Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27262309›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2016

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway vs traditional care in laparoscopic rectal resection: a single-center experience.

A Vignali, U Elmore, A Cossu, M Lemma, B Calì, P de Nardi, R Rosati

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. RoboticWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

A VignaliDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. vignali.andrea@hsr.it.
U ElmoreDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
A CossuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
M LemmaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
B CalìDepartment of General and Minimally-Invasive Surgery, Humanitas Research Hospital, University of Milan, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
P de NardiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
R RosatiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita e salute University, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITUniversity of Milan · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the outcome of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway with traditional perioperative care in laparoscopic rectal resection.

methodsA retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was conducted. Single-center consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic rectal surgery after an ERAS program were compared with patients who received traditional care over an 8-year period. Primary and total length of stay, and readmission, morbidity and mortality rates were analyzed. For ERAS group, the actual adherence to protocol was also evaluated.

resultsTwo hundred and ninety-seven patients, 162 in the ERAS group and 135 in conventional care, were studied. Median primary and total length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group (9 vs 12 days; p = 0.0001; 10 vs 12 days; p = 0.01; respectively). The ERAS group experienced a faster recovery of bowel function than the traditional care group (p = 0.0001). A similar morbidity rate was observed in the two groups (32.3 % in ERAS vs 36.1 % in traditional care p = 0.41). Readmission rates were 4.9 % in the ERAS versus 1.5 % in the traditional care group (p = 0.19). There was no mortality in either group. Overall mean compliance with the ERAS protocol was 85.7 % (range 54.4-100 %).

conclusionsThe introduction of the ERAS protocol in laparoscopic rectal resection led to a reduction in primary and total length of hospital stay without an increase in morbidity or readmission rates when compared to traditional care.

Indexed as

Early AmbulationRecovery of FunctionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClinical ProtocolsFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansIntestine, LargeLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPractice Guidelines as TopicEarly rehabilitationEnhanced recovery after surgeryFast-trackLaparoscopyOutcomeRectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID27262309
OpenAlexW2465276034

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.