Search

Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are widely utilized for elective colorectal surgery to improve outcomes and decrease costs, but few studies have evaluated the impact of ERAS protocols on cost with respect to anatomic site of resection. This study evaluated the impact of ERAS protocol on elective colon resections by site and longitudinal impact over time. Methods A single-center retrospective cohort study of 598 consecutive patients undergoing elective colorectal resection before and after implementation of ERAS protocol from 2013 to 2017 was performed. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS) and cost. Comparative and multivariate inferential statistics were used to assess additional outcomes. Results A total of 598 patients (100 pre-ERAS vs 498 post-ERAS) were evaluated with an overall median LOS of 4 days for right and left colectomies and 3 days for transverse colectomies. When comparing type of resection before and after ERAS protocol introduction, an increased LOS for left hemicolectomies from 3.09 to 4.03 days ( P = .047) was noted, with all other comparisons failing to reach statistical significance. Over time, an initial decrease in LOS for MIS approach after protocol introduction was observed; however, this effect diminished in the ensuing years and had no significant effect overall. Total cost of care was significantly increased post-ERAS for all cohorts except transverse colectomies. No further statistically significant differences were found. Conclusion After an initial improvement in outcomes, continued utilization of ERAS protocols demonstrated no improvement in LOS compared to pre-ERAS data and increased cost overall for patients regardless of site of resection.

Background Rib fractures are common injuries among traumatically injured patients, and elderly patients with rib fractures are at increased risk for adverse events and death. The purpose of this study was to determine if oral Per os (PO) acetaminophen is as effective as intravenous (IV) acetaminophen in treating the pain associated with rib fractures. Methods We performed a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Trauma patients who were ≥65 years old and had ≥1 rib fracture were included in this study. Patients were randomized into IV acetaminophen and oral placebo (n = 63) or IV placebo and oral solution acetaminophen (n = 75) groups. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included opioid use, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, hospital mortality, the difference in incentive spirometry, and development of pneumonia. Results Among the 138 patients included, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 study groups in a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours after injury (PO: 3.24, IV: 2.49; P = .230). Opioid pain medication use was equivalent between groups ( P = .212), and there was no significant difference in hospital mortality rate between groups ( P = .827). There was no statistically significant difference in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or development of pneumonia. Discussion In elderly trauma patients (age ≥65 years) with 1 or more rib fractures, PO acetaminophen is equivalent to IV acetaminophen for pain control, with no difference in morbidity or mortality. Oral acetaminophen should be preferentially used over IV acetaminophen when treating the elderly trauma patient with rib fractures.