Early rehabilitation programs after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Evidence and criticism

doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8543

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 19, Issue 46

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (5830)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

458

HTML

3449

Tables (1-3)

248

Sum=4155

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

974

Download

701

Sum=1675

Dec 14, 2013 (publication date) through Jan 4, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (12)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Topic Highlight

World J Gastroenterol. Dec 14, 2013; 19(46): 8543-8551
Published online Dec 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8543

Table 2 Summary of previous studies that evaluated early rehabilitation programs after laparoscopic rectal surgery

Ref.	Country	Study design	Inclusion period	Patients (n)	Operations	Clinical effectiveness (LOS and complications)
Lindsetmo et al[22], 2009	United States	Prospective cohort study	2005-2007	37Cancer: 17 (46)Polyp: 4 (11)Others: 16 (43)	SPS: 37 (100)Diverting ileostomy: 7 (19)	Mean LOS: 3.0 d (range 1-8 d)Overall complications: 6 (16)UTI: 1; SSI: 2Readmission < 30 d: 3 (8)
Chen et al[27], 2011	Taiwan	Prospective cohort study	2007-2009	80Cancer: 76 (95)Benign: 4 (5)	APR: 15 (19)SPS: 65 (81)Diverting ileostomy: 32 (49)	Mean LOS: 5.0d (range 3-22)Overall complications: 11 (14)AL: 1; pelvic abscess 2; ileus: 1Readmission < 30 d: 7 (9)
Stottmeier et al[28], 2012	Denmark	Prospective cohort study	2006-2009	102Cancer: 102 (100)	APR: 19 (19)Hartmann: 6 (6)SPS: 77 (75)Diverting colostomy: 38 (37)Diverting ileostomy: 3 (3)	Median LOS: 5 d (range 2-42 d)Overall complications: 25 (25)AL: 3; intra-abdominal abscess: 3Readmission < 30 d: 15 (15)
Huibers et al[29], 2012	Nether-lands	Retrospective case-control study	2004-2009	76 (ERP: 43, CC: 33)Cancer: 76 (100)	APR: 24 (32)ERP: 16 (37)CC: 8 (24)SPS: 52 (68)ERP: 27 (63)CC: 25 (76)	Median LOS: (P = 0.042)ERP: 7 d (range 2-83 d)CC: 10 d (range 4-74 d)Overall complications:ERP: 17 (40)AL: 5; intra-abdominal abscess: 7CC: 9 (27)AL: 4; intra-abdominal abscess: 3Readmission < 30 d: (P = 0.421)ERP: 5 (12)CC: 6 (18)
Lee et al[30], 2013	South Korea	RCT	2007-2011	98 (ERP: 52, CC: 46)Cancer 98 (100)	SPS: 98 (100)Diverting ileostomy: 98 (100)	Median recovery time¹: (P = 0.47)ERP: 137 h (range 107-188 h)CC: 146.5 h (range 115-183 h)Overall complications: (P = 0.054)ERP: 22 (42)AL: 1; POI: 15; acute voiding difficulty: 9CC: 11 (24)AL: 1; POI: 6; acute voiding difficulty: 2Readmission < 30 d: 0 (0)

¹Defined by tolerable diet for 24 h, safe ambulation, analgesic-free and afebrile without complication. LOS: Length of hospital stay; SPS: Sphincter preserving surgery; UTI: Urinary tract infection; SSI: Surgical site infection; APR: Abdominoperineal resection; AL: anastomosis leakage; ERP: Early rehabilitation program; CC: Conventional care; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; POI: Postoperative ileus.

Citation: Kim DW, Kang SB, Lee SY, Oh HK, In MH. Early rehabilitation programs after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: Evidence and criticism. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19(46): 8543-8551
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v19/i46/8543.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8543