Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2025
Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus conventional rehabilitation for patients undergoing thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer in local regional hospitals: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical research advances in thoracic surgery and thoracic oncology in 2025: a panoramic narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAn appropriate rehabilitation program should follow thoracoscopic lung cancer radical surgery (TLCRS) to promote patient recovery during the perioperative period. However, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and conventional rehabilitation mode (CRM) programs remain a subject of debate to date. Therefore, in this randomized controlled trial, we compared the effectiveness and safety of an ERAS program with those of a CRM program after TLCRS in local regional hospitals.
methodsFrom August 2021 to July 2022, in this double-blind randomized controlled trial, 80 patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into two groups at a 1:1 ratio: the ERAS program and the CRM program. The primary outcomes were the effectiveness and socioeconomic effects of the two kinds of programs. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative complications and the safety of the two kinds of programs.
resultsCompared with the CRM group, the ERAS group experienced notable benefits (P < 0.001) in terms of length of hospital stay, postoperative length of hospital stay, time to thoracic drainage tube removal, time to postoperative oral feeding, time to postoperative ambulation, postoperative pain score, and hospitalization costs. Compared with the ERAS group, the CRM group experienced notable consequences such as postoperative atelectasis/pulmonary infections (P = 0.029) and prolonged operative times (P < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative ICU admission in the ERAS group was significantly lower than that in the CRM group (P = 0.048); however, the ERAS group had a higher rate of postoperative chest tube replacement than the CRM group did (P = 0.025).
conclusionsCompared with the CRM program, the ERAS program is associated with a lower incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, faster recovery, less pain, and smaller economic burden, improving patients' postoperative prognoses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40696211What 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.