Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 19

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of prehabilitation exercises on postoperative frailty in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery

Yang, Fuyu, Yuan, Ye, Liu, Wenwen, Tang, Chenglin, He, Fan, Chen, Defei, Xiong, Junjie, Huang, Guoquan, Qian, Kun·2024·Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract

Background: To improve perioperative frailty status in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery (LCCS), we explored a new intensive prehabilitation program that combines prehabilitation exercises with standard enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and explored its impact. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Between April 2021 to August 2021, patients undergoing elective LCCS were randomized into the standardized ERAS (S-ERAS) group or ERAS based on prehabilitation (group PR-ERAS). Patients in the PR-ERAS group undergoing prehabilitation exercises in the perioperative period in addition to standard enhanced recovery after surgery. We explored the effects of this prehabilitation protocol on frailty, short-term quality of recovery (QoR), psychological status, postoperative functional capacity, postoperative outcomes, and pain. Results: In total, 125 patients were evaluated, and 95 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to the S-ERAS (n = 45) and PR-ERAS (n = 50) groups. The Fried score was higher in the PR-ERAS group on postoperative day (7 (2(2,3) vs. 3(2,4), P = 0.012). The QoR-9 was higher in the PR-ERAS group than in the S-ERAS group on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days. The PR-ERAS group had an earlier time to first ambulation (P < 0.050) and time to first flatus (P < 0.050). Conclusion: Prehabilitation exercises can improve postoperative frailty and accelerate recovery in patients undergoing LCCS but may not improve surgical safety. Therefore, better and more targeted prehabilitation recovery protocols should be explored. Clinical trial registration: www.clinicaltrials.org , identifier NCT04964856.

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 · 10.3389/fonc.2024.1411353

Cites

39 of 39 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

Metadata

Authors
Yang, F., Yuan, Y., Liu, W., Tang, C., He, F., Chen, D., Xiong, J., Huang, G., & Qian, K.
Venue
Frontiers in Oncology
Published
2024-09-12
Volume
14
ISSN
2234-943X
Cited by
19
References
39

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

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.