The latest medical research on Hospital

This study investigates Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) protocols' impact on long-term opioid and sedative use following mastectomy with or without implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR).

ERAS® protocols for patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR are associated with decreased length of stay, increased rate of same-day discharge, decreased postoperative pain, and decreased postoperative opioid requirements. However, less is known about their effect on opioid and sedative use beyond 90 days after surgery.

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR at a single institution between January 2013 and December 2019. Mastectomy ERAS® protocols were implemented in February 2017, creating two groups: pre-ERAS® and ERAS®. Baseline characteristics and prevalence of chronic opioid and sedative use were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression predicted factors associated with increased odds of chronic opioid and sedative use.

756 patients were evaluated: 405 pre-ERAS® and 351 ERAS®. Post-ERAS®, chronic opioid use decreased in opioid-naïve (40% vs. 30%, P=0.024) and opioid-tolerant patients (58% vs. 37%, P=0.002), with no increase in chronic sedative use. There were decreased odds of chronic opioid use for all ERAS® patients (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.42-0.76)), and of IBBR patients, those receiving subcutaneous implants (OR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20-0.48). There was increased chronic opioid-use odds if undergoing bilateral surgery (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.14-2.08), two-stage reconstruction (OR=9.78, 95% CI: 5.94-16.09), and for patients with higher PACU pain scores (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.03-1.14) or >150 discharge OMEs (OR=2.63, 95% CI: 1.48-4.68).

ERAS® protocols for mastectomy patients with or without IBR are associated with decreases in chronic opioid use, without concomitant increases in chronic sedative use.

To evaluate the safety and feasibility of single-port endorobotic submucosal dissection (ERSD) using the Da Vinci SP platform for the management of rectal neoplasms.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers a potential organ-sparing treatment for advanced colorectal neoplasms but demands high technical skill and a steep learning curve. Advances in semiflexible robotic platforms, such as the Da Vinci SP, promise to simplify this procedure, potentially offering improved outcomes for patients with benign rectal neoplasms.

A retrospective analysis of 28 patients who underwent ERSD using the Da Vinci SP platform between 2020 and 2023 was performed. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details, outcomes, and complications were reviewed. The primary endpoint was successful en-bloc resection.

The cohort had a median age of 60.5 years and a median BMI of 28.2 kg/m², predominantly male(67.8%) with ASA categories 2 or 3(82%). Lesions had a median size of 38 mm and were located a median of 9 cm from the anal verge. The median procedure time was 87.5 minutes. En-bloc resection was achieved in all cases(100%), with no intraoperative complications or mortality. One patient experienced urinary retention, and one had late bleeding requiring blood transfusion. Pathology outcomes included 46.4% tubulovillous adenomas, 21.4% adenocarcinomas, and high-grade dysplasia in 53.6% of patients.

Single-port ERSD using the Da Vinci SP platform is safe and feasible for the management of colorectal neoplasia, ensuring a high rate of en-bloc resection. It potentially offers advantages over conventional ESD, including shorter dissection times, although further studies are necessary for a definitive comparison.

Models of care (MoCs) describe evidence-informed healthcare that should be delivered to patients. Several MoCs have been implemented for low back pain (LBP) to reduce evidence-to-practice gaps and increase the effectiveness and sustainability of healthcare services.

To synthesise research evidence regarding core characteristics and key common elements of MoCs implemented in primary healthcare for the management of LBP.

Data extraction was carried out independently by two researchers and included a summary of the studies, the identification of the MoCs and respective key elements, concerning levels of care, settings, health professionals involved, type of care delivered and core components of the interventions. Findings were investigated through a descriptive qualitative content analysis using a deductive approach.

29 studies reporting 11 MoCs were included. All MoCs were implemented in high-income countries and had clear objectives. Ten MoCs included a stratified care approach. The assessment of LBP patients typically occurred in primary healthcare while care delivery usually took place in community-based settings or outpatient clinics. Care provided by general practitioners and physiotherapists was reported in all MoCs. Education (n=10) and exercise (n=9) were the most common health interventions. However, intervention content, follow-ups and discharge criteria were not fully reported.

This study examines the features of MoCs for LBP, highlighting that research is in its early stages and stressing the need for better reporting to fill gaps in care delivery and implementation. This knowledge is crucial for researchers, clinicians and decision-makers in assessing the applicability and transferability of MoCs to primary healthcare settings.