Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Trauma and Intensive Care (ERATIC): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and International Association for Trauma Surgery and Intensive Care (IATSIC) Society Recommendations: Paper 2: Postoperative and Intensive Care Recommendations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications, and costs for elective surgical procedures. It remains challenging to implement ERAS concepts in the acute trauma patient due to deranged physiological reserve from the penetrating or blunt trauma producing altered physiology. However, systems of care improve access to early intervention and potentially reduce mortality. These consensus guidelines examine optimal prehospital, resuscitation-room, intraoperative and postoperative treatment, systems of ethical management, and overall care for trauma patients in the postresuscitation phase of care. The guideline is presented in three parts, this being Part 2. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of trauma surgical patients and intensive care were invited to contribute by the International ERAS Society and IATSIC. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements using the patient, intervention, comparator outcome (PICO) consensus questions created by the expert group. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies; reviewed and summarized recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. These recommendations based on current best evidence, with extrapolation from elective patient studies, where appropriate, were followed by a modified two-round Delphi method to validate final recommendations. Several ERAS components are already standard of care within national and society guidelines and are endorsed. The bulk of the text focuses on key areas pertaining specifically to trauma care of major trauma and polytrauma in the ICU-requiring group. RESULTS: Overall, 37 aspects of trauma care were considered, with multiple PICO questions and subpoints. Consensus was reached after two rounds of a modified Delphi process involving all authors, with minor adjustments to some phrasing required, but with 87% overall agreement on all statements (100% agreement on 31 of the main statement sets, prior to minor edits to address the points of difference for the rest, with 100% total agreement thereafter). None were rejected outright. The recommendations and level of evidence for each aspect of trauma care that may impact on improved recovery and reduced length of hospital stay are presented with grade of recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the results of the postoperative care and ICU aspects. The guidelines are based on current best evidence for an ERAS approach to patients who have had major injuries and polytrauma. These guidelines are not exhaustive but collate the best available evidence on important components of care for this patient population. As some of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery and nontrauma emergency surgery, some of the components need further evaluation in future studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».