Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32720244›Full record

ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2021

Do older patients (> 80 years) also benefit from ERAS after colorectal resection? A safety and feasibility study.

Katrien Boon, Gabriele Bislenghi, André D'Hoore, Nele Boon, Albert M Wolthuis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effectiveness of an Educational Intervention with Guidelines from the Total Acceleration of Postoperative Recovery Project (ACERTO) in Gynecology.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katrien BoonDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. katrien.boon@uzleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1442-9425
Gabriele BislenghiDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9212-9287
André D'HooreDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Nele Boon, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8792-9629
Albert M WolthuisDepartment of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospital Gasthuisberg Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1200-387X
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a standard Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) program following colorectal resection in a geriatric population, aged 80 years and older.

methodsIn this single-center before-after cohort study all patients aged 80 years and older were included after colorectal resection. Patients were divided in a pre-ERAS and an ERAS group, according to the type of perioperative care. Data were prospectively collected and analysed retrospectively. The primary outcome was short-term complication rate. Secondary outcome parameters were length of stay (LOS), 30-day mortality and readmission rate.

resultsOver 4 years, 219 patients were included. Of those, 151 underwent colonic and 68 rectal resection, following the ERAS protocol perioperatively in 45 and 21 cases. There were no differences in complication rate, 30-day mortality or readmission rate in the pre-ERAS versus ERAS groups. LOS after colonic resection was reduced by 2.5 days in the ERAS group (p = 0.020). Laparoscopy was found to be an independent variable of LOS (p < 0.001, p = 0.009) and complication rate (p = 0.011, p < 0.001) for colonic and rectal surgery respectively. DISCUSSION: A standard ERAS protocol is safe and feasible in older patients undergoing colorectal resection. Colon resection was related with shorter LOS without increasing morbidity, readmission rate nor 30-day mortality. No adverse outcome after rectal resection was found either. Laparoscopy was associated with lower complication rate and shorter LOS.

conclusionA laparoscopic approach within an ERAS protocol should be considered for colorectal resection in every patient regardless of age.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryLaparoscopyAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesFeasibility StudiesHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsRecovery of FunctionRetrospective StudiesColorectal resectionElderlyERASFeasibilityLaparoscopySafety

Identifiers

PMID32720244
OpenAlexW3045400672

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.