Trial reportWorld journal of urology2018
Enhanced recovery after surgery for radical cystectomy with ileal urinary diversion: a multi-institutional, randomized, controlled trial from the Chinese bladder cancer consortium.
Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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
30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols on surgical site wound infection rates in urological procedures.International wound journal · 2024Pooled it
- Wound dehiscence in enhanced recovery after open radical cystectomy: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2023Pooled it
- [Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) after radical cystectomy-current data].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Pooled it
- Early recovery after surgery for radical cystectomy: comprehensive assessment and meta-analysis of existing protocols.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- A comparison between limited bowel preparation and comprehensive bowel preparation in radical cystectomy with ileal urinary diversion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.International urology and nephrology · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery vs. Conventional Recovery After Surgery on Perioperative Outcomes of Radical Cystectomy.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Does Postoperative Rehabilitation for Radical Cystectomy Call for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Current medical science · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison Study of Inverted-Nipple Ureteroneocystostomy and Direct Anastomosis in U-Shaped Orthotopic Neobladder Reconstruction.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery in robotic nephrectomy.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- The application of ERAS Protocol in Laparoscopic Radical Cystectomy combined with Cutaneous Ureterostomy and its impact on postoperative recovery.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal neobladder in robot-assisted radical cystectomy: perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes from a single-institutional experience.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Correlation analysis of preoperative renal insufficiency with major complications in patients who received a radical cystectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection: results of a retrospective observational analysis from a single center.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Mini nutritional assessment as a screening tool for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients: A cross-sectional study in a high-volume center.Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2024Article
- Relationship between Bladder Cancer, Nutritional Supply, and Treatment Strategies: A Comprehensive Review.Nutrients · 2023Review
- The effect of the enhanced recovery after surgery program on radical cystectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Role of prehabilitation following major uro-oncologic surgery: a narrative review.World journal of urology · 2022Review
- Association between use of ERAS protocols and complications after radical cystectomy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Article
- Better clinical benefits and potential cost saving of an enhanced recovery pathways for laparoscopic adrenalectomy.Gland surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
69 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Tianxin LinDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 W Yanjiang Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Kaiwen LiDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 W Yanjiang Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Hao LiuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 W Yanjiang Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Xueyi XueDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Ning XuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Yong WeiDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Zhiwen ChenDepartment of Urology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xiaozhou ZhouDepartment of Urology, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Lin QiDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Wei HeDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Shiyu TongDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Fengshuo JinDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xudong LiuDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qiang WeiDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Ping HanDepartment of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xin GouDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Weiyang HeDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xu ZhangDepartment of Urology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Guoqiang YangDepartment of Urology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Zhoujun ShenDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Tianyuan XuDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xin XieDepartment of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wei XueDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ming CaoDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jin YangDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Jianyun HuDepartment of Urology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Fubao ChenDepartment of Urology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Peijun LiDepartment of Urology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Guangyong LiDepartment of Urology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Tong XuDepartment of Urology, General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, Ningxia, China.
Ye TianDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Wenying WangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dongkui SongDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Lei ShiDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Xiaoming YangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Yang YangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China.
Benkang ShiDepartment of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Yaofeng ZhuDepartment of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Xigao LiuDepartment of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Jinchun XingDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Zhun WuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Kaiyan ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Wei LiDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian, China.
Chaozhao LiangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Cheng YangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Wei LiDepartment of Urology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Jinchun QiDepartment of Urology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Chuanliang XuDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital of Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Weidong XuDepartment of Urology, Shanghai Changhai Hospital of Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Liqun ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lin CaiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
En'ci XuDepartment of Urology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Weizhong CaiDepartment of Urology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Minggao WengDepartment of Urology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Yiming SuDepartment of Urology, Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Fangjian ZhouDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lijuan JiangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhuowei LiuDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Qiuhong ChenDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Tiejun PanDepartment of Urology, Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Bo LiuDepartment of Urology, Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Yu ZhouDepartment of Urology, Wuhan General Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Xin GaoDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jianguang QiuDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jie SituDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Cheng HuDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shan ChenDepartment of Urology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yupeng ZhengDepartment of Urology, Beijing Tongren Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Jian HuangDepartment of Urology, Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, 107 W Yanjiang Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China. urolhj@sina.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7315-4252
Sun Yat-sen University · CNFujian Medical University · CNShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNArmy Medical University · CNCentral South University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University · CNGeneral Hospital of Guangzhou Military Command · CNHebei Medical University · CNNingxia Medical University · CNAnhui Medical University · CNBeijing Tongren Hospital · CNCapital Medical University · CNChengdu University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CNPeking University · CNQilu Hospital of Shandong University · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNSichuan University · CNThe Affiliated Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CN
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China 81572514
Abstract
purposeEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) has played an important role in recovery management for radical cystectomy with ileal urinary diversion (RC-IUD). This study is to evaluate ERAS compared with the conventional recovery after surgery (CRAS) for RC-IUD.
methodsFrom October 2014 and July 2016, bladder cancer patients scheduled for curative treatment from 25 centers of Chinese Bladder Cancer Consortium were randomly assigned to either ERAS or CRAS group. Primary endpoint was the 30-day complication rate. Secondary endpoints included recovery of fluid and regular diet, flatus, bowel movement, ambulation, and length of stay (LOS) postoperatively. Follow-up period was 30-day postoperatively.
resultsThere were 144 ERAS and 145 CRAS patients. Postoperative complications occurred in 25.7 and 30.3% of the ERAS and CRAS patients with 55 complications in each group, respectively (p = 0.40). There was no significant difference between groups in major complications (p = 0.82), or type of complications (p = 0.99). The ERAS group had faster recovery of bowel movements (median 88 versus 100 h, p = 0.01), fluid diet tolerance (68 versus 96 h, p < 0.001), regular diet tolerance (125 versus 168 h, p = 0.004), and ambulation (64 versus 72 h, p = 0.047) than the CRAS group, but similar time to flatus and LOS.
conclusionsERAS did not increase 30-day complications compared with CRAS after RC. ERAS may be better than CRAS in terms of bowel movement, tolerance of fluid and regular diet, and ambulation.
Indexed as
CystectomyUrinary DiversionChinaFemaleHumansIleumMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative CareProspective StudiesRecovery of FunctionUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsBladder cancerCystectomyEnhanced recovery after surgeryRandomized controlled trialUrinary diversion
Identifiers
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.