MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390097785 · doi:10.1093/postmj/qgad125

Enhanced recovery after surgery in patients after hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4390097785 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePostgraduate Medical Journal · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisArthroplastySurgeryHip surgerySystematic reviewHip arthroplastyMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) was characterized as patient-centered, evidence-based, multidisciplinary team-developed routes for a surgical speciality and institution to improve postoperative recovery and attenuate the surgical stress response. However, evidence of their effectiveness in osteoarthroplasty remains sparse. This study aimed to develop an ERAS standard and evaluate the significance of ERAS interventions for postoperative outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies until 24 February 2023. All relevant data were collected from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS), postoperative complications, and readmission rate. The secondary outcomes included transfusion rate, mortality rate, visual analog score (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form 36 (SF-36) bodily pain (SF-36 BP), SF-36 physical function (SF-36 PF), oxford knee score, and range of motion (ROM). RESULTS: A total of 47 studies involving 76 971 patients (ERAS group: 29 702, control group: 47 269) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The result showed that ERAS could significantly shorten the LOS (WMD = -2.65, P < .001), reduce transfusion rate (OR = 0.40, P < .001), and lower 30-day postoperative mortality (OR = 0.46, P = .01) without increasing postoperative complications or readmission rate. Apart from that, ERAS may decrease patients' VAS (WMD = -0.88, P = .01) while improving their ROM (WMD = 6.65, P = .004), SF-36 BP (WMD = 4.49, P < .001), and SF-36 PF (WMD = 3.64, P < .001) scores. However, there was no significant difference in WOMAC, oxford knee score between the ERAS and control groups.Furthermore, we determined that the following seven components of the ERAS program are highly advised: avoid bowel preparation, PONV prophylaxis, standardized anesthesia, use of local anesthetics for infiltration analgesia and nerve blocks, tranexamic acid, prevent hypothermia, and early mobilization. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggested that the ERAS could significantly shorten the LOS, reduce transfusion rate, and lower 30-day postoperative mortality without increasing postoperative complications or readmission rate after THA and TKA. Meanwhile, ERAS could decrease the VAS of patients while improving their ROM, SF-36 BP, and SF-36 PF scores. Finally, we expect future studies to utilize the seven ERAS elements proposed in our meta-analysis to prevent increased readmission rate for patients with THA or TKA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it