Enhancing Recovery in Gastrointestinal and Cardiovascular Surgeries Through Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols aim to improve perioperative outcomes and expedite recovery across various surgical specialties. While ERAS protocols have shown significant benefits in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries, their impact and effectiveness require further synthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of ERAS protocols in enhancing recovery and reducing complications in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries. High-quality studies were selected based on adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A systematic review and meta-analysis of six high-quality studies involving 45,678 patients were conducted using databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central. Data on length of hospital stay (LOS), complications, 30-day readmissions, and mortality were extracted. Statistical analysis employed random-effects models to calculate pooled effect sizes, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios. Subgroup analyses were performed based on surgery type, patient age, comorbidities, and follow-up duration. ORs for postoperative complications varied across subgroups (e.g., urgent vs. elective surgeries), with some ranges (e.g., 0.65-1.02) reflecting mixed effects; sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of pooled outcomes. Recovery times ranged from 1 to 3 days for gastrointestinal surgeries and 4 to 9 days for cardiovascular surgeries, demonstrating clinically meaningful variability. ERAS protocols showed greater recovery benefits in urgent surgeries (HR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.15-1.75) and in patients with comorbidities (HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.33-1.96), likely due to their emphasis on rapid stabilization of perioperative care, including early mobilization and nutritional support. Heterogeneity, assessed through sensitivity analyses, ranged from moderate to substantial across subgroup analyses. ERAS protocols consistently enhance recovery outcomes, minimize complications, and reduce hospital stays in gastrointestinal and cardiovascular surgeries, demonstrating their utility in optimizing perioperative care. Future research should explore long-term outcomes and tailored implementation strategies to address patient-specific needs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".