Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26003552›Full record

ArticleObesity surgery2016

Results of Implementing an Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) Protocol.

Guido H H Mannaerts, Stefanie R van Mil, Pieter S Stepaniak, Martin Dunkelgrün, Marcel de Quelerij, Serge J Verbrugge, Hans F Zengerink, L Ulas Biter

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Obesity surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Meta-Analysis of Enhanced Recovery Protocols in Bariatric Surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Guido H H MannaertsDepartment of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. GMannaerts@tawamhospital.ae.
Stefanie R van MilDepartment of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.vanmil@sfvg.nl.
Pieter S StepaniakOperation room management, Catharina Ziekenhuis, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. pieter.stepaniak@gmail.com.
Martin DunkelgrünDepartment of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.dunkelgrun@sfvg.nl.
Marcel de QuelerijDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. m.quelerij@sfvg.nl.
Serge J VerbruggeDepartment of Anesthesiology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. s.verbrugge@sfvg.nl.
Hans F ZengerinkDepartment of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. h.zengerink@sfvg.nl.
L Ulas BiterDepartment of Surgery, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, PO Box 10900, 3004 BA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. u.biter@sfvg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increasing prevalence of morbid obesity and healthcare costs in general, interest is shown in safe, efficient, and cost-effective bariatric care. This study describes an Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery (ERABS) protocol and the results of implementing such protocol on procedural times, length of stay in hospital (LOS), and the number of complications, such as readmissions and reoperations.

methodsResults of implementing an ERABS protocol were analyzed by comparing a cohort treated according to the ERABS protocol (2012-2014) with a cohort treated before implementing ERABS (2010-2012). Differences between both cohorts were analyzed using independent t tests and chi-squared tests.

resultsA total of 1.967 patients (mean age 43.3 years, 80% female) underwent a primary bariatric procedure between 2010 and 2014, of which 1.313 procedures were performed after implementation of ERABS. A significant decrease of procedural times and a significantly decreased LOS, from 3.2 to 2.0 nights (p < 0.001), were seen after implementation of ERABS. Significantly more complications were seen post-ERABS (16.1 vs. 20.7%, p = 0.013), although no significant differences were seen in the number of major complications.

conclusionImplementation of ERABS can result in shorter procedural times and a decreased LOS, which may lead to more efficient and cost-effective bariatric care. The increase in complications was possibly due to better registration of complications. The main goal of an ERABS protocol is efficient, safe, and evidence-based bariatric care, which can be achieved by standardization of the total process.

Indexed as

Clinical ProtocolsAdultBariatric SurgeryCohort StudiesCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsObesity, MorbidOperative TimePatient ReadmissionBariatric surgeryERABS protocolFast-track protocolMorbid obesityRoux-en-Y gastric bypassSleeve gastrectomy

Identifiers

PMID26003552

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.