Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23708720›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2013

Early rehabilitation versus conventional care after laparoscopic rectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

Sung-Min Lee, Sung-Bum Kang, Je-Ho Jang, Jun-Seok Park, Samin Hong, Taek-Gu Lee, Soyeon Ahn

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00606944 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized Controlled Trial of Fast-Track Rehabilitation After Elective Colorectal and Small Bowel Resection

TypeinterventionalSponsorSeoul National University HospitalRan2007 to 2011Enrolled200ConditionsColorectal TumorArmsfast-track rehabilitation
NCT04201730 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

A Single Center, Open, Randomized Clinical Trial：Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery （ERAS）in Gastrointestinal Cancer

TypeinterventionalSponsorHuashan HospitalRan2019 to 2021Enrolled356ConditionsEnhanced Recovery After Surgery, Gastrointestinal CancerArmsEnhanced Recovery After Surgery （ERAS）
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Is the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program Effective and Safe in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Feasibility of Fast-Track Surgery in Elderly Patients with Gastric Cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2015
    Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sung-Min LeeDepartment of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang, Seongnam, 463-707, South Korea.
Sung-Bum Kang
Je-Ho Jang
Jun-Seok Park
Samin Hong
Taek-Gu Lee
Soyeon Ahn
Seoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough early rehabilitation programs have been reported to be effective after laparoscopic colectomy, there is no report of the efficacy of rehabilitation programs after rectal cancer surgery. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of an early rehabilitation program after laparoscopic low anterior resection for mid or low rectal cancer in a randomized, controlled trial.

methodsNinety-eight patients who had undergone a laparoscopic low anterior resection with defunctioning ileostomy were randomized on a 1:1 basis to an early rehabilitation program (n = 52) or conventional care (n = 46). The primary endpoint was recovery rate at 4 days postoperatively. The secondary endpoints were recovery time, postoperative hospital stay, complications, readmission rates, pain on a visual analogue scale, and quality of life (QOL) according to Short Form 36.

resultsThe recovery rates were not different in both groups (rehabilitation, 25 % vs. conventional, 13 %, p = 0.135). Recovery time and postoperative hospital stay was similar between the groups (rehabilitation, 137 h [107-188] vs. conventional, 146.5 h [115-183], p = 0.47; 7.5 days [7-11] vs. 8.0 days [7-10], p = 0.882). The complication rates did not differ between the two groups, but more complications were noted in the rehabilitation program group (42.3 vs. 24.0 %, p = 0.054), which was related to postoperative ileus (28.8 vs. 13.0 %, p = 0.057) and acute voiding difficulty (19.6 vs. 4.7 %, p = 0.032). There was no readmission within 1 month of surgery. Pain and QOL were similar in both groups.

conclusionsThis randomized trial did not show that an early rehabilitation program is beneficial after laparoscopic low anterior resection. Our results confirm that postoperative ileus and acute voiding difficulty are major obstacles to fast-track surgery for mid or low rectal cancer. This study was registered (registration number NCT00606944).

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnalgesicsBlood Loss, SurgicalCarcinomaEatingFemaleFeverHumansIleostomyIleusLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedAnalgesics

Identifiers

PMID23708720
OpenAlexW2081950198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.