Enhanced recovery after surgery in pediatric spine surgery: systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To conduct a systematic review of the literature on the use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in spinalsurgery of children and adolescents to determine the existing evidence of the effectiveness of ERAS implementation in clinical practice.Material and Methods. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature on ERAS in spinal and spinal cord surgery in children and adolescents selected in the databases of medical literature and search resources of PUBMED/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library and eLibrary according to the PRISMA guidelines and the PICOS inclusion and exclusion criteria.Results. A total of 12 publications containing information on the treatment of 2,145 children, whose average age was 14.0 years (from 7.2 to 16.1), were analyzed. In the reviewed publications, the average number of key elements of the ERAS program was 9 (from 2 to 20), and a total of 23 elements used in spinal surgery in children and adolescents were identified. The most commonly used elements were preoperative education and counseling, prevention of infectious complications and intestinal obstruction, multimodal analgesia, refusal of routine use of drains, nasogastric probes and urinary catheters, standardized anesthesia protocol, early mobilization and enteral loading. The introduction of the ERAS protocol into clinical practice allowed to reduce the complication rate in comparison with the control group by 8.2 %(from 2 to 19 %), the volume of blood loss by 230 ml (from 75 to 427 ml), the operation time by 83 minutes (from 23 to 144 minutes), theduration of hospitalization by 1.5 days (from 0.5 to 3 days) and the total cost of treatment by 2258.5 dollars (from 860 to 5280 dollars).The ERAS program was implemented in pediatric clinics in the USA (75 %), France (8 %) and Canada (17 %).Conclusion. The conducted systematic review of the literature allows us to conclude that the technology of enhanced recovery after surgery is a promising technology that improves surgical outcomes and is applicable in pediatric practice. There is a significant shortage of published studies evaluating the implementation of ERAS in pediatric surgical practice in general, and in spinal surgery in particular, which requires further prospective randomized studies to evaluate ERAS in spinal surgery in children and adolescents.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".