ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2020
Is an enhanced recovery program (ERP) after rectal surgery as feasible as after colonic surgery? A multicentre Francophone study of 870 rectal resections.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnhanced recovery program (ERP) is well-established in colorectal surgery. Rectal surgery (RS) is known to be associated with high morbidity and prolonged hospital stay, which might explain why ERPs are less applied in this specific group of patients. The aim of this large-scale study was to assess the feasibility of an ERP in RS compared with colonic surgery.
methodsThis study was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database including 3740 patients eligible for colorectal resection from February 2014 to January 2017 in 75 European Francophone centres. Patients were divided into two groups (colon group C vs. rectum group R). The main endpoint was compliance with ERP components. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients for whom a defunctioning stoma (DS) was required after RS.
resultsA total of 3740 patients were included. There were 2870 patients in group C and 870 patients in group R. The overall compliance rate for ERPs was 81.71% in group C and 79.09% in group R. Patients were significantly less mobilized within 24 h in group R. Specific recommendations for RS concerning bowel preparation and abdominal drainage were significantly less implemented. Overall morbidity was significantly higher in group R. Mean length of stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in group C. In the sub-group analysis, a DS was significantly associated with fewer compliance with early mobilization and early feeding, leading to significantly longer LOS (group R).
conclusionERP is safe and effective in RS, despite the well-known higher morbidity and LOS compared with colonic surgery. DS could be a limiting factor in ERP implementation after RS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33057822What OpenQuestion holds
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.