dose (996 vs. 654 μg; p 0.001) and time in the post-anesthesia care unit (35 vs. 25 min; p 0.001) were significantly less in the MMA group.Our MMA protocol successfully controlled postoperative pain and was non-inferior to morphine-based PCA based on patient-reported pain intensity, with no significant increase in adverse events. These results will help construct a strategy to reduce conventional opioid prescriptions for pain management after a minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery. Trial Registration Number Trial Registration Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0002593.

Urinary and sexual dysfunction are recognized complications of rectal cancer surgery in men. This study compared robot-assisted total mesorectal excision (RTME) and laparoscopic total mesorectal excision (LTME) with regard to these functional outcomes. A series of 32 men who underwent RTME between February 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010 were matched 1:1 with patients who underwent LTME. The matching criteria were age, body mass index, tumor distance from the anal verge, neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy, and tumor stage. Urinary and erectile function were evaluated using the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) and the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scale. Data were collected from the two groups at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery and compared. The mean IPSS score did not differ between the two groups at baseline at any point of measurement. The mean baseline IIEF-5 score was similar between the two groups and was decreased at 3 months. The mean IIEF-5 score was significantly higher in the RTME group at 6 months than in the LTME group (14.1 ± 6.1 vs. 9.4 ± 6.6; p = 0.024). The interval decrease in IIEF-5 scores was significantly higher in the LTME group than in the RTME group at 6 months (4.9 ± 4.5 vs. 9.2 ± 4.7; p = 0.030). The men in the RTME group experienced earlier restoration of erectile function than did those in the LTME group. Bladder function was similar during the 12 months after RTME or LTME.

We conducted a randomized clinical trial to investigate the efficacy of the selective α1A-adrenoceptor antagonist tamsulosin in preventing acute voiding difficulty after rectal cancer surgery. A total of 94 rectal cancer patients with an International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) of ≤7 were randomly assigned (1:1) to the tamsulosin group (0.2 mg/day orally for 7 days) (n = 47) or the control group (n = 47). The primary endpoint was the reinsertion rate of the urinary catheter after its removal on postoperative day (POD) 3. The secondary endpoints included the maximum (Qmax) and average (Qavg) urinary flow rates on POD 3, and the voided volume (VV), residual urine volume (RU), and IPSS on POD 7. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat population. The reinsertion rate of the urinary catheter in the tamsulosin group was similar to that in the control group (23.4 vs. 21.3 %, respectively; p = 0.804). The postoperative voiding parameters and IPSS were not better in the tamsulosin group than in the control group after adjustments were made for the baseline measurements with analysis of covariance (Qmax, p = 0.537; Qavg, p = 0.399; VV, p = 0.645; RU, p = 0.703; IPSS, p = 0.761). Multivariate analysis revealed that being male was the only independent risk factor for reinsertion of the urinary catheter (odds ratio 0.239; 95 % confidence interval 0.069–0.823; p = 0.023). This controlled trial showed that tamsulosin at 0.2 mg/day does not prevent acute voiding difficulty after rectal cancer surgery.

Wide-ranging costs of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) are associated with variations in the experience levels of surgeons. There is no available report on the changes of economic outcomes relative to the LAP learning curve in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In the present study, we have compared changes in economic outcomes according to the LAP learning curve with the economic outcomes of open surgery (OS) for rectosigmoid cancer. A total of 197 patients with rectosigmoid cancer were included in this analysis; 116 received LAP and 81 received OS. Scatter of operative times demonstrated an early learning period of 37 cases in LAP. The following outcomes were compared between LAP and OS during the early learning period and experienced periods; operating room (OR) costs, OR-related hospital profit, total hospital charge, and patient payment. During the median interval of two periods according to the laparoscopic surgery learning curve, there was an inflation rate of about 10% on the medical charges such as operation, radiology, laboratory, and admission fee. Operating room costs were significantly higher after LAP during the two periods, but the median difference between LAP and OS decreased during the experienced period ($3,055 to $1,850). With increasing operative experience in LAP, the OR-related hospital deficit improved (−$1,072 to−$840). Total hospital charges were significantly higher for LAP than for OS in the early learning period (p 0.05). During the experienced period, patients paid a lower surcharge for LAP ($1,885–$1,118). Total hospital charges for laparoscopic surgery were substantially higher than those of open surgery during the early learning period, but become similar during the experienced period. The shortening of the learning period is a critical factor for achieving cost-effective laparoscopic surgery.

Wide-ranging costs of laparoscopic surgery (LAP) are associated with variations in the experience levels of surgeons. There is no available report on the changes of economic outcomes relative to the LAP learning curve in the treatment of colorectal cancer. In the present study, we have compared changes in economic outcomes according to the LAP learning curve with the economic outcomes of open surgery (OS) for rectosigmoid cancer.A total of 197 patients with rectosigmoid cancer were included in this analysis; 116 received LAP and 81 received OS. Scatter of operative times demonstrated an early learning period of 37 cases in LAP. The following outcomes were compared between LAP and OS during the early learning period and experienced periods; operating room (OR) costs, OR-related hospital profit, total hospital charge, and patient payment. During the median interval of two periods according to the laparoscopic surgery learning curve, there was an inflation rate of about 10% on the medical charges such as operation, radiology, laboratory, and admission fee.Operating room costs were significantly higher after LAP during the two periods, but the median difference between LAP and OS decreased during the experienced period ($3,055 to $1,850). With increasing operative experience in LAP, the OR-related hospital deficit improved (-$1,072 to-$840). Total hospital charges were significantly higher for LAP than for OS in the early learning period (p0.05), but they were similar in the experienced period ($7,983/patient versus $7,045/patient, p0.05). During the experienced period, patients paid a lower surcharge for LAP ($1,885-$1,118).Total hospital charges for laparoscopic surgery were substantially higher than those of open surgery during the early learning period, but become similar during the experienced period. The shortening of the learning period is a critical factor for achieving cost-effective laparoscopic surgery.