Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery program for lung resection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is an evidence-based multimodal protocol of perioperative care. ERAS pathways aim to encompass multiple aspects of the patient trajectory, from referral to recovery. In recent years many ERAS protocols in lung surgery have been established and investigated. The multitude of possible interventions and variability among centers and surgeons make it hard to investigate the impact of each intervention, or pathway. Even with those limitations, ERAS pathways in lung surgery demonstrated benefits such as shorter length of stay (LOS), lower hospital costs, and fewer pulmonary and cardiac complications. In this clinical practice review, we focus on key elements of patient care that are particularly important in lung surgery, including preoperative assessment and counseling, pulmonary functions, preoperative exercise and prehabilitation, pain management, surgical technique, chest drain management, and the use of incentive spirometry. Additionally, we share our experience at the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) in the development and successful implementation of ERAS protocols in lung surgery, along with our ongoing efforts to reduce complications and LOS, while enhancing the overall patient experience. In conclusion, we assert that the adoption of ERAS protocols in lung surgery is a multidisciplinary process that is both feasible and safe, contributing to improved patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".