Display options
Share it on

JPRAS Open. 2020 Oct 15;26:91-100. doi: 10.1016/j.jpra.2020.09.008. eCollection 2020 Dec.

Microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer - basis for the development of an enhanced recovery protocol.

JPRAS open

Jens H Højvig, Nicolas J Pedersen, Birgitte W Charabi, Irene Wessel, Lisa T Jensen, Jan Nyberg, Nana Mayman-Holler, Henrik Kehlet, Christian T Bonde

Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  4. Department of Anaesthesiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
  5. Department of Surgical Pathophysiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

PMID: 33225037 PMCID: PMC7666314 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpra.2020.09.008

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Microvascular reconstructions after head and neck cancer are among the most complicated procedures in plastic surgery. Postoperative complications are common, which often leads to prolonged hospital stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a peri- and postoperative care concept with the aim of achieving pain- and risk-free surgery. It has been previously established as superior to conventional care for a wide variety of procedures, including microsurgical procedures such as reconstructions of the breast. Several ERAS protocols for microvascular head and neck cancer reconstructions have been proposed, although most of these are based on extrapolated evidence from different surgical specialties. Results from the implementation of ERAS for these procedures are inconsistent.

METHODS: The current study investigates our clinical experience of head and neck cancer reconstruction for the period of 2014-2016 with the aim of establishing a list of functional discharge criteria. By combining these with the current published knowledge on the subject, we developed an ERAS protocol.

RESULTS: We performed 89 microvascular procedures in the study period, of which 58 were in the oral cavity/sinuses and 31 were laryngopharyngeal. Most cases were squamous cell carcinoma (89%). The average LOS was 20.3 days in both groups. Postoperative complications included infection (37%), 30-days re-operations (19%), and re-admissions (17%). Furthermore, we identified the following discharge criteria: adequate pain relief, ambulation, sufficient nutritional intake, normal infection-related blood parameter results and absence of fever, bowel function, and closure of tracheostomy.

CONCLUSION: Based on our retrospective analysis and identified discharge criteria, we present an approach to develop an ERAS protocol for microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer.

© 2020 The Authors.

Keywords: ERAS; Head and neck; enhanced recovery after surgery; free flap surgery; head and neck cancer; microvascular reconstruction

Conflict of interest statement

None

References

  1. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Sep;51(6):493-6 - PubMed
  2. Clin Otolaryngol. 2016 Apr;41(2):118-26 - PubMed
  3. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2017 Nov;70(11):1543-1546 - PubMed
  4. Ann Surg. 2016 Aug;264(2):237-8 - PubMed
  5. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014 Oct;26(10):1386-95 - PubMed
  6. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2015 Jul;24(3):491-508 - PubMed
  7. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Mar 1;143(3):292-303 - PubMed
  8. Head Neck. 2009 Oct;31(10):1289-96 - PubMed
  9. J Laryngol Otol. 2016 May;130(S2):S191-S197 - PubMed
  10. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Jun;133(6):1477-84 - PubMed
  11. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Nov;45(11):1400-1405 - PubMed
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jun;74(6):1255-64 - PubMed
  13. Acta Otolaryngol. 2018 Jul;138(7):664-669 - PubMed
  14. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2019 Nov;97(5):239-244 - PubMed
  15. Anesth Analg. 2019 Jan;128(1):5-7 - PubMed
  16. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Oct;55(8):809-814 - PubMed
  17. Nutr Cancer. 2016 Nov-Dec;68(8):1320-1329 - PubMed
  18. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2017 Jan;274(1):441-449 - PubMed
  19. Dan Med J. 2015 Jul;62(7): - PubMed
  20. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017 Dec;55(10):1024-1029 - PubMed
  21. Laryngoscope. 2013 Dec;123(12):2996-3000 - PubMed
  22. J Am Coll Surg. 2014 Jun;218(6):1095-104 - PubMed
  23. Colorectal Dis. 2019 Dec;21(12):1438-1444 - PubMed
  24. Br J Anaesth. 1997 May;78(5):606-17 - PubMed
  25. J Infect Chemother. 2010 Oct;16(5):334-9 - PubMed
  26. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jan;78(1):10-11 - PubMed
  27. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 May;176:60-3 - PubMed
  28. J Laryngol Otol. 2016 May;130(S2):S181-S190 - PubMed
  29. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2017 Dec;37(6):475-478 - PubMed
  30. Surg Endosc. 2004 Oct;18(10):1463-8 - PubMed
  31. BMJ. 2008 Jun 28;336(7659):1495-8 - PubMed
  32. Anaesthesia. 2020 Jan;75 Suppl 1:e54-e61 - PubMed
  33. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013 Apr;148(4):602-10 - PubMed
  34. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):411-4 - PubMed

Publication Types