ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Adoption of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Increases Cost of Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy and Does not Improve Outcomes.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to reduce length of stay (LOS) and complications. The impact of ERAS protocols on the cost of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) has not been studied. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing CRS-HIPEC from 2016-2022 at a single quaternary center. Propensity score matching was used to create pre-and post-ERAS cohorts. Cost, overall and serious complications, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) between the two cohorts were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and χ2 test for categorical variables.
resultsOur final matched cohort consisted of 100 patients, with 50 patients in both the pre- and post-ERAS groups. After adjusting for patient complexity and inflation, the median total cost [$75,932 ($67,166-102,645) versus $92,992 ($80,720-116,710), p = 0.02] and operating room cost [$26,817 ($23,378-33,121) versus $34,434 ($28,085-$41,379), p < 0.001] were significantly higher in the post-ERAS cohort. Overall morbidity (n = 22, 44% versus n = 17, 34%, p = 0.40) and ICU length of stay [2 days (IQR 1-3) versus 2 days (IQR 1-4), p = 0.70] were similar between the two cohorts. A total cost increase of $22,393 [SE $13,047, 95% CI (-$3178 to $47,965), p = 0.086] was estimated after implementation of ERAS, with operating room cost significantly contributing to this increase [$8419, SE $1628, 95% CI ($5228-11,609), p < 0.001].
conclusionsCRS-HIPEC ERAS protocols were associated with higher total costs due to increased operating room costs at a single institution. There was no significant difference in ICU LOS and complications after the implementation of the ERAS protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38777898What 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.