Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34215273›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2021

Feasibility and outcomes of ERAS protocol in elective cT4 colorectal cancer patients: results from a single-center retrospective cohort study.

Vittoria Bellato, Yongbo An, Daniele Cerbo, Michela Campanelli, Marzia Franceschilli, Krishn Khanna, Bruno Sensi, Leandro Siragusa, Piero Rossi, Giuseppe S Sica

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Vittoria BellatoMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Yongbo AnDepartment of General Surgery, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Daniele CerboMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Michela CampanelliMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Marzia FranceschilliMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Krishn KhannaDepartment of Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bruno SensiMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Leandro SiragusaMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Piero RossiMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy.
Giuseppe S SicaMinimally Invasive Unit, Department of Surgery, Università "Tor Vergata", Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Rome, Italy. sigisica@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7407-0584
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITCapital Medical University · CNRush University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrograms of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery reduces morbidity and shorten recovery in patients undergoing colorectal resections for cancer. Patients presenting with more advanced disease such as T4 cancers are frequently excluded from undergoing ERAS programs due to the difficulty in applying established protocols. The primary aim of this investigation was to evaluate the possibility of applying a validated ERAS protocol in patients undergoing colorectal resection for T4 colon and rectal cancer and to evaluate the short-term outcome.

methodsSingle-center, retrospective cohort study. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of stage T4 colorectal cancer undergoing surgery between November 2016 and January 2020 were treated following the institutional fast track protocol without exclusion. Short-term postoperative outcomes were compared to those of a control group treated with conventional care and that underwent surgical resection for T4 colorectal cancer at the same institution from January 2010 to October 2016. Data from both groups were collected retrospectively from a prospectively maintained database.

resultsEighty-two patients were diagnosed with T4 cancer, 49 patients were included in the ERAS cohort and 33 in the historical conventional care cohort. Both, the mean time of tolerance to solid food diet and postoperative length of stay were significantly shorter in the ERAS group than in the control group (3.14 ± 1.76 vs 4.8 ± 1.52; p < 0.0001 and 6.93 ± 3.76 vs 9.50 ± 4.83; p = 0.0084 respectively). No differences in perioperative complications were observed.

conclusionsResults from this cohort study from a single-center registry support the thesis that the adoption of the ERAS protocol is effective and applicable in patients with colorectal cancer clinically staged T4, reducing significantly their length of stay and time of tolerance to solid food diet, without affecting surgical postoperative outcomes.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRectal NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFeasibility StudiesHumansLength of StayPerioperative CarePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesColorectal cancerEnhanced recoveryERASFast trackT4

Identifiers

PMID34215273
PMCPMC8253238
OpenAlexW3173272455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.