| Title |
Short-term outcome after cystectomy: comparison of early oral feeding in an enhanced recovery protocol and feeding using Bengmark nasojejunal tube
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-017-2133-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. S. Voskuilen, E. E. Fransen van de Putte, J. Bloos-van der Hulst, E. van Werkhoven, W. M. de Blok, B. W. G. van Rhijn, S. Horenblas, R. P. Meijer |
| Abstract |
Cystectomy for bladder cancer is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications. Standardized perioperative protocols, such as enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, aim to improve postoperative outcome. Postoperative feeding strategies are an important part of these protocols. In this two-centre study, we compared complications and length of hospital stay (LOS) between an ERAS protocol with early oral nutrition and a protocol with early enteral feeding with a Bengmark nasojejunal tube. We retrospectively reviewed 154 consecutive patients who underwent cystectomy for bladder cancer in two hospitals (Hospital A and B) between 2014 and 2016. Hospital A uses an ERAS protocol (n = 45), which encourages early introduction of an oral diet. Hospital B uses a fast-track protocol comprising feeding with a Bengmark nasojejunal tube (Bengmark-protocol, n = 109). LOS and complications according to Clavien classification were compared between protocols. Overall 30-day complication rates in the ERAS and Bengmark protocol were similar (64.4 and 67.0%, respectively; p = 0.463). The rate of postoperative ileus (POI) was significantly lower in the Bengmark protocol (11.9% vs. 34.4% in the ERAS protocol, p = 0.009). This association remained significant after adjustment for other variables (odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.96; p = 0.042). Median LOS did not differ significantly between protocols (10 days vs. 11 days in the ERAS and Bengmark protocols, respectively; p = 0.861). Early oral nutrition in Hospital A was well tolerated. However, the Bengmark protocol was superior with respect to occurrence of POI. A prospective study may clarify whether the lower rate of POI was due to the use of early nasojejunal tube feeding or other reasons. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 14 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,452,930
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,929
of 2,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#372,705
of 437,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#37
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.