Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29234943›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018

Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care after laparoscopic liver resections: a randomized controlled trial.

Xiao Liang, Hanning Ying, Hongwei Wang, Hongxia Xu, Minjun Liu, Haiyan Zhou, Huiqing Ge, Wenbin Jiang, Lijun Feng, Hui Liu and 6 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. 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
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Observational
  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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xiao LiangThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hanning YingThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hongwei WangThe Department of Anesthesiology, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hongxia XuThe Department of Nursing, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Minjun LiuThe Department of Nursing, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Haiyan ZhouThe Department of Anesthesiology, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Huiqing GeThe Department of Respiratory Therapy, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Wenbin JiangThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Lijun FengThe Department of Clinical Nutrition, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hui LiuInstitution of Minimally Invasive Surgery of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yingchun ZhangThe Department of Mental Health, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Zhiying MaoThe Department of Nursing, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Jianhua LiThe Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Bo ShenThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Yuelong LiangThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Xiujun CaiThe Department of General Surgery, The Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 0094417@zju.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-2514-1486
Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care.

methodsA randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia.

resultsThe study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000).

conclusionERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications.

Indexed as

Recovery of FunctionAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHepatectomyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPatient ReadmissionPerioperative CareYoung AdultComplicationsEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)Laparoscopic liver resectionLength of hospital stayPain controlRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29234943
OpenAlexW2775094259

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.