Trial reportWorld journal of emergency surgery : WJES2025
Enhanced recovery after surgery versus conventional approach in peptic perforation- a Randomized Controlled Trial- "ERASE trial".
Trial report in World journal of emergency surgery : WJES, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and Surgical Site Infections (SSIs).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Is routine nasogastric decompression necessary following emergency surgery for perforated peptic ulcer?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImplementing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in elective surgeries has improved outcomes. Evidence for a similar role in emergency surgeries must be explored, particularly in patients with peptic perforation. This research aims to study the safety and efficacy of ERAS in patients undergoing surgery for peptic perforation peritonitis. MATERIAL AND
methodsOur study was an open-labeled, randomized, controlled superiority trial conducted on 60 patients of peptic perforation, restricted to first and second category of ASA and distributed equally between the Conventional and ERAS arms. The key interventions in the ERAS arm were intraoperative rectus sheath blockade, encouraging early ambulation, early removal of indwelling catheters and tubes, and early initiation of oral fluid and solid diet.
resultsThe median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ERAS arm (3 vs 5 days). The patients in the ERAS group were free from all the indwelling catheters within 24 h of the surgery. The time to ambulate (21 h vs 48 h) and initiation of unrestricted clear liquids (after 6 h of surgery) was significantly quicker in the ERAS arm. The surgical site infection (10 vs 5) and pneumonia (5 vs 1) rates were higher in the conventional group. This was clinically significant, even though it failed to attain statistical significance. The comprehensive complication index was significantly higher in the conventional arm. In this study, there was 100% compliance with seven out of eight ERAS interventions.
conclusionThe ERAS protocol helped shorten the time needed to attain the preoperative physiological parameters, including bowel functions and reduced the LOHS in patients operated for peptic perforation.
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.