Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39311960›Full record

Observational studyTechniques in coloproctology2024

Cost-benefit analysis and short-term outcomes after implementing an ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

I Ruiz Torres, A B Serrano, L D Juez, A Ballestero Pérez, J Ocaña Jiménez, J Die Trill, J M Fernandez Cebrian, J C García Pérez

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

I Ruiz TorresDepartment of Anaesthesia, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
A B SerranoDepartment of Anaesthesia, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Madrid, Spain.
L D JuezDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain. luz.juez@gmail.com.
A Ballestero PérezDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain.
J Ocaña JiménezDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain.
J Die TrillDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain.
J M Fernandez CebrianDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain.
J C García PérezDepartment of General Surgery and Digestive System, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal and Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria IRYCIS, Ctra. Colmenar, Km 9,1., 28034, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has become increasingly popular in the post-operative management of abdominal surgery. Published data suggest that patients on ERAS protocols have fewer minor and major complications, and highlight a reduction in medical morbidity (such as urinary and respiratory infections). Limited data is available on surgical complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the ERAS protocol on post-operative complications and length of hospital stay. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the impact of this protocol on cost-effectiveness. MATERIAL AND

methodsFrom January 2016 to December 2022, 532 colectomies for colorectal cancer (CRC) were performed. A prospective observational study was conducted in a tertiary hospital on the cohort of patients, aged 18 years and older, operated on for non-urgent colorectal cancer. The impact on post-operative complications, hospital stay and economic impact was analysed in two groups: patients managed under ERAS and non-ERAS protocol. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed between the two groups.

resultsAfter propensity score matching 1:1, each cohort included 71 patients, and clinicopathological characteristics were well balanced in terms of tumour type, surgical technique and surgical approach. ERAS patients experienced fewer infectious complications and a shorter postoperative stay (p < 0.001). In particular, they had an 8.5% reduction in anastomotic dehiscence (p = 0.012) and surgical wound infections (p = 0.029). After analysis of medical complications, no statistically significant differences were identified in urinary tract infections, pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding or sepsis. ERAS protocol was more efficient and cost-effective than the control group, with an overall savings of 37,673.44€.

conclusionsThe implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for elective colorectal surgery in a tertiary hospital was cost-effective and associated with a reduction in post-operative complications, especially infectious complications.

Indexed as

ColectomyColorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryLength of StayPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreAgedClinical ProtocolsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal surgeryCost-effectivenessERASProtocol compliance

Identifiers

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.