Enhanced recovery for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: An international survey to assess acceptance and feasibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have markedly improved outcomes after colorectal and other major surgery, suggesting benefits also for complex surgeries like Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). This study investigates the adoption and acceptance of the recent ERAS recommendations for CRS-HIPEC within expert centers. METHODS: Clinicians from 16 expert centers across 9 countries were invited to answer an online survey inquiring about current clinical practice. Adoption of the 72 ERAS items from the recent dedicated guidelines were evaluated using a Likert-type scale with focus on preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative phases. RESULTS: Overall, 27 clinicians (11 female, 21 surgeons, 2 gynecologists and 4 anesthesiologists/intensivists) participated, with high adoption of ERAS protocols at baseline (67 %). More than half of the guideline items (54 %) were widely adopted. However, despite nearly 18 % intending to change their practices, there remains substantial resistance to further adoption, such as for measures like alcohol cessation programs, mechanical bowel preparation, and oral antibiotic decontamination. Barriers identified include resource limitations(20 %), perceived irrelevance (17 %) for specific patient groups, unclear benefits (59 %), and restrictive policies (5 %). CONCLUSION: The study shows that most ERAS principles are routinely implemented in CRS-HIPEC surgeries, despite significant challenges with specific components and complex processes. Future research will focus on generating additional evidence and streamlining ERAS guidelines to prioritize essential elements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".