The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection
Abstract
Background: Protocolized fluid administration using oesophageal Doppler monitoring may improve the postoperative outcome in patients undergoing surgery. Methods: A total of 108 patients undergoing elective colorectal resection were recruited into a double-blind prospective randomized controlled trial. An oesophageal Doppler probe was placed in all patients. The control group received perioperative fluid at the discretion of the anaesthetist, whereas the intervention group received additional colloid boluses based on Doppler assessment. Primary outcome was length of postoperative hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were morbidity, return of gastrointestinal function and cytokine markers of the systemic inflammatory response. Standard preoperative and postoperative management was used in all patients. Results: Demographic and surgical details were similar in the two groups. Aortic flow time, stroke volume, cardiac output and cardiac index during the intraoperative period were higher in the intervention group (P < 0·050). The intervention group had a reduced postoperative hospital stay (7 versus 9 days in the control group; P = 0·005), fewer intermediate or major postoperative complications (2 versus 15 per cent; P = 0·043) and tolerated diet earlier (2 versus 4 days; P = 0·029). There was a reduced rise in perioperative level of the cytokine interleukin 6 in the intervention group (P = 0·039). Conclusion: A protocol-based fluid optimization programme using intraoperative oesophageal Doppler monitoring leads to a shorter hospital stay and decreased morbidity in patients undergoing elective colorectal resection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications: Five-Year Experience
Clavien, P. A., Barkun, J., de Oliveira, M. L., Vauthey, J. N., Dindo, D., Schulick, R. D., de Santibañes, E., Pekolj, J., Slankamenac, K., Bassi, C., et al. (2009) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b13ca2 · Cited by 11,482
Gustafsson, U. O., Scott, M. J., Hubner, M., Nygren, J., Demartines, N., Francis, N., Rockall, T. A., Young‐Fadok, T. M., Hill, A. G., Soop, M., et al. (2019) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-018-4844-y · Cited by 2,119
Marik, P. E., & Cavallazzi, R. (2013) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a25fd · Cited by 866
Abbas, S. M., & Hill, A. G. (2008) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.2007.05233.x · Cited by 296
Noninvasive Cardiac Output Monitors: A State-of the-Art Review
Marik, P. E. (2013) · Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia · doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2012.03.022 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Noblett, S. E., Snowden, C. P., Shenton, B. K., & Horgan, A. F.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-08-03
- Volume
- 93
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1069-1076
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2140338960
- Cited by
- 520
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 22.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/bjs.5454
- The paper
- Noblett, S. E., Snowden, C. P., Shenton, B. K., & Horgan, A. F. (2006). Randomized clinical trial assessing the effect of Doppler-optimized fluid management on outcome after elective colorectal resection. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5454
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.