Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

‘Fast track’ postoperative management protocol for patients with high co-morbidity undergoing complex abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery

Delaney, C P, Fazio, V W, Senagore, A J, Robinson, B, Halverson, A L, Remzi, F H·2001·Journal of British Surgery

Abstract

Background: A combination of factors has emphasized the need to reduce postoperative stay after surgery. Multimodal care plans may shorten hospital stay, but have been associated with high readmission rates and are generally reserved for straightforward, non-complicated colonic (not rectal) resections. This study evaluated a ‘fast track’ protocol in patients undergoing major colonic and rectal surgery. Methods: Sixty consecutive patients (median age 44·5 (range 13–70) years) underwent major procedures over a 6-week period on one colorectal service. Nasogastric tubes and epidural anaesthesia were not used. Patients participated in a protocol of early diet and early ambulation, and were discharged after meeting defined criteria. Results: Fifty-eight patients (97 per cent) were deemed suitable for the ‘fast track’ approach at the time of surgery and stayed for a mean(s.d.) of 4·3(1·6) days after operation. Patients in diagnosis-related group (DRG) 148 (colorectal resection with co-morbidity; n = 40) stayed for 4·6(1·7) days, which was longer than those in DRG 149 (without co-morbidity; n = 18) who stayed 3·5(0·8) days (P = 0·01). Three patients (5 per cent) required a nasogastric tube for vomiting. There were no readmissions directly attributable to ‘fast track’ failure, although four patients (7 per cent) were readmitted within 30 days of operation for other reasons. Eight poorly compliant patients stayed for 5·1(1·1) days (P = 0·02 versus compliant patients). ‘Fast track’ patients had a shorter length of stay than patients receiving traditional care on other colorectal services during the same time period (compared by DRG 148, DRG 149 and for all patients) (P < 0·0001). Conclusion: The ‘fast track’ protocol allows patients with high levels of co-morbidity undergoing complex colorectal and reoperative pelvic surgery to benefit from a rapid recovery and early discharge from hospital. The approach is safe and has low readmission rates.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01905.x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Delaney, C. P., Fazio, V. W., Senagore, A. J., Robinson, B., Halverson, A. L., & Remzi, F. H.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
Published
2001-11-01
Volume
88
Issue
11
Pages
1533-1538
ISSN
  • 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2168
OpenAlex
W2133075354
Cited by
384
References
13
FWCI
7.45
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: ‘Fast track’ postoperative management protocol for patients with high co-morbidity undergoing complex abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01905.x
The paper
Delaney, C. P., Fazio, V. W., Senagore, A. J., Robinson, B., Halverson, A. L., & Remzi, F. H. (2001). ‘Fast track’ postoperative management protocol for patients with high co-morbidity undergoing complex abdominal and pelvic colorectal surgery. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01905.x

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.