ERAS following Gastrectomy for Octo- and Nonagenarians: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The safety and efficacy of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) following elective gastrectomy for gastric cancer in patients >80 years of age are not well described. The aim of this study was to explore whether an ERAS protocol following gastrectomy in this age group can be safely implemented and reduce postoperative length of stay. Methods:A retrospective, single-center analysis was performed. All patients >80 years of age with gastric cancer undergoing elective subtotal and total gastrectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 were identified. With the implementation of an ERAS protocol in January 2016, patients treated beforehand were allocated to Group A (pre-ERAS) and Group B (ERAS). The length of stay, incidence of postoperative complications and representation/readmission to the hospital were compared between the groups. Results:Of the 221 patients identified, 56 met the inclusion criteria with 22 patients (39.3%) allocated to Group A and 34 patients (60.7%) to Group B. There were no differences with regard to the type of resection and surgical approach. Length of stay was shorter in Group B (5 days, range 2–27 versus 10 days, 3–109, P = .040). A trend toward more discharges by postoperative day 3 was noted among patients in Group B (7/34, 20.6% versus 2/22, 9.1%, P = .253). There were no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications or readmission hospital between the groups. Conclusion:Among patients >80 years of age, ERAS following gastrectomy for cancer is associated with a reduced length of stay and can be safely implemented.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".