Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30374533›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2019

Enhanced recovery program for minimally invasive and vaginal urogynecologic surgery.

Elisa Rodriguez Trowbridge, Sarah L Evans, Bethany M Sarosiek, Susan C Modesitt, Dana L Redick, Mohamed Tiouririne, Robert H Thiele, Traci L Hedrick, Kathie L Hullfish

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Enhanced Recovery after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Factors that Lengthen Patient Hospitalizations Following Laparoscopic Hysterectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elisa Rodriguez TrowbridgeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA. etrowbridge@virginia.edu.
Sarah L EvansDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Bethany M SarosiekDepartment of General Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Susan C ModesittDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Dana L RedickDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Mohamed TiouririneDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Robert H ThieleDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Traci L HedrickDepartment of General Surgery, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Kathie L HullfishDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
University of Virginia Health System · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisEnhanced recovery protocols (ERPs) are evidenced-based interventions designed to standardize perioperative care and expedite recovery to baseline functional status after surgery. There remains a paucity of data addressing the effect of ERPs on pelvic reconstructive surgery patients.

methodsAn ERP was implemented at our institution including: patient counseling, carbohydrate loading, avoidance of opioids, goal-directed fluid resuscitation, immediate postoperative feeding and early ambulation. Patients undergoing elective pelvic reconstructive surgery before and after implementation of the ERP were identified in this cohort study.

resultsOne hundred eighteen patients underwent pelvic reconstructive surgery within the ERP compared with 76 historic controls. Reductions were seen in length of hospital stay (29.9 vs. 27.9 h, p = 0.04), total morphine equivalents (37.4 vs. 19.4 mg, p < 0.01) and total intravenous fluids administered (2.7 l vs. 1.5 l, p < 0.0001). Hospital discharges before noon doubled (32.9 vs. 60.2%, p < 0.01). More patients in the ERP group ambulated on the day of surgery (17.1 vs. 73.7%, p < 0.01) and ambulated at least two times the day following surgery (34.2 vs. 72.9%, p < 0.01). No differences were seen in average pain scores (highest pain score 7.39 vs. 7.37, p = 0.95), hospital readmissions (3.9 vs. 3.4%, p = 0.84), or postoperative complications (6.58 vs. 8.47%, p = 0.79). Patient satisfaction significantly improved. ERP was not associated with an increase in 30-day total hospital costs.

conclusionsImplementation of ERP for pelvic reconstructive surgery patients was associated with a reduced length of hospital stay, improved patient satisfaction, and decreased administration of intravenous fluids and opioids without an increase in complications, readmissions, or hospital costs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnalgesics, OpioidCohort StudiesFemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresHospital CostsHumansLength of StayMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresPatient SatisfactionPelvisPerioperative CarePlastic Surgery ProceduresPostoperative PeriodAnalgesics, OpioidERPFast track recoveryVaginal hysterectomyVaginal reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID30374533
OpenAlexW2899362998

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.