Trial reportFrontiers of medicine2011
"Fast Track" nasogastric decompression of rectal cancer surgery.
Trial report in Frontiers of medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes towards Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) interventions in colorectal surgery: nationwide survey of Australia and New Zealand colorectal surgeons.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2022Article
- Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERASWorld journal of surgery · 2019Review
- Clinical practice guideline for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES).Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Early Oral Feeding After Surgery for Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Prospective Cohort Study.Oman medical journal · 2016Article
- Two-day hospital stay after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: is enhanced recovery program a healthcare system-specific issue?World journal of surgery · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the application of fast track (FT) nasogastric decompression in patients who underwent anterior resection of rectal cancer. A randomized control trial was performed comparing the group with the fast track treatment (n = 57) and the group with traditional nasogastric decompression (n = 84). Preoperative characteristics and postoperative recovery indices were recorded and analyzed. The results indicate no significant differences in gender (P = 0.614), age (P = 0.653), tumor location (P = 0.113), and TNM stages (P = 0.054) were observed between the 2 groups. The differences in the type of resection, anastomosis, and adoption of protective colostomy were all not significant between the FT and the traditional group. During the first 24 hours after surgery, the volume of nasogastric drainage averaged 197 ml in the FT group and 155 ml in the traditional group (P = 0.197). The initiation of test-meal (P = 0.000), semiliquid diet (P = 0.002), and ordinary diet (P = 0.008) were all significantly shorter in the FT group. Furthermore, compared with the other group, the patients in the FT group enjoyed earlier removal of the abdominal drainage, urinary catheter, and shorter hospital stays (P = 0.000). Based on a correlation test, the duration of nasogastric decompression is related to the time of test-meal and semiliquid diet. The routine usage of nasogastric decompression in rectal surgery is unnecessary. The fast track procedure might help in facilitating postoperative functional and diet recovery, reducing the time of catheterization, and shortening hospital stay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21964714What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.