ArticleJPRAS open2022
Enhanced recovery after microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer - A prospective study.
Article in JPRAS open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Physical and Psychological Burden of Bed Rest on Patients Following Free Flap Reconstruction of the Lower Limb: A Systematic Review and Possible Solutions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Airway Management Following Head and Neck Microvascular Reconstruction: When is a Tracheostomy Necessary?Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Patients undergoing microvascular reconstruction after head and neck cancer typically have several comorbidities, and the procedures are often followed by complications and prolonged hospitalization. Consequently, the application of Methods: We prospectively treated 30 consecutive patients according to our ERAS protocol from June 2019 to December 2020 and compared the results of the treated patients with those of patients treated with our Results: The baseline characteristics of the groups were comparable. The ERAS group had a significantly shorter length of stay (13.1 vs. 20.3 days, p < 0.001), significantly shorter time to ambulation (3.0 days vs. 6.4 days, p < 0.001), shorter time to removal of nasogastric tube (13.3 days vs. 22.7 days, p = 0.05), and fewer tracheostomies performed (10% vs. 90%, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications, flap survival, or 30-day re-admissions between the two groups. Conclusion: The introduction of ERAS in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing microvascular reconstruction seems safe and results in improved recovery. Level of evidence: 3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.