Enhanced Recovery after Abdominoplasty Using Perisurgical Nutritional Supplementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional supplements are common in other surgical specialties but not widely used in the plastic surgery setting. This study compares the surgical outcomes of patients using our standard ERAS protocol involving arnica and bromelain with an updated ERAS protocol using perisurgical nutritional supplementation using a staged administration of nutraceuticals. METHODS: In total, 300 female abdominoplasty patients were randomly provided with perioperative supplementation consisting of arnica and bromelain, or a 3-stage nutraceutical regimen containing arginine, citrulline, glutamine, bromelain, and vitamin C. Narcotic use in recovery and post-operative drainage were measured, and both groups completed a self-assessment of bruising coloration, days to independent activity, perceived pain, and documented the quantity of narcotic and non-prescription pain killers they took over a 14-day recovery period. RESULTS: There were 130 patients in the nutraceutical group and 80 in the arnica and bromelain group; patients were excluded due to non-compliance or due to incomplete data. Patients taking the nutraceutical regimen reported a shorter duration of pain and had a 41% reduction in narcotic use in recovery and experienced 48% less post-operative drainage. Home use of narcotic pain killers decreased by 25%. There also was a trend toward decreased and earlier clearing/maturation of bruising as well as return to daily activates without assistance. Patients also reported an increase in satisfaction with their surgical experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that perioperative supplementation with nitric oxide precursors, antioxidants, and proteolytic enzymes in a staged fashion can positively affect post-operative outcomes and is an adjunct to enhanced surgical recovery protocols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".