Observational studyUpdates in surgery2025
Effectiveness of a stepwise implementation of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery: our experience.
Observational study in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluates the impact of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery (ERABS) on length of hospital stay (LoS), postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), adherence to ERABS protocol, postoperative complications, and readmission rates via gradual stepwise implementation. Between January 2017 and December 2018, an observational, controlled, prospective study was performed, enrolling consecutively followed patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy. Patients were divided into two groups treated with an ERABS protocol which was implemented in two steps. In 2017, this included 12 items (subgroup B1); in 2018, two more items were introduced (subgroup B2). These results were then compared retrospectively to a control group of patients who underwent the same procedure from 2015-2016 whilst adhering to the 'traditional' treatment approach (group A). 367 patients were included. 146 patients in group A, 99 in subgroup B1 and 122 in subgroup B2. The median LoS was 4.5 days in group A, 3.8 days in B1, and 2.3 days in B2. Postoperative pain was 35.7% in group A, 35.6% in B1, and 25% in B2 (p = 0.18). The PONV rate was significantly lower in group B than in group A. Adherence to the ERABS protocol increased from 67% in group B1 to 80% in B2. No statistical difference in terms of 30-day postoperative complications rate and 30-day readmission rate was found. ERABS protocol showed significant improvement in LoS, postoperative pain, and PONV without increasing postoperative complications and readmissions, showing progressively better outcomes with a stepwise implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576945What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.