Enhanced Recovery after Elective Open Surgical Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Complementary Overview through a Pooled Analysis of Proportions from Case Series Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs in elective open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). BACKGROUND: Open surgical repair of AAA is associated with high morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stay and high costs. ERAS programs contribute to the optimization of treatment by reducing hospital stay and improving clinical outcomes. METHODS: A review of PubMed, EMBASE and LILACS databases was conducted. As only one randomized controlled trial was found, a pooled analysis of proportions from case series was conducted, considering it a complementary overview of the topic. Inclusion criteria were case series with more than five cases reported, adult patients who underwent an elective OSR of AAA and use of an ERAS program. ERAS was compared to conventional perioperative care. The pooled proportion and the confidence interval (CI) are shown for each outcome. The overlap of the CI suggests similar effect of the interventions studied. RESULTS: Thirteen case series studies with ERAS involving 1,250 patients were compared to six case series with conventional care with a total of 1,429 patients. The pooled, respective proportions for ERAS and conventional care were: mortality, 1.51% [95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0226] and 3.0% [95% CI 0.0183, 0.0445]; and incidence of complications, 3.82% [95% CI 0.0259, 0.0528] and 4.0% [95% CI 0.03, 0.05]. CONCLUSION: This review shows that ERAS and conventional care therapies have similar mortality and complication rates in OSR of AAA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".