Observational studyActa neurochirurgica2025
Cost savings associated with a nurse driven mobilization protocol for recovery after cranial tumor resection.
Observational study in Acta neurochirurgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Level of evidence of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategies for elective craniotomy: An updated systematic review.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesNeurosurgical procedures can be associated with significant post-operative pain and diminished ability to ambulate or transfer, frequently requiring evaluation by physical / occupational therapy (PT/OT) to ensure appropriate discharge disposition. Owing to high demand for PT/OT services across surgical subspecialities, PT/OT evaluation often bottlenecks disposition. Through our established cranial Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway, Neurosurgery Enhanced Recovery Value and Safety (NERVS), our institution employs a nurse-driven mobilization component during post-operative recovery. Here, we report our eight-year experience with a unique institutional NERVS program.
methodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study. We created a database of elective cranial tumor resections from 2017-2024. Patient demographics, hospitalization metrics, pain levels, and medications were extracted via chart review. Patients discharged home were selected for accurate comparison of outcomes. Analyses were performed in MATLAB.
resultsWe identified 1,594 elective craniotomy patients for analysis: 1,059 (66%) entered NERVS, 834 (52%) passed NERVS, 225 (14%) failed NERVS, and 535 (34%) did not enter. Among propensity-matched patients with a post-operative ICU LOS < 1 day, NERVS and no-NERVS groups did not differ in age (53.7 vs 55.1 years, p = 0.82), procedure duration (3.9 vs 3.6 h, p = 0.08), racial composition (p = 0.24-1), or tumor type (p = 0.23-0.89). Hospital LOS was significantly shorter among NERVS vs non-NERVS patients (2.9 vs 4.6 days, p < 0.001); this was associated with a reduction in total hospital charges on a per-patient basis (-$26,040, p < 0.001). Pain levels, morphine equivalents, and 30-day surgical readmission rate did not differ between home-discharge passed-NERVS and non-NERVS groups.
conclusionOur data demonstrates that nurse-driven mobilization in lieu of indiscriminate PT/OT evaluation after cranial tumor resection is associated with reduced hospitalization lengths-of-stay and total hospital charges among propensity-matched individuals, without an increase surgical readmission rate. Future mechanistic studies are necessary to determine if neurosurgical patients requiring less intensive post-operative rehabilitation assessment causally benefit from accelerated nurse-driven mobilization protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.