The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accelerated postoperative recovery programme after colonic resection improves physical performance, pulmonary function and body composition
Open accessAbstract
Background: Postoperative organ dysfunction contributes to morbidity, hospital stay and convalescence. Multimodal rehabilitation with epidural analgesia, early oral feeding, mobilization and laxative use after colonic resection has reduced ileus and hospital stay. Methods: Fourteen patients receiving conventional care (group 1) and 14 patients who had multimodal rehabilitation (group 2) were studied before and 8 days after colonic resection. Outcome measures included postoperative mobilization, body composition by whole-body dual X-ray absorptiometry, cardiovascular response to treadmill exercise, pulmonary function and nocturnal oxygen saturation. Results: Defaecation occurred earlier (median day 1 versus day 4) and hospital stay was shorter (median 2 versus 12 days) in patients who had multimodal treatment. Lean body and fat mass decreased in group 1 but not in group 2. Exercise performance decreased by 44 per cent in group 1 but was unchanged in group 2. A postoperative increase in heart rate (HR) response to exercise was avoided in group 2. Pulmonary function decreased in group 1 but not in group 2. There was less nocturnal postoperative hypoxaemia in group 2. Cardiac demand–supply (HR/oxygen saturation ratio) increased in group 1 but not in group 2. Conclusion: Multimodal rehabilitation prevents reduction in lean body mass, pulmonary function, oxygenation and cardiovascular response to exercise after colonic 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
Cited by
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
A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection
Maessen, J., Dejong, C. H. C., Hausel, J., Nygren, J., Lassen, K., Andersen, J., Kessels, A. G. H., Revhaug, A., Kehlet, H., Ljungqvist, O., et al. (2007) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5468 · Cited by 533
Self-citationFunctional Recovery After Open Versus Laparoscopic Colonic Resection: A Randomized, Blinded Study
Basse, L., Jakobsen, D. H., Bardram, L., Billesbølle, P., Lund, C., Mogensen, T., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H. (2005) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000154149.85506.36 · Cited by 438
Self-citationPromoting perioperative metabolic and nutritional care
Gillis, C., & Carli, F. (2015) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000000795 · Cited by 350
Randomized clinical trial of the impact of early enteral feeding on postoperative ileus and recovery
Han-Geurts, I. J. M., Hop, W. C. J., Kok, N. F. M., Lim, A., Brouwer, K. J., & Jeekel, J. (2007) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.5753 · Cited by 196
Metadata
- Authors
- Basse, L., Raskov, H. H., Hjort Jakobsen, D., Sonne, E., Billesbølle, P., Hendel, H. W., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-04
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 446-453
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2093484317
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Accelerated postoperative recovery programme after colonic resection improves physical performance, pulmonary function and body composition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.02044.x
- The paper
- Basse, L., Raskov, H. H., Hjort Jakobsen, D., Sonne, E., Billesbølle, P., Hendel, H. W., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H. (2002). Accelerated postoperative recovery programme after colonic resection improves physical performance, pulmonary function and body composition. British Journal of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.02044.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.