Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225037›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2020

Microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer - basis for the development of an enhanced recovery protocol.

Jens H Højvig, Nicolas J Pedersen, Birgitte W Charabi, Irene Wessel, Lisa T Jensen, Jan Nyberg, Nana Mayman-Holler, Henrik Kehlet, Christian T Bonde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathways in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery.Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2021
    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

9 authors.

Jens H HøjvigDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nicolas J PedersenDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Birgitte W CharabiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Irene WesselDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck surgery & Audiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lisa T JensenDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jan NybergDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nana Mayman-HollerDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Henrik KehletDepartment of Surgical Pathophysiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Christian T BondeDepartment of Plastic Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMicrovascular reconstructions after head and neck cancer are among the most complicated procedures in plastic surgery. Postoperative complications are common, which often leads to prolonged hospital stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a peri- and postoperative care concept with the aim of achieving pain- and risk-free surgery. It has been previously established as superior to conventional care for a wide variety of procedures, including microsurgical procedures such as reconstructions of the breast. Several ERAS protocols for microvascular head and neck cancer reconstructions have been proposed, although most of these are based on extrapolated evidence from different surgical specialties. Results from the implementation of ERAS for these procedures are inconsistent.

methodsThe current study investigates our clinical experience of head and neck cancer reconstruction for the period of 2014-2016 with the aim of establishing a list of functional discharge criteria. By combining these with the current published knowledge on the subject, we developed an ERAS protocol.

resultsWe performed 89 microvascular procedures in the study period, of which 58 were in the oral cavity/sinuses and 31 were laryngopharyngeal. Most cases were squamous cell carcinoma (89%). The average LOS was 20.3 days in both groups. Postoperative complications included infection (37%), 30-days re-operations (19%), and re-admissions (17%). Furthermore, we identified the following discharge criteria: adequate pain relief, ambulation, sufficient nutritional intake, normal infection-related blood parameter results and absence of fever, bowel function, and closure of tracheostomy.

conclusionBased on our retrospective analysis and identified discharge criteria, we present an approach to develop an ERAS protocol for microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer.

Indexed as

enhanced recovery after surgeryERASfree flap surgeryHead and neckhead and neck cancermicrovascular reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID33225037
PMCPMC7666314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.