Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39819478›Full record

ReviewPatient safety in surgery2025

Impact of "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" (ERAS) protocols vs. traditional perioperative care on patient outcomes after colorectal surgery: a systematic review.

Vaishnavi Kannan, Najeeb Ullah, Sunitha Geddada, Amir Ibrahiam, Zahraa Munaf Shakir Al-Qassab, Osman Ahmed, Iana Malasevskaia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vaishnavi KannanCalifornia Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751 Mangels Blvd, Fairfield, CA, 94534, USA. vaishu.baski@gmail.com.
Najeeb UllahJinnah Postgraduate Medical Center (JPMC), Karachi, Pakistan.
Sunitha GeddadaCalifornia Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751 Mangels Blvd, Fairfield, CA, 94534, USA.
Amir IbrahiamCalifornia Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751 Mangels Blvd, Fairfield, CA, 94534, USA.
Zahraa Munaf Shakir Al-QassabCalifornia Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751 Mangels Blvd, Fairfield, CA, 94534, USA.
Osman AhmedRAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al-Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.
Iana MalasevskaiaCalifornia Institute of Behavioral Neurosciences and Psychology, 4751 Mangels Blvd, Fairfield, CA, 94534, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal surgery is associated with a high risk of postoperative complications, including technical complications, surgical site infections, and other adverse events affecting patient safety and overall patient experience. "Enhanced Recovery After Surgery" (ERAS) is considered a new standard of care for streamlining the perioperative care of surgical patients with the goal of minimizing complications and optimizing timely patient recovery after surgery. This systematic review was designed to investigate the evidence-based literature pertinent to comparing patient outcomes after ERAS versus conventional perioperative care.

methodsThis systematic review evaluates the performance of ERAS protocols against conventional care in colorectal surgery, focusing on various postoperative outcome measures. An extensive search was conducted across multiple electronic databases and registers from July 2 to July 5, 2024, complemented by citation searching on November 30, 2024. This approach led to the identification of 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the past decade, involving 1,476 adult participants. To ensure methodological rigor and transparency, the review followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024583074).

resultsThe implementation of ERAS protocols resulted in a notable decrease in hospital stay duration compared to conventional care, with reductions varying between 3 and 8 days across studies. ERAS patients also had faster gastrointestinal recovery, including quicker times to bowel movement, defecation, and resumption of normal diet. Furthermore, patients in ERAS groups showed notably reduced postoperative complications and opioid consumption, with patients experiencing lower pain scores on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and reduced reliance on opioids. Additionally, nutritional recovery in ERAS patients was enhanced, with elevated albumin and total protein levels, alongside decreased inflammatory markers and improved immune function.

conclusionThis systematic review provides compelling evidence supporting the integration of ERAS protocols into standard colorectal surgical practices. Future studies should aim to explore the variations in ERAS implementation, pinpoint the most impactful elements of ERAS, and work towards personalizing and standardizing these protocols across clinical settings. Additionally, evaluating long-term outcomes will help refine ERAS strategies, ensuring their enduring impact on patient recovery.

Indexed as

Colorectal surgeryEnhanced recovery after surgeryERAS protocolPatient satisfactionPostoperative outcomesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39819478
PMCPMC11737126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.