The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Functional Recovery After Open Versus Laparoscopic Colonic Resection: A Randomized, Blinded Study
Open accessAbstract
In Brief Background: Laparoscopic colonic surgery has been claimed to hasten recovery and reduce hospital stay compared with open operation. Recently, enforced multimodal rehabilitation (fast-track surgery) has improved recovery and reduced hospital stay in both laparoscopic and open colonic surgery. Since no comparative data between laparoscopic and open colonic resection with multimodal rehabilitation are available, the value of laparoscopy per se is unknown. Methods: In a randomized, observer-and-patient, blinded trial, 60 patients (median age 75 years) underwent elective laparoscopic or open colonic resection with fast-track rehabilitation and planned discharge after 48 hours. Functional recovery was assessed in detail during the first postoperative month. Results: Median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days in both groups, with early and similar recovery to normal activities as assessed by hours of mobilization per day, computerized monitoring of motor activity assessed, pulmonary function, cardiovascular response to treadmill exercise, pain, sleep quality, fatigue, and return to normal gastrointestinal function. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity, mortality, or readmissions, although 3 patients died in the open versus nil in the laparoscopic group. Conclusion: Functional recovery after colonic resection is rapid with a multimodal rehabilitation regimen and without differences between open and laparoscopic operation. Further large-scale studies are required on potential differences in serious morbidity and mortality. In a randomized, observer-and-patient, blinded trial in 60 patients undergoing fast-track elective laparoscopic or open colonic resection, recovery of gastrointestinal and cardiopulmonary function, ambulation, exercise capacity, pain, sleep, fatigue, and return to usual activities were similar. Mean hospital stay was 2.9 and 2.3 days, respectively.
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
Lewis, S. J., Egger, M., Sylvester, P. A., & Thomas, S. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7316.773 · Cited by 858
Cited by
Adamina, M., Kehlet, H., Tomlinson, G. A., Senagore, A. J., & Delaney, C. P. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.11.003 · Cited by 555
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Basse, L., Jakobsen, D. H., Bardram, L., Billesbølle, P., Lund, C., Mogensen, T., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 241
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 416-423
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2108902576
- Cited by
- 438
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 38.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Functional Recovery After Open Versus Laparoscopic Colonic Resection: A Randomized, Blinded Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.sla.0000154149.85506.36
- The paper
- Basse, L., Jakobsen, D. H., Bardram, L., Billesbølle, P., Lund, C., Mogensen, T., Rosenberg, J., & Kehlet, H. (2005). Functional Recovery After Open Versus Laparoscopic Colonic Resection: A Randomized, Blinded Study. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000154149.85506.36
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.