Quality of life at home and satisfaction of patients after enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life of patients at home after an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for surgery has been least studied especially in elderly patients. METHODS: Our first 41 patients entered in the colorectal GRACE database were interviewed through telephone about their postoperative stress, fatigue, pain, difficulty in feeding, home autonomy, and satisfaction. We compared the responses of the elderly patients (>70 years, n = 19) with those of the younger patients. RESULTS: The time between the surgery and the questionnaire was 79 ± 48 days. Early return was experienced as stressful by ±20% of the patients. Fatigue and pain were low (respectively: simple numerical scale [SNS] = 4.2 ± 3.2 and 2.5 ± 2.9). When present, pain was relieved by the prescribed treatment. One-third of the patients described some difficulty in feeding. Fifty percent of the patients felt completely autonomous when returned at home, 80% attributed the rapid recovery of autonomy to the ERP. Finally, 87% were globally satisfied (SNS: 8.5 ± 1.0). The characteristics of the 'elderly' group (77 ± 6 years) and their questionnaire responses were similar to those of the younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Despite some limitations (retrospective, different time between surgery and the telephone survey), our study suggests that quality of life at home after ERP for colorectal surgery is very satisfactory for over 80% of patients. Furthermore, this study confirms that elderly patients benefit from an ERP for colorectal surgery like younger patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".