Current perioperative practice in Canadian vascular surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society has set out to improve patient recovery by developing evidence-based perioperative practices. Many institutions and other specialties have begun to apply their principles with great success; however, ERAS principles focus mostly on general surgery, and their applicability to other specialties, such as vascular surgery, is less clear. We sought to investigate the current standard of perioperative care in Canadian vascular surgery by assessing surgeons' perceptions of evidence supporting ERAS practices, identifying barriers to aligning them and identifying aspects of perioperative care that require research specific to vascular surgery before they could be broadly applied. METHODS: We administered an online survey with 26 questions to all Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery members. RESULTS: Respondents varied largely in perioperative practice, most notably in the use of nasogastric tubes, Foley catheters and neck drains. Familiarity with supporting evidence was poor. Approximately half (44%) of respondents were not familiar with contrary evidence, while those who were often perceived institutional barriers to change. Finally, one-third (30%) of respondents felt that relevant evidence did not exist to support changing their practice. CONCLUSION: The variability of perioperative practice in Canadian vascular surgery is likely due to multiple factors, including a lack of specific evidence. Further research in areas of perioperative vascular care where the current standard of practice varies most greatly may help improve recovery after vascular surgery in Canada over simply adopting existing ERAS principles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".