Efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol on minimally invasive bariatric surgery: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), a multidisciplinary and multimodal perioperative care protocol, has been widely used in several surgical fields. However, the effect of this care protocol on patients receiving minimally invasive bariatric surgery remains unclear. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of the ERAS protocol and standard care (SC) in patients who underwent minimally invasive bariatric surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were systematically searched to identify literature reporting the effects of the ERAS protocol on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive bariatric surgery. All the articles published until 01 October 2022, were searched, followed by data extraction of the included literature and independent quality assessment. Then, pooled mean difference (MD) and odds ratio with a 95% CI were calculated by either a random-effects or fixed-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 21 studies involving 10 764 patients were included in the final analysis. With the ERAS protocol, the length of hospitalization (MD: -1.02, 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.64, P <0.00001), hospitalization costs (MD: -678.50, 95% CI: -1196.39 to -160.60, P =0.01), and the incidence of 30-day readmission (odds ratio =0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.97, P =0.02) were significantly reduced. The incidences of overall complications, major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3), postoperative nausea and vomiting, intra-abdominal bleeding, anastomotic leak, incisional infection, reoperation, and mortality did not differ significantly between the ERAS and SC groups. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis indicated that the ERAS protocol could be safely and feasibly implemented in the perioperative management of patients receiving minimally invasive bariatric surgery. Compared with SC, this protocol leads to significantly shorter hospitalization lengths, lower 30-day readmission rate, and hospitalization costs. However, no differences were observed in postoperative complications and mortality.
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 | 0.024 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".