Utilization of individual components of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol improves post-operative outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a blueprint for progressive adoption of ERAS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS] is an approach for standardization of perioperative care aimed at improving patient outcomes. The primary aim of this study was to determine if length of stay (LOS) differed by protocol type (ERAS vs. non-ERAS [N-ERAS]) in patients undergoing surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patient characteristics were collected and compared between groups. Differences in LOS were assessed using regression adjusting for age, sex, BMI, pre-surgical Cobb angle, levels fused and year of surgery. RESULTS: Fifty nine ERAS patients were compared to 81 N-ERAS patients. Patients were comparable in their baseline characteristics. Median LOS was 3 days (IQR = 3-4) for the ERAS group, compared to 5 days (IQR = 4-5) for the N-ERAS group (p < 0.001). The ERAS group had a significantly lower adjusted rate of stay (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.62-0.92). The ERAS group had significantly lower average pain on post-operative days 0 (least-squares-mean [LSM] 2.66 vs. 4.41, p < 0.001), POD1 (LSM 3.12 vs. 4.48, p < 0.001) and POD5 (LSM 2.84 vs. 4.42, p = 0.035). The ERAS group had lower opioid consumption (p < 0.001). LOS was predicted by the number of protocol elements received; those receiving two (RR = 1.54 95% CI = 1.05-2.24), one (RR = 1.49; 95% CI = 1.09-2.03) or none (RR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.21-2.13) had significantly longer rates of stay than those receiving all four. CONCLUSION: Adoption of modified ERAS-based protocol for patients undergoing PSF for AIS led to significant reduction in LOS, average pain scores, and opioid consumption.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it