Impact of intraoperative fluid administration on outcome in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy – a retrospective analysis

BMC Anesthesiology

Tobias Piegeler¹  Pamela Dreessen⁵  Sereina M Graber⁴  Sarah R Haile³  Daniel Max Schmid²  Beatrice Beck-Schimmer⁴ 

[1] Institute of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland

[2] Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Frauenklinikstrasse 10, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland

[3] Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, Division of Biostatistics, University of Zurich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland

[4] Institute of Physiology and Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich,Switzerland

[5] Surgical Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland

关键词: Crystalloid solutions;    Colloids;    Perioperative care;    Hospitalization;   

Others  :  1084584
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2253-14-61

 received in 2013-09-18, accepted in 2014-07-22,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) gained much popularity during the last decade. Although the influence of intraoperative fluid management on patients’ outcome has been largely discussed in general, its impact on perioperative complications and length of hospitalization in patients undergoing RALP has not been examined so far. We hypothesized that a more restrictive fluid management might lead to a shortened length of hospitalization and a decreased rate of complications in our patients.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data of 182 patients undergoing RALP at an University Hospital (first series of RALP performed at the center).

Results

The amount of fluid administered was initially normalized for body mass index of the patient and the duration of the operation and additionally corrected for age and the interaction of these variables. The application of crystalloids (multiple linear regression model, estimate = -0.044, p = 0.734) had no effect on the length of hospitalization, whereas a negative effect was found for colloids (estimate = -8.317, p = 0.021). Additionally, a significant interaction term between age and the amount of colloid applied (estimate = 0.129, p = 0.028) was calculated. Evaluation of the influence of intraoperative fluid administration using multiple logistic regression models corrected for body mass index, duration of the surgery and additionally for age revealed a negative effect of crystalloids on the incidence of an anastomotic leak between bladder and urethra (estimate = -23.860, p = 0.017), with a significant interaction term between age and the amount of crystalloids (estimate = 0.396, p = 0.0134). Colloids had no significant effect on this particular complication (estimate = 1.887, p = 0.524). Intraoperative blood loss did not alter the incidence of an anastomotic leak (estimate = 0.001, p = 0.086), nor did it affect the length of hospitalization (estimate = 0.0001, p = 0.351).

