Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29721637›Full record

ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2018

Application of an enhanced recovery pathway for ileostomy closure: a case-control trial with surprising results.

J Slieker, M Hübner, V Addor, C Duvoisin, N Demartines, D Hahnloser

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Comparison of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Pathway Versus Standard Care in Patients Undergoing Elective Stoma Reversal Surgery- A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

J SliekerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-9447-9782
M HübnerDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4521-8279
V AddorDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2859-3971
C DuvoisinDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-0173-2791
N DemartinesDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland. demartines@chuv.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-1530-3114
D HahnloserDepartment of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV Lausanne, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5595-4114

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been widely validated in colorectal surgery; however, few data exist on loop ileostomy closure. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes before and after introduction of ERAS for loop ileostomy closure.

methodsData on outcomes after loop ileostomy closure were retrospectively collected before ERAS was applied at our department (control group). These results were compared to results of patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure within the original colorectal ERAS pathway (ERAS 1 group); after analysis of these results, adaptations were made to the ERAS pathway regarding the postoperative diet, and this second category of patients was analyzed (ERAS 2 group).

resultsForty-eight patients in the control group were compared to 46 ERAS 1 and 69 ERAS 2 patients. First stool was significantly faster in ERAS 2 group versus control and ERAS 1 group [median 1 (range 1-2) days vs 2 (2-3) days p value 0.01]. The incidence of vomiting increased from 26% in the control group to 45% in ERAS 1 group, and then decreased to 29% in the ERAS 2 group (p value 0.41). Length of stay was significantly shorter during the ERAS 2 protocol: median 4 (range 3-6) days versus 5 (4-8) days in the control group (p value < 0.01).

conclusionsAfter application of the 'colorectal' ERAS pathway to loop ileostomy closure, results were initially not improved. Minor corrections were sufficient to avoid increased incidence of vomiting and to allow for reduced hospital stay. Uncritical extrapolation of an ERAS colorectal protocol to other types of surgery should be monitored and needs audit for corrections.

Indexed as

Abdominal Wound Closure TechniquesIleostomyRecovery of FunctionAgedCase-Control StudiesDefecationDietFemaleHumansIleusLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPerioperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesEnhanced recovery after surgeryIleostomyPostoperative ileus

Identifiers

PMID29721637

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.