Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32612104›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2020

Evaluation of enhanced recovery after surgery program components implemented in laparoscopic appendectomy: prospective randomized clinical study.

Taras Nechay, Alexander Sazhin, Svetlana Titkova, Alexander Tyagunov, Mikhail Anurov, Kirill Melnikov-Makarchuk, Anton Tyagunov

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT03754777 (Evaluation of Modified Enhanced Recovery Program in Emergency Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT03754777 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Modified Enhanced Recovery Program in Emergency Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorPirogov Russian National Research Medical UniversityRan2017 to 2018Enrolled122ConditionsAcute Appendicitis, Acute Appendicitis With Rupture, Acute Appendicitis With Peritonitis, Acute Appendicitis Without PeritonitisArmsLaparoscopic appendectomy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Improving Laparoscopic Appendectomy Outcomes Using an Ileocecal Fold of Treves Buttress Technique.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Taras NechayPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Alexander SazhinPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Svetlana TitkovaPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Alexander TyagunovPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail AnurovPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Kirill Melnikov-MakarchukPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia. worker.gq@yandex.ru.
Anton TyagunovPirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow, Russia.
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is a widely used surgical procedure. Patients often suffer from considerable postoperative pain and indigestion, which prolongs their in-hospital stay. Almost 10% of patients develop postoperative complications. The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has proven its efficacy in elective surgery and could hypothetically improve LA outcomes. Currently, there is no ERAS program for LA.

methodsA modified ERAS (mERAS) protocol was studied in a prospective, randomized nonblinded clinical trial. The mERAS group consisted of 50 patients; the control group, of 54 patients. The mERAS protocol included a patient information brochure; minimizing drain use; local anesthesia; low-pressure pneumoperitoneum; early mobilization and oral diet. The primary outcome was postoperative length of stay (pLOS).

resultsModified protocol reduced median pLOS to 1.25 days vs 2 days in the controls (p < 0.0001). Twenty-one (42%) mERAS patients and 4 (7.4%) controls were discharged within 24 h (p < 0.001) after surgery; 0 readmissions were reported. Postoperative pain intensity assessed on the visual analogue scale was significantly lower in the mERAS group [mERAS vs control 0 h, 2 h, 6 h, 12 h and 24 h after surgery: 2.33 ± 2.12 vs 4.19 ± 2.08 (p < 0.0001), 2.27 ± 1.91 vs 4.02 ± 1.89 (p < 0.0001), 2.28 ± 1.98 vs 3.70 ± 1.57 (p = 0.0001), 1.98 ± 1.72 vs 3.43 ± 1.54 (p < 0.0001) and 1.80 ± 1.74 vs 3.00 ± 1.27 (p = 0.032), respectively)]. The severity of shoulder and neck pain was lower but its incidence was similar. Peristalsis recovery was achieved earlier in the study group (median (min-max))-mERAS 7 (2-34) h vs control 11 (3-43) h; p = 0.009) but did not affect the time of the first flatus 23 (2-72) h vs 29 (6-70) h, respectively; p = 0.499).

conclusionsThe modified ERAS program for LA has advantages over the traditional approach. REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03754777 (27/11/2018).

Indexed as

AppendectomyEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryLaparoscopyAdultElective Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPerioperative CarePeristalsisPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainPostoperative PeriodProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID32612104
PMCPMC7329822
OpenAlexW3040665257

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.