Conclusions

In accordance to the findings of our study, we suggest that a standardized, more restrictive fluid management might be beneficial in patients undergoing RALP. In older patients this measure would be able to shorten the length of hospitalization and to decrease the incidence of anastomosis leakage as a major complication.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Piegeler et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE, Lobontiu A, Saint F, Cicco A, Antiphon P, Chopin D: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with a remote controlled robot. J Urol 2001, 165(6 Pt 1):1964-1966.
• [2]Sharma NL, Shah NC, Neal DE: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Br J Cancer 2009, 101(9):1491-1496.
• [3]Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M: Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 2007, 110(9):1951-1958.
• [4]Carlsson S, Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Jonsson MN, Volz DS, Steineck G, Wiklund PN: Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010, 75(5):1092-1097.
• [5]Jeong J, Choi EY, Kim IY: Clavien classification of complications after the initial series of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: the Cancer Institute of New Jersey/Robert Wood Johnson Medical School experience. J Endourol 2010, 24(9):1457-1461.
• [6]Phong SV, Koh LK: Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007, 35(2):281-285.
• [7]Kalmar AF, Foubert L, Hendrickx JF, Mottrie A, Absalom A, Mortier EP, Struys MM: Influence of steep Trendelenburg position and CO (2) pneumoperitoneum on cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory homeostasis during robotic prostatectomy. Br J Anaesth 2010, 104(4):433-439.
• [8]Brandstrup B, Tonnesen H, Beier-Holgersen R, Hjortso E, Ording H, Lindorff-Larsen K, Rasmussen MS, Lanng C, Wallin L, Iversen LH, Gramkow CS, Okholm M, Blemmer T, Svendsen PE, Rottensten HH, Thage B, Riis J, Jeppesen IS, Teilum D, Christensen AM, Graungaard B, Pott F, Danish Study Group on Perioperative Fluid Therapy: Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Ann Surg 2003, 238(5):641-648.
• [9]Kimberger O, Arnberger M, Brandt S, Plock J, Sigurdsson GH, Kurz A, Hiltebrand L: Goal-directed colloid administration improves the microcirculation of healthy and perianastomotic colon. Anesthesiology 2009, 110(3):496-504.
• [10]Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G, Weissman C, Einav S, Matot I: Effect of intraoperative fluid management on outcome after intraabdominal surgery. Anesthesiology 2005, 103(1):25-32.
• [11]Moretti EW, Robertson KM, El-Moalem H, Gan TJ: Intraoperative colloid administration reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting and improves postoperative outcomes compared with crystalloid administration. Anesth Analg 2003, 96(2):611-617. table of contents
• [12]Bundgaard-Nielsen M, Secher NH, Kehlet H: ‘Liberal’ vs. ‘restrictive’ perioperative fluid therapy--a critical assessment of the evidence. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009, 53(7):843-851.
• [13]MacKay G, Fearon K, McConnachie A, Serpell MG, Molloy RG, O’Dwyer PJ: Randomized clinical trial of the effect of postoperative intravenous fluid restriction on recovery after elective colorectal surgery. Br J Surg 2006, 93(12):1469-1474.
• [14]Doherty M, Buggy DJ: Intraoperative fluids: how much is too much? Br J Anaesth 2012, 109(1):69-79.
• [15]R Development Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2009.
• [16]Jacob M, Chappell D, Rehm M: The ‘third space’–fact or fiction? Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2009, 23(2):145-157.
• [17]Marjanovic G, Villain C, Juettner E, zur Hausen A, Hoeppner J, Hopt UT, Drognitz O, Obermaier R: Impact of different crystalloid volume regimes on intestinal anastomotic stability. Ann Surg 2009, 249(2):181-185.
• [18]Marjanovic G, Villain C, Timme S, Zur Hausen A, Hoeppner J, Makowiec F, Holzner P, Hopt UT, Obermaier R: Colloid vs. crystalloid infusions in gastrointestinal surgery and their different impact on the healing of intestinal anastomoses. Int J Colorectal Dis 2010, 25(4):491-498.
• [19]Lopes MR, Oliveira MA, Pereira VO, Lemos IP, Auler JO Jr, Michard F: Goal-directed fluid management based on pulse pressure variation monitoring during high-risk surgery: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2007, 11(5):R100.
• [20]Holte K, Klarskov B, Christensen DS, Lund C, Nielsen KG, Bie P, Kehlet H: Liberal versus restrictive fluid administration to improve recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double-blind study. Ann Surg 2004, 240(5):892-899.
• [21]Holte K, Foss NB, Andersen J, Valentiner L, Lund C, Bie P, Kehlet H: Liberal or restrictive fluid administration in fast-track colonic surgery: a randomized, double-blind study. Br J Anaesth 2007, 99(4):500-508.
• [22]Gainsburg DM, Wax D, Reich DL, Carlucci JR, Samadi DB: Intraoperative management of robotic-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy. JSLS 2010, 14(1):1-5.
• [23]Danic MJ, Chow M, Alexander G, Bhandari A, Menon M, Brown M: Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: a review of 1,500 cases. J Robotic Surg 2007, 1(2):119-123.
• [24]Ou YC, Yang CR, Wang J, Cheng CL, Patel VR: Learning curve of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy with 60 initial cases by a single surgeon. Asian J Surg 2011, 34(2):74-80.
• [25]Ou YC, Yang CR, Wang J, Yang CK, Cheng CL, Patel VR, Tewari AK: The learning curve for reducing complications of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon. BJU Int 2011, 108(3):420-425.
• [26]Sharma NL, Papadopoulos A, Lee D, McLoughlin J, Vowler SL, Baumert H, Warren AY, Patil V, Shah N, Neal DE: First 500 cases of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from a single UK centre: learning curves of two surgeons. BJU Int 2011, 108(5):739-747.
• [27]Gregori A, Simonato A, Lissiani A, Bozzola A, Galli S, Gaboardi F: Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: perioperative complications in an initial and consecutive series of 80 cases. Eur Urol 2003, 44(2):190-194.
• [28]Apfel CC, Kranke P, Eberhart LH: Comparison of surgical site and patient’s history with a simplified risk score for the prediction of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 2004, 59(11):1078-1082.
• [29]Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004, 240(2):205-213.