Most of the studies concerning enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in colorectal surgery include heterogeneous groups of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic surgery, both due to colonic and rectal cancer, thus creating a potential bias. The data investigating the differences between patients operated for either colonic or rectal cancer are sparse. The aim of the study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for colonic and rectal cancer with ERAS protocol. The analysis included consecutive prospectively registered patients operated for a colorectal cancer between January 2012 and September 2015. Patients were divided into two groups (colon vs. rectum). The measured outcomes were: length of stay (LOS), complication rate, readmission rate, compliance with ERAS protocol elements and recovery parameters (tolerance of early oral diet, mobilization and time to first flatus). Group 1 (colon) consisted of 150 patients and Group 2 (rectum) of 82 patients. Patients in Group 1 (150 patients) were discharged home earlier than in Group 2 (82 patients)—median LOS 4 versus 5 days, respectively. There was no statistical difference in complication rate (27.3 vs. 36.6 %) and readmissions (7.3 vs. 6.1 %). Compliance with the protocol was 86.9 and 82.6 %, respectively. However, in Group 1, the following procedures were used less frequently: bowel preparation (24 vs. 78.3 %) and postoperative drainage (23.3 vs. 71.0 %). There were no differences in recovery parameters between the groups. Univariate logistic regression showed that the type of surgery, drainage and stoma creation significantly prolonged LOS. In a multivariate logistic regression model, only a bowel preparation and drainage were shown to be significant. Although functional recovery and high compliance with ERAS protocol are possible irrespective of the type of surgery, laparoscopic rectal resections are associated with a longer LOS.

The aims of this study were to translate the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire into the Polish language and to test the measurement properties of its quality criteria. A total of 120 patients with hand complaints completed the Polish Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire on the first assessment, along with the grip test, pinch test, and pain sore assessed using a visual analogue scale during activity. After 7 days, 76 patients completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire the second time. The Cronbach alpha of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire subscales ranged from 0.79 to 0.96. The intraclass correlation coefficient varied from 0.82-0.97, and the Bland-Altman method indicated the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score limit of agreement was -13.2-12.3 and -9.18-9.62 for the right and left hand, respectively. The construct validity revealed a moderate to strong correlation between every subscale of the Polish Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand, but they only correlated with the grip test and the visual analogue scale, and neither correlated with the pinch test. The study demonstrated properties similar to the original version, validating the belief that the use of this questionnaire in medical practice in Poland is justified.

No abstract

management (CM). Reduction in the median length of hospitalisation was considered as primary outcome, incidence of perioperative complications and readmissions rates up to 28 days after surgery, and related costs differences were considered as secondary outcomes. The study began in June 2014, with an estimated enrollment of 100 patients over a period of 3 years and an intermediate analysis of the data at 1.5 years, the results of which we present in this paper. Results: From July 2014 to December 2015, 29 patients had been included, 13 in the ERAS group, and 16 in the CM Group. Epidemiological characteristic, surgery indication, stage at diagnosis and surgical procedures were similar in both groups with no statistically significant differences. In the ERAS group compliance with ERAS protocol was >90% for all the items except for avoidance of abdominal drainage (47%). Median length of hospitalisation was 9 days for CM group and 7 days for the ERAS group (p¼0.09), with apparent but not statistically significant differences between complication (86% vs. 53% p¼0.12) and readmission rates (37% vs. 15% p¼0.24). Conclusion: In the PROFAST intermediate analysis, ERAS appeared to be a safe measure, with the potential of significantly reduce the median length of hospitalisation and patient related costs in advanced ovarian cancer surgery. Disclosure of interest: None declared.

No abstract