Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25997686›Full record

Trial reportClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2015

The effect of enhanced recovery program for patients undergoing partial laparoscopic hepatectomy of liver cancer.

F He, X Lin, F Xie, Y Huang, R Yuan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Reduces Hospital Costs and Improve Clinical Outcomes in Liver Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Programs for Liver Resection: a Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2017
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

F HeDepartment of Hepatobiliary, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Dongfeng East Road 651, Guangzhou, 510060, Guangdong, China, fengyinghe2014@126.com.
X Lin
F Xie
Y Huang
R Yuan
Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the results after the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, a randomized study was performed to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy under ERAS or traditional care.

methodsPatients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy from April 2014 to October 2014 were included and randomly divided into Control group (CG) and ERAS. Primary outcome was quality of life (QoL) and length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints were percentage readmission, mortality, duration to first flatus, complications, hospital costs, conversions and blood loss.

resultsThirteen patients withdrew after randomization. Eighty-six patients completed the study, 48 ERAS and 38 CG. Postoperative LOS was significantly reduced in ERAS [6 (4-8) versus 10 (7-15) days, P = 0.04]. First flatus occurred earlier in ERAS than CG [2(1-4) versus 3(2-5) days, P = 0.02]. The average perioperative charges were 9470 ± 1540 in CG and only 7742 ± 1200 in ERAS (P = 0.03), with no differences in readmission rate, blood loss, conversions to open surgery, mortality or surgical complications. The median AUC (area under a curve) of QoL was considerably improved in ERAS (P = 0.04).

conclusionsThis study suggests that ERAS is feasible and safe for laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyPostoperative ComplicationsCarcinoma, HepatocellularColorectal NeoplasmsElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHepatectomyHumansLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPatient ReadmissionPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID25997686
OpenAlexW253534113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.