User Guide
Why can I only view 3 results?
You can also view all results when you are connected from the network of member institutions only. For non-member institutions, we are opening a 1-month free trial version if institution officials apply.
So many results that aren't mine?
References in many bibliographies are sometimes referred to as "Surname, I", so the citations of academics whose Surname and initials are the same may occasionally interfere. This problem is often the case with citation indexes all over the world.
How can I see only citations to my article?
After searching the name of your article, you can see the references to the article you selected as soon as you click on the details section.
 Views 17
 Downloands 3
ENHANCED RECOVERY PATHWAYS (ERAS) IMPLEMENTATION IN MINIMALLY INVASIVE ESOPHAGECTOMY; AN EARLY EXPERIENCE
2021
Journal:  
Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal
Author:  
Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery pathways (ERAS) on hospital stay and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy in comparison to conventional pathway. Study Design: Quasi experimental study. Place and Duration of Study: Thoracic Surgery Department, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Jul 2018 to Mar 2020. Methodology: A total of 80 patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy were divided in two groups. Group A underwent ERAS pathway and group B underwent conventional pathway. Both groups were compared for demographic characteristics, mean ICU stay, length of hospital stay, commencement of oral intake, and time of chest drain removal, readmission rates, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Results: There was no significant difference in age, gender and diagnostic indication among both groups. ERAS group was found to have shorter mean ICU stay (1.18 ± 0.55 vs 2.06 ± 1.10 days p<0.012), shorter hospital stay (7.50 ± 1.23 vs 11.6 ± 3.65 days, p<.001), earlier commencement of oral feeding (4.30 ± 1.41 vs 9.10 ± 4.26 days, p<0.001) and early removal of chest drains (3.22 ± vs 4.11 ± 1.52 p<0.001); when compared to conventional group. Overall morbidity in ERAS group was 50 (40%) versus 65% (81.25%) in conventional group. Mortality was same in both groups (2.5%). There was no readmission in ERAS group. Conclusion: ERAS in minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and has positive impact on postoperative outcomes with marked reduction in overall morbidity in comparison to conventional regime. Results can be enhanced by ensuring better compliance to its.......

Keywords:

2021
Author:  
Citation Owners
Information: There is no ciation to this publication.
Similar Articles












Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal

Field :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Journal Type :   Uluslararası

Metrics
Article : 2.236
Cite : 131
2023 Impact : 0.002
Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal