The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystectomy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for the peri‐operative management of patients undergoing radical cystectomy (RC), which was started at our institution on 1 October 2005, as RC is associated with increased morbidity and longer inpatient stays than other major urological procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An ERP was introduced in our institution that focused on reduced bowel preparation, and standardized feeding and analgesic regimens. In all, 112 consecutive patients were compared, i.e. 56 before implementing the ERP and 56 since introducing the ERP. The primary outcome measures were duration of total inpatient stay and interval from surgery to discharge, and the morbidity and mortality. Data were analysed retrospectively from cancer network and hospital records. RESULTS: The demographics of the two groups showed no significant difference in age, gender distribution, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, or type of urinary diversion. Re‐admission, mortality and morbidity rates showed no statistically significant difference between the groups. The median (interquartile range) duration of hospital stay was 17 (15–23) days in the no‐ERP group, and 13 (11–17) days in the ERP group (significantly different, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank‐sum test). The median duration of recovery after RC was 15 (13–21) days in the no‐ERP group and 12 (10–15) days in the ERP group (significantly different, P = 0.001, Wilcoxon rank‐sum test). CONCLUSION: The introduction of an ERP was associated with significantly reduced hospital stay, with no deleterious effect on morbidity or mortality.
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
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols: Time to change practice?
Melnyk, M., Casey, R. G., Black, P., & Koupparis, A. J. (2011) · Canadian Urological Association Journal · doi:10.5489/cuaj.11002 · Cited by 384
Azhar, R. A., Bochner, B., Catto, J., Goh, A. C., Kelly, J., Patel, H. D., Pruthi, R. S., Thalmann, G. N., & Desai, M. (2016) · European Urology · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.051 · Cited by 299
A review of enhanced recovery for thoracic anaesthesia and surgery
Jones, N. L., Edmonds, L., Ghosh, S., & Klein, A. A. (2013) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.12067 · Cited by 107
Sultan, P., Nelson, G., Joudi, K., Singh, D. J., Gregory, K. D., Zakowski, M., Carvalho, B., Bekemeyer, Z., Ciechanowicz, S., Dellapiana, G., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.ijoa.2025.104811 · Cited by 3
Recommended Interventions for Enhanced Recovery After Cesarean Delivery in the United States
Sultan, P., Zakowski, M., Joudi, K., Singh, D., Gregory, K. D., Lyell, D., Carvalho, B., & Study investigators (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.11.05.24316713 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Arumainayagam, N., McGrath, J., Jefferson, K. P., & Gillatt, D. A.
- Venue
- BJU International
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01-08
- Volume
- 101
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 698-701
- ISSN
- 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-410X
- OpenAlex
- W2080347356
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.85
- 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: Introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07319.x
- The paper
- Arumainayagam, N., McGrath, J., Jefferson, K. P., & Gillatt, D. A. (2008). Introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol for radical cystectomy. BJU International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2007.07319.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.