Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study. / Højvig, Jens H.; Charabi, Birgitte W.; Wessel, Irene; Jensen, Lisa T.; Nyberg, Jan; Maymann-Holler, Nana; Kehlet, Henrik; Bonde, Christian T.

In: JPRAS Open, Vol. 34, 2022, p. 103-113.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Højvig, JH, Charabi, BW, Wessel, I, Jensen, LT, Nyberg, J, Maymann-Holler, N, Kehlet, H & Bonde, CT 2022, 'Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study', JPRAS Open, vol. 34, pp. 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001

APA

Højvig, J. H., Charabi, B. W., Wessel, I., Jensen, L. T., Nyberg, J., Maymann-Holler, N., Kehlet, H., & Bonde, C. T. (2022). Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study. JPRAS Open, 34, 103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001

Vancouver

Højvig JH, Charabi BW, Wessel I, Jensen LT, Nyberg J, Maymann-Holler N et al. Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study. JPRAS Open. 2022;34:103-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001

Author

Højvig, Jens H. ; Charabi, Birgitte W. ; Wessel, Irene ; Jensen, Lisa T. ; Nyberg, Jan ; Maymann-Holler, Nana ; Kehlet, Henrik ; Bonde, Christian T. / Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study. In: JPRAS Open. 2022 ; Vol. 34. pp. 103-113.

Bibtex

@article{abdc57c7abe54719b7121f09bfad8602,
title = "Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study",
abstract = "Objectives: Patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer typically have several comorbidities, and the procedures are often followed by complications and prolonged hospitalization. Consequently, the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for these patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction has gained attention in recent years. ERAS is a peri- and postoperative care concept that has repeatedly shown beneficial results for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including microvascular reconstruction. This study presents the results after the introduction of our ERAS protocol for head and neck cancer reconstruction. Methods: We prospectively treated 30 consecutive patients according to our ERAS protocol from June 2019 to December 2020 and compared the results of the treated patients with those of patients treated with our traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) protocol. We are based on our ERAS protocol on the following core elements of recovery: improved patient information, goal-directed fluid therapy, minimally invasive surgery, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, early ambulation, and pre-defined functional discharge criteria. Results: The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay (13.1 vs. 20.3 days, p < 0.001), significantly shorter time to ambulation (3.0 days vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to removal of nasogastric tube (13.3 days vs. 22.7 days, p = 0.05), and fewer tracheostomies performed (10% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications, flap survival, or 30-day re-admissions between the two groups. Conclusion: The introduction of ERAS in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction seems safe and results in improved recovery. Level of evidence: 3",
keywords = "Enhanced recovery after surgery, ERAS, Head and neck cancer, Head and neck reconstruction, Head and neck surgery, Microsurgery, Oral cavity cancer, Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma, Perioperative care, Reconstructive surgery",
author = "H{\o}jvig, {Jens H.} and Charabi, {Birgitte W.} and Irene Wessel and Jensen, {Lisa T.} and Jan Nyberg and Nana Maymann-Holler and Henrik Kehlet and Bonde, {Christian T.}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 The Author(s)",
year = "2022",
doi = "10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "103--113",
journal = "J P R A S Open",
issn = "2352-5878",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer – A prospective study

AU - Højvig, Jens H.

AU - Charabi, Birgitte W.

AU - Wessel, Irene

AU - Jensen, Lisa T.

AU - Nyberg, Jan

AU - Maymann-Holler, Nana

AU - Kehlet, Henrik

AU - Bonde, Christian T.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s)

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Objectives: Patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer typically have several comorbidities, and the procedures are often followed by complications and prolonged hospitalization. Consequently, the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for these patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction has gained attention in recent years. ERAS is a peri- and postoperative care concept that has repeatedly shown beneficial results for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including microvascular reconstruction. This study presents the results after the introduction of our ERAS protocol for head and neck cancer reconstruction. Methods: We prospectively treated 30 consecutive patients according to our ERAS protocol from June 2019 to December 2020 and compared the results of the treated patients with those of patients treated with our traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) protocol. We are based on our ERAS protocol on the following core elements of recovery: improved patient information, goal-directed fluid therapy, minimally invasive surgery, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, early ambulation, and pre-defined functional discharge criteria. Results: The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay (13.1 vs. 20.3 days, p < 0.001), significantly shorter time to ambulation (3.0 days vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to removal of nasogastric tube (13.3 days vs. 22.7 days, p = 0.05), and fewer tracheostomies performed (10% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications, flap survival, or 30-day re-admissions between the two groups. Conclusion: The introduction of ERAS in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction seems safe and results in improved recovery. Level of evidence: 3

AB - Objectives: Patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer typically have several comorbidities, and the procedures are often followed by complications and prolonged hospitalization. Consequently, the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for these patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction has gained attention in recent years. ERAS is a peri- and postoperative care concept that has repeatedly shown beneficial results for a wide variety of surgical procedures, including microvascular reconstruction. This study presents the results after the introduction of our ERAS protocol for head and neck cancer reconstruction. Methods: We prospectively treated 30 consecutive patients according to our ERAS protocol from June 2019 to December 2020 and compared the results of the treated patients with those of patients treated with our traditional recovery after surgery (TRAS) protocol. We are based on our ERAS protocol on the following core elements of recovery: improved patient information, goal-directed fluid therapy, minimally invasive surgery, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, early ambulation, and pre-defined functional discharge criteria. Results: The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay (13.1 vs. 20.3 days, p < 0.001), significantly shorter time to ambulation (3.0 days vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to removal of nasogastric tube (13.3 days vs. 22.7 days, p = 0.05), and fewer tracheostomies performed (10% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications, flap survival, or 30-day re-admissions between the two groups. Conclusion: The introduction of ERAS in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction seems safe and results in improved recovery. Level of evidence: 3

KW - Enhanced recovery after surgery

KW - ERAS

KW - Head and neck cancer

KW - Head and neck reconstruction

KW - Head and neck surgery

KW - Microsurgery

KW - Oral cavity cancer

KW - Oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma

KW - Perioperative care

KW - Reconstructive surgery

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001

DO - 10.1016/j.jpra.2022.08.001

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 36263192

AN - SCOPUS:85140017958

VL - 34

SP - 103

EP - 113

JO - J P R A S Open

JF - J P R A S Open

SN - 2352-5878

ER -

ID: 323986208