The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications after lung surgery using a fast track clinical pathway
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fast track programs, multimodal therapy strategies, have been introduced in many surgical fields to minimize postoperative morbidity and mortality. In terms of lung resections no randomized controlled trials exist to evaluate such patient care programs. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study a conservative and fast track treatment regimen in patients undergoing lung resections was compared. Main differences between the two groups consisted in preoperative fasting (6h vs 2h) and analgesia (patient controlled analgesia vs patient controlled epidural analgesia). Study endpoints were pulmonary complications (pneumonia, atelectasis, prolonged air leak), overall morbidity and mortality. Analysis was performed in an intention to treat. RESULTS: Both study groups were similar in terms of age, sex, preoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)), American Society of Anesthesiologists score and operations performed. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications was 35% in the conservative and 6.6% in the fast track group (p=0.009). A subgroup of patients with reduced preoperative FEV(1) (<75% of predicted value) experienced less pulmonary complications in the fast track group (55% vs 7%, p=0.023). Overall morbidity was not significantly different (46% vs 26%, p=0.172), mortality was comparable in both groups (4% vs 3%). CONCLUSION: We evaluated an optimized patient care program for patients undergoing lung resections in a prospective randomized pilot study. Using this fast track clinical pathway the rate of pulmonary complications could be significantly decreased as compared to a conservative treatment regimen; our results support the implementation of an optimized perioperative treatment in lung surgery in order to reduce pulmonary complications after major lung surgery.
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
Cites
The Effects of Three Different Analgesia Techniques on Long-Term Postthoracotomy Pain
Şentürk, M., Özcan, P. E., Talu, G. K., Kiyan, E., Çamci, E., Özyalçin, S., Dilege, Ş., & Pembeci, K. (2002) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/00000539-200201000-00003 · Cited by 401
Cited by
Batchelor, T. J. P., Rasburn, N. J., Abdelnour-Berchtold, E., Brunelli, A., Cerfolio, R. J., Gonzalez, M., Ljungqvist, O., Petersen, R. H., Popescu, W. M., Slinger, P. D., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezy301 · Cited by 1,366
Halpern, N. A., & Pastores, S. M. (2010) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b090d0 · Cited by 817
Systematic review and meta-analysis of enhanced recovery programmes in surgical patients
Nicholson, A., Lowe, M. C., Parker, J., Lewis, S. R., Alderson, P., & Smith, A. F. (2014) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9394 · Cited by 476
Metadata
- Authors
- Muehling, B. M., Halter, G. L., Schelzig, H., Meierhenrich, R., Steffen, P., Sunder-Plassmann, L., & Orend, K.-H.
- Venue
- European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 174-180
- ISSN
- 1010-7940 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2100007681
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.53
- 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: Reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications after lung surgery using a fast track clinical pathway. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.04.009
- The paper
- Muehling, B. M., Halter, G. L., Schelzig, H., Meierhenrich, R., Steffen, P., Sunder-Plassmann, L., & Orend, K.-H. (2008). Reduction of postoperative pulmonary complications after lung surgery using a fast track clinical pathway. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.04.009
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.