Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34076754›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Current application of the enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for patients undergoing radical cystectomy: lessons learned from European excellence centers.

Simone Albisinni, Marco Moschini, Ettore Di Trapani, Francesco Soria, Andrea Mari, Atiqullah Aziz, Jeremy Teoh, Ekaterina Laukhtina, Keiichiro Mori, David D'Andrea and 10 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

20 authors at 17 institutions in 14 countries.

Simone AlbisinniDepartment of Urology, University Clinics of Brussels, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. simone.albisinni@erasme.ulb.ac.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5529-3064
Marco MoschiniDepartment of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Ettore Di TrapaniDepartment of Urology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Francesco SoriaDivision of Urology, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, University of Studies of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Andrea MariDepartment of Urology, Careggi Hospital, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Atiqullah AzizDepartment of Urology, München Klinik Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany.
Jeremy TeohS.H.Ho Urology, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong.
Ekaterina LaukhtinaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Keiichiro MoriDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Diego M CarrionDepartment of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Wojciech KrajewskiDepartment of Urology and Oncologic Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Mohammad AbufarajDivision of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Alessia CimadamoreSection of Pathological Anatomy, School of Medicine, Marche Polytechnic University, United Hospitals, Ancona, Italy.
Wei Shen TanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Ronan FlippotDepartment of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.
Jonathan KhalifaDepartment of Radiotherapy, Institut Claudius Regaud/Institut universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France.
Kimberly GonsetteDepartment of Anesthesiology, University Clinics of Brussels, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Benjamin PradereDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
European Association of Urology–Young Academic Urologists Urothelial Carcinoma Working Group (EAU-YAU)
Comprehensive Cancer Center Vienna · ATUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria San Giovanni Battista · ITChinese University of Hong Kong · HKEuropean Institute of Oncology · ITHospital Universitario La Paz · ESInstitut Claudius Regaud · FRJikei University School of Medicine · JPLuzerner Kantonsspital · CHMarche Polytechnic University · ITMünchen Klinik Bogenhausen · DESechenov University · RUUniversité Paris-Saclay · FRUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Florence · ITUniversity of Jordan · JOWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is no consensus on which items of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) should and should not be implemented in radical cystectomy (RC). The aim of this study is to report current practices across European high-volume RC centers involved in ERAS.

methodsBased on the recommendations of the ERAS society, we developed a survey with 17 questions that were validated by the Young Academic Urologists-urothelial group. The survey was distributed to European expert centers that implement ERAS for RC. Only one answer per-center was allowed to keep a representative overview of the different centers.

results70 surgeons fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Of note, 28.6% of surgeons do not work with a referent anesthesiologist and 25% have not yet assessed the implementation of ERAS in their center. Avoiding bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, and removal of the nasogastric tube were widely implemented (> 90%application). On the other hand, preoperative carbohydrate loading, opioid-sparing anesthesia, and audits were less likely to be applied. Common barriers to ERAS implementation were difficulty in changing habits (55%), followed by a lack of communication across surgeons and anesthesiologist (33%). Responders found that performing a regular audit (14%), opioid-sparing anesthesia (14%) and early mobilization (13%) were the most difficult items to implement.

conclusionIn this survey, we identified the ERAS items most and less commonly applied. Collaboration with anesthesiologists as well as regular audits remain a challenge for ERAS implementation. These results support the need to uniform ERAS for RC patients and develop strategies to help departments implement ERAS.

Indexed as

Enhanced Recovery After SurgeryVenous ThromboembolismAnalgesics, OpioidAnticoagulantsCystectomyHumansLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsAnalgesics, OpioidAnticoagulants

Identifiers

PMID34076754
OpenAlexW3165298139

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